8 research outputs found

    E-cadherin and CD10 expression in atypical hyperplastic and malignant endometrial lesions

    Get PDF
    Background: Loss of E-cadherin is a critical step for development and progression of malignant tumors. CD10; a marker of non-neoplastic and neoplastic endometrial stroma, is associated with aggressiveness of many epithelial malignancies. Aims: To evaluate expression and correlation of E-cadherin and CD10 in endometrial lesions and their possible role in differentiating atypical endometrial hyperplasia from endometrial carcinoma. The association of E-cadherin and CD10 expression with clinico-pathological parameters of endometrial carcinoma was also investigated. Materials and methods: Fifty four cases including 28 endometrial carcinomas; 19 endometrial hyperplasia and 7 cases of normal endometrial changes were enrolled for this study. The expression of E-cadherin and CD10 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry using the streptavidin–biotin technique. Results: There was a strong association between malignant change of endometrial glands and membrano-cytoplasmic localization of E-cadherin (p < 0.001). Expression of E-cadherin but not CD10 was significantly higher in endometrial carcinomas compared to atypical endometrial hyperplasia (p < 0.01). Expression of E-cadherin was not associated with CD10 expression in different endometrial lesions. High grade tumors expressed low levels of both E-cadherin (p < 0.01) and CD10 (p < 0.05) and serous endometrial carcinoma had low E-cadherin and CD10 expression compared to endometrioid carcinoma (p < 0.01 and <0.05, respectively). Expression of both molecules showed no association with depth of tumor invasion or FIGO stage. Tumors with lower E-cadherin or CD10 expression had higher rates of vascular tumor emboli (p < 0.01 and <0.07, respectively). Conclusions: Although expression of E-cadherin and CD10 in endometrial lesions was not correlated, reduced expression of both molecules could be critical for progression of endometrial carcinoma

    Basal cell hyperplasia (BCH) versus high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) in tiny prostatic needle biopsies: Unusual diagnostic dilemma

    Get PDF
    Background: Histopathological differentiation between BCH and HGPIN in prostatic needle biopsies is a diagnostic challenge. The gold standard for detection of HGPIN and BCH is histopathological examination; however subjectivity in interpretation and tiny volume of obtained tissue hamper reliable diagnosis. Aims: The aim of this study was to assess usefulness of using the p63 and p504s to solve this problem. Although the use of p63 and p504s is now well established in differentiation between preneoplastic and neoplastic prostatic lesions, their usefulness in tiny tissue material is, however, not fully studied. Methods: The study included a spectrum of 30 prostatic needle biopsies (5 BCH, 10 HGPIN, 10 indefinite luminal proliferations where BCH and HGPIN could not be distinguished from each other and 5 adenocarcinomas). H&E stained sections were examined for histopathological features. Other sections were stained immunohistochemically with p63 and p504s. Results: The mean age of patients was 69 (SD = 7.6) years. PSA range was 1.3–2.7 ng/ml. Ultrasongraphic findings were unremarkable. All BCH showed p504s−/p63+ pattern, All HGPIN had p504s+/p63+ pattern while carcinomas were p504s+/p63−. After immunostaining combined with histopathological features; the 10 indefinite specimens could be diagnosed as 4 BCH and 6 HGPIN. The article explains how applying this staining pattern on the challenging specimens, combined with histopathological features, can be helpful in proper identification of prostatic proliferations

    Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

    No full text
    © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit

    Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

    No full text
    © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research

    Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases and Risks, 1990-2022

    No full text
    The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) is a multinational collaborative research study with >10,000 collaborators around the world. GBD generates a time series of summary measures of health, including prevalence, cause-specific mortality (CSMR), years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) to provide a comprehensive view of health burden for a wide range of stakeholders including clinicians, public and private health systems, ministries of health, and other policymakers. These estimates are produced for 371 causes of death and 88 risk factors according to mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive hierarchies of health conditions and risks. The study is led by a principal investigator and governed by a study protocol, with oversight from a Scientific Council, and an Independent Advisory Committee.1 GBD is performed in compliance with Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER).2 GBD uses de-identified data, and the waiver of informed consent was reviewed and approved by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board (study number 9060). This almanac presents results for 18 cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and the CVD burden attributed to 15 risk factors (including an aggregate grouping of dietary risks) by GBD region. A summary of methods follows. Additional information can be found online at https://ghdx.healthdata.org/record/ihme-data/cvd-1990-2022, including:Funding was provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the American College of Cardiology Foundation. The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. The contents and views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Government, or the affiliated institutions
    corecore