Intraoperative frozen section as a reliable ancillary technique in salivary gland surgery: A cross sectional study

Background. Salivary glands tumours are uncommon, frequently benign lesions, prevalently located in the parotid gland (80%). Surgical decision making is based on the patient's history, examination findings, imaging and fine needle aspiration (FNA). FNA is a pre-operative method with good ability in detecting malignancy. During surgery, therefore, Frozen section (FS) can differentiate benign lesions from malignant tumours, to reduce incorrect treatments, to increase the chances of conservative surgery and to better evaluate surgical margins. The aim of our study is to demonstrate the accuracy of the FS procedure in surgery of the salivary glands and to stress the need for dedicated pathology units specialized in lesions of the oral cavity. Methods. The study included 499 patients who underwent surgery from May 2005 and October 2014. An intra-operative frozen section procedure was done for 288 of them. All frozen sections were compared with the final results. The cases were classified by site, nature of the lesion and histotype, according to the WHO classification. Comparison was made between the intra-operative and the definitive diagnosis. Results. Of the 288 FS procedures, 259 were for neoplastic lesions, 199 of which benign and 60 malignant, and 29 for non-neoplastic lesions. Of the 259 neoplastic FS results, 2 were shown to be false positives and 2 were diagnosed as different malignant types. Of the 29 non-neoplastic FS results, 4 were false negatives. Conclusions. Our results showed that the accuracy of frozen section procedure is 98% for salivary glands tumors. The highest concordance between frozen section and the definitive diagnosis was for inflammatory processes (99%), pleomorphic adenoma (98%), Warthin's tumor (97%) and malignant neoplasms (96%). In conclusion, based on these findings, frozen section of the salivary glands may be proposed as a routine procedure and should be used in decision-making

Performance of the new amplifier-shaper-discriminator chip for the ATLAS MDT chambers at the HL-LHC

The Phase-II Upgrade of the ATLAS Muon Detector requires new electronics for the readout of the MDT drift tubes. The first processing stage, the Amplifier-Shaper-Discriminator (ASD), determines the performance of the readout for crucial parameters like time resolution, gain uniformity, efficiency and noise rejection. An 8-channel ASD chip, using the IBM 130 nm CMOS 8RF-DM technology, has been designed, produced and tested. The area of the chip is 2.2 x 2.9 square mm size. We present results of detailed measurements as well as a comparision with simulation results of the chip behaviour at three different levels of detail

SCN5A Nonsense Mutation and NF1 Frameshift Mutation in a Family With Brugada Syndrome and Neurofibromatosis

In this case series, we report for the first time a family in which the inherited nonsense mutation [c. 3946C > T (p.Arg1316*)] in the SCN5A gene segregates in association with Brugada syndrome (BrS). Moreover, we also report, for the first time, the frameshift mutation [c.7686delG (p.Ile2563fsX40)] in the NF1 gene, as well as its association with type 1 neurofibromatosis (NF1), characterized by pigmentary lesions (café au lait spots, Lisch nodules, freckling) and cutaneous neurofibromas. Both of these mutations and associated phenotypes were discovered in the same family. This genetic association may identify a subset of patients at higher risk of sudden cardiac death who require the appropriate electrophysiological evaluation. This case series highlights the importance of genetic testing not only to molecularly confirm the pathology but also to identify asymptomatic family members who need clinical examinations and preventive interventions, as well as to advise about the possibility of avoiding recurrence risk with medically assisted reproduction

Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) early findings from a teaching hospital in Pavia, North Italy, 21 to 28 February 2020

We describe clinical characteristics, treatments and outcomes of 44 Caucasian patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) at a single hospital in Pavia, Italy, from 21\u201328 February 2020, at the beginning of the outbreak in Europe. Seventeen patients developed severe disease, two died. After a median of 6 days, 14 patients were discharged from hospital. Predictors of lower odds of discharge were age>65 years, antiviral treatment and for severe disease, lactate dehydrogenase >300 mg/dL

Lack of SARS-CoV-2 RNA environmental contamination in a tertiary referral hospital for infectious diseases in Northern Italy

none140noNAnoneColaneri M.; Seminari E.; Piralla A.; Zuccaro V.; Di Filippo A.; Baldanti F.; Bruno R.; Mondelli M.U.; Brunetti E.; Di Matteo A.; Maiocchi L.; Pagnucco L.; Mariani B.; Ludovisi S.; Lissandrin R.; Parisi A.; Sacchi P.; Patruno S.F.A.; Michelone G.; Gulminetti R.; Zanaboni D.; Novati S.; Maserati R.; Orsolini P.; Vecchia M.; Sciarra M.; Asperges E.; Sambo M.; Biscarini S.; Lupi M.; Roda S.; Chiara Pieri T.; Gallazzi I.; Sachs M.; Valsecchi P.; Perlini S.; Alfano C.; Bonzano M.; Briganti F.; Crescenzi G.; Giulia Falchi A.; Guarnone R.; Guglielmana B.; Maggi E.; Martino I.; Pettenazza P.; Pioli di Marco S.; Quaglia F.; Sabena A.; Salinaro F.; Speciale F.; Zunino I.; De Lorenzo M.; Secco G.; Dimitry L.; Cappa G.; Maisak I.; Chiodi B.; Sciarrini M.; Barcella B.; Resta F.; Moroni L.; Vezzoni G.; Scattaglia L.; Boscolo E.; Zattera C.; Michele Fidel T.; Vincenzo C.; Vignaroli D.; Bazzini M.; Iotti G.; Mojoli F.; Belliato M.; Perotti L.; Mongodi S.; Tavazzi G.; Marseglia G.; Licari A.; Brambilla I.; Daniela B.; Antonella B.; Patrizia C.; Giulia C.; Giuditta C.; Marta C.; Rossana D.; Milena F.; Bianca M.; Roberta M.; Enza M.; Stefania P.; Maurizio P.; Elena P.; Antonio P.; Francesca R.; Antonella S.; Maurizio Z.; Guy A.; Laura B.; Ermanna C.; Giuliana C.; Luca D.; Gabriella F.; Gabriella G.; Alessia G.; Viviana L.; Claudia L.; Valentina M.; Simona P.; Marta P.; Alice B.; Giacomo C.; Irene C.; Alfonso C.; Di Martino R.; Di Napoli A.; Alessandro F.; Guglielmo F.; Loretta F.; Federica G.; Alessandra M.; Federica N.; Giacomo R.; Beatrice R.; Maria S.I.; Monica T.; Nepita Edoardo V.; Calvi M.; Tizzoni M.; Nicora C.; Triarico A.; Petronella V.; Marena C.; Muzzi A.; Lago P.; Comandatore F.; Bissignandi G.; Gaiarsa S.; Rettani M.; Bandi C.Colaneri, M.; Seminari, E.; Piralla, A.; Zuccaro, V.; Di Filippo, A.; Baldanti, F.; Bruno, R.; Mondelli, M. U.; Brunetti, E.; Di Matteo, A.; Maiocchi, L.; Pagnucco, L.; Mariani, B.; Ludovisi, S.; Lissandrin, R.; Parisi, A.; Sacchi, P.; Patruno, S. F. A.; Michelone, G.; Gulminetti, R.; Zanaboni, D.; Novati, S.; Maserati, R.; Orsolini, P.; Vecchia, M.; Sciarra, M.; Asperges, E.; Sambo, M.; Biscarini, S.; Lupi, M.; Roda, S.; Chiara Pieri, T.; Gallazzi, I.; Sachs, M.; Valsecchi, P.; Perlini, S.; Alfano, C.; Bonzano, M.; Briganti, F.; Crescenzi, G.; Giulia Falchi, A.; Guarnone, R.; Guglielmana, B.; Maggi, E.; Martino, I.; Pettenazza, P.; Pioli di Marco, S.; Quaglia, F.; Sabena, A.; Salinaro, F.; Speciale, F.; Zunino, I.; De Lorenzo, M.; Secco, G.; Dimitry, L.; Cappa, G.; Maisak, I.; Chiodi, B.; Sciarrini, M.; Barcella, B.; Resta, F.; Moroni, L.; Vezzoni, G.; Scattaglia, L.; Boscolo, E.; Zattera, C.; Michele Fidel, T.; Vincenzo, C.; Vignaroli, D.; Bazzini, M.; Iotti, G.; Mojoli, F.; Belliato, M.; Perotti, L.; Mongodi, S.; Tavazzi, G.; Marseglia, G.; Licari, A.; Brambilla, I.; Daniela, B.; Antonella, B.; Patrizia, C.; Giulia, C.; Giuditta, C.; Marta, C.; D'Alterio, Rossana; Milena, F.; Bianca, M.; Roberta, M.; Enza, M.; Stefania, P.; Maurizio, P.; Elena, P.; Antonio, P.; Francesca, R.; Antonella, S.; Maurizio, Z.; Guy, A.; Laura, B.; Ermanna, C.; Giuliana, C.; Luca, D.; Gabriella, F.; Gabriella, G.; Alessia, G.; Viviana, L.; Meisina, Claudia; Valentina, M.; Simona, P.; Marta, P.; Alice, B.; Giacomo, C.; Irene, C.; Alfonso, C.; Di Martino, R.; Di Napoli, A.; Alessandro, F.; Guglielmo, F.; Loretta, F.; Federica, G.; Albertini, Alessandra; Federica, N.; Giacomo, R.; Beatrice, R.; Maria, S. I.; Monica, T.; Nepita Edoardo, V.; Calvi, M.; Tizzoni, M.; Nicora, C.; Triarico, A.; Petronella, V.; Marena, C.; Muzzi, A.; Lago, P.; Comandatore, F.; Bissignandi, G.; Gaiarsa, S.; Rettani, M.; Bandi, C

Intellectual Property, Open Science and Research Biobanks

In biomedical research and translational medicine, the ancient war between exclusivity (private control over information) and access to information is proposing again on a new battlefield: research biobanks. The latter are becoming increasingly important (one of the ten ideas changing the world, according to Time magazine) since they allow to collect, store and distribute in a secure and professional way a critical mass of human biological samples for research purposes. Tissues and related data are fundamental for the development of the biomedical research and the emerging field of translational medicine: they represent the “raw material” for every kind of biomedical study. For this reason, it is crucial to understand the boundaries of Intellectual Property (IP) in this prickly context. In fact, both data sharing and collaborative research have become an imperative in contemporary open science, whose development depends inextricably on: the opportunities to access and use data, the possibility of sharing practices between communities, the cross-checking of information and results and, chiefly, interactions with experts in different fields of knowledge. Data sharing allows both to spread the costs of analytical results that researchers cannot achieve working individually and, if properly managed, to avoid the duplication of research. These advantages are crucial: access to a common pool of pre-competitive data and the possibility to endorse follow-on research projects are fundamental for the progress of biomedicine. This is why the "open movement" is also spreading in the biobank's field. After an overview of the complex interactions among the different stakeholders involved in the process of information and data production, as well as of the main obstacles to the promotion of data sharing (i.e., the appropriability of biological samples and information, the privacy of participants, the lack of interoperability), we will firstly clarify some blurring in language, in particular concerning concepts often mixed up, such as “open source” and “open access”. The aim is to understand whether and to what extent we can apply these concepts to the biomedical field. Afterwards, adopting a comparative perspective, we will analyze the main features of the open models – in particular, the Open Research Data model – which have been proposed in literature for the promotion of data sharing in the field of research biobanks. After such an analysis, we will suggest some recommendations in order to rebalance the clash between exclusivity - the paradigm characterizing the evolution of intellectual property over the last three centuries - and the actual needs for access to knowledge. We argue that the key factor in this balance may come from the right interaction between IP, social norms and contracts. In particular, we need to combine the incentives and the reward mechanisms characterizing scientific communities with data sharing imperative