Nuclear medicine procedures and the evaluation of male sexual organs: a short review

Sexuality consists of three aspects that are interrelated and inseparable, biological, physiological and social. The biological aspect considers the individual's capability to give and to receive pleasure. In consequence, it covers the functionality of the sexual organs and the physiology of human sexual response cycle. Diagnostic imaging modalities, such as single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET) have been used to evaluate clinical disorders of the male reproductive system. PET and SPECT procedures basically involve the administration of a radiopharmaceutical that has a higher uptake in a specific tumor or tissue. The aim of this brief review is to present some radiopharmaceuticals that have been used in the clinical evaluation of the male sexual organs (testes, prostate, seminal vesicles, penis) related with male sexuality. This information could be useful in better understanding the male sexual response cycle, as well as the sexual disorders, when considering the male sexual organs and the pelvic floor. Moreover, the findings obtained with PET and SPECT imaging could help to evaluate the efficacy of clinical results of therapeutic procedures. In conclusion, the knowledge from these images could aid in better understanding the physiology of the different organs related with sexuality. Furthermore, they could be important tools to evaluate the physiological integrity of the involved organs, to improve clinical strategies and to accompany the patients under treatment

Tumor marker utility and prognostic relevance of cathepsin B, cathepsin L, urokinase-type plasminogen activator, plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1, CEA and CA 19-9 in colorectal cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cathepsin B and L (CATB, CATL), urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and its inhibitor PAI-1 play an important role in colorectal cancer invasion. The tumor marker utility and prognostic relevance of these proteases have not been evaluated in the same experimental setting and compared with that of CEA and CA-19-9.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Protease, CEA and CA 19-9 serum or plasma levels were determined in 56 patients with colorectal cancer, 25 patients with ulcerative colitis, 26 patients with colorectal adenomas and 35 tumor-free control patients. Protease, CEA, CA 19-9 levels have been determined by ELISA and electrochemiluminescence immunoassay, respectively; their sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy have been calculated and correlated with clinicopathological staging.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The protease antigen levels were significantly higher in colorectal cancer compared with other groups. Sensitivity of PAI-1 (94%), CATB (82%), uPA (69%), CATL (41%) were higher than those of CEA or CA 19-9 (30% and 18%, respectively). PAI-1, CATB and uPA demonstrated a better accuracy than CEA or CA 19-9. A combination of PAI-1 with CATB or uPA exhibited the highest sensitivity value (98%). High CATB, PAI-1, CEA and CA 19-9 levels correlated with advanced Dukes stages. CATB (<it>P </it>= 0.0004), CATL (<it>P </it>= 0.02), PAI-1 (<it>P </it>= 0.01) and CA 19-9 (<it>P </it>= 0.004) had a significant prognostic impact. PAI-1 (<it>P </it>= 0.001), CATB (<it>P </it>= 0.04) and CA 19-9 (<it>P </it>= 0.02) proved as independent prognostic variables.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>At the time of clinical detection proteases are more sensitive indicators for colorectal cancer than the commonly used tumor markers. Determinations of CATB, CATL and PAI-1 have a major prognostic impact in patients with colorectal cancer.</p

Consensus on the pathological definition and classification of poorly cohesive gastric carcinoma

Background and aims Clinicopathological characteristics of gastric cancer (GC) are changing, especially in the West with a decreasing incidence of distal, intestinal-type tumours and the corresponding increasing proportion of tumours with Laurén diffuse or WHO poorly cohesive (PC) including signet ring cell (SRC) histology. To accurately assess the behaviour and the prognosis of these GC subtypes, the standardization of pathological definitions is needed. Methods A multidisciplinary expert team belonging to the European Chapter of International Gastric Cancer Association (IGCA) identified 11 topics on pathological classifications used for PC and SRC GC. The topics were debated during a dedicated Workshop held in Verona in March 2017. Then, through a Delphi method, consensus statements for each topic were elaborated. Results A consensus was reached on the need to classify gastric carcinoma according to the most recent edition of the WHO classification which is currently WHO 2010. Moreover, to standardize the definition of SRC carcinomas, the proposal that only WHO PC carcinomas with more than 90% poorly cohesive cells having signet ring cell morphology have to be classified as SRC carcinomas was made. All other PC non-SRC types have to be further subdivided into PC carcinomas with SRC component ( 10% SRCs) and PC carcinomas not otherwise specified (< 10% SRCs). Conclusion The reported statements clarify some debated topics on pathological classifications used for PC and SRC GC. As such, this consensus classification would allow the generation of evidence on biological and prognostic differences between these GC subtypes