Chronic dermatomycoses of the foot as risk factors for acute bacterial cellulitis of the leg: A case-control study

Objective: To assess the role of foot dermatomycosis ( tinea pedis and onychomycosis) and other candidate risk factors in the development of acute bacterial cellulitis of the leg. Methods: A case-control study, including 243 patients ( cases) with acute bacterial cellulitis of the leg and 467 controls, 2 per case, individually matched for gender, age (+/-5 years), hospital and admission date (+/-2 months). Results: Overall, mycology-proven foot dermatomycosis was a significant risk factor for acute bacterial cellulitis (odds ratio, OR: 2.4; p < 0.001), as were tinea pedis interdigitalis (OR: 3.2; p < 0.001), tinea pedis plantaris (OR: 1.7; p = 0.005) and onychomycosis (OR: 2.2; p < 0.001) individually. Other risk factors included: disruption of the cutaneous barrier, history of bacterial cellulitis, chronic venous insufficiency and leg oedema. Conclusions: Tinea pedis and onychomycosis were found to be significant risk factors for acute bacterial cellulitis of the leg that are readily amenable to treatment with effective pharmacological therapy. Copyright (C) 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel

Spontaneous regression of Merkel cell carcinoma in a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a case report

© 2009 Turk et al; licensee Cases Network Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Stratification of radiosensitive brain metastases based on an actionable S100A9/RAGE resistance mechanism

Whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is the treatment backbone for many patients with brain metastasis; however, its efficacy in preventing disease progression and the associated toxicity have questioned the clinical impact of this approach and emphasized the need for alternative treatments. Given the limited therapeutic options available for these patients and the poor understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying the resistance of metastatic lesions to WBRT, we sought to uncover actionable targets and biomarkers that could help to refine patient selection. Through an unbiased analysis of experimental in vivo models of brain metastasis resistant to WBRT, we identified activation of the S100A9–RAGE–NF-κB–JunB pathway in brain metastases as a potential mediator of resistance in this organ. Targeting this pathway genetically or pharmacologically was sufficient to revert the WBRT resistance and increase therapeutic benefits in vivo at lower doses of radiation. In patients with primary melanoma, lung or breast adenocarcinoma developing brain metastasis, endogenous S100A9 levels in brain lesions correlated with clinical response to WBRT and underscored the potential of S100A9 levels in the blood as a noninvasive biomarker. Collectively, we provide a molecular framework to personalize WBRT and improve its efficacy through combination with a radiosensitizer that balances therapeutic benefit and toxicity.We thank all members of the Brain Metastasis Group and A. Chalmers, E. Wagner, O. Fernández-Capetillo, R. Ciérvide and A. Hidalgo for critical discussion of the manuscript; the CNIO Core Facilities for their excellent assistance; and Fox Chase Cancer Center Transgenic Facility for generation of S100A9 mice. We thank EuCOMM repository for providing S100A9 targeted embryonic stem cells. We also thank J. Massagué (MSKCC) for some of the BrM cell lines and M. Bosenberg (Yale) for the YUMM1.1 cell line. Samples from patients included in this study that provided by the Girona Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBGI) (Biobanc IDIBGI, B.0000872) are integrated into the Spanish National Biobanks Network and in the Xarxa de Bancs de Tumors de Catalunya (XBTC) financed by the Pla Director d’Oncologia de Catalunya. All patients consented to the storage of these samples in the biobank and for their use in research projects. This study was funded by MINECO (SAF2017-89643-R) (M.V.), Fundació La Marató de TV3 (201906-30-31-32) (J.B.-B., M.V. and A.C.), Fundación Ramón Areces (CIVP19S8163) (M.V.) and CIVP20S10662 (E.O.P.), Worldwide Cancer Research (19-0177) (M.V. and E.C.-J.M.), Cancer Research Institute (Clinic and Laboratory Integration Program CRI Award 2018 (54545) (M.V.), AECC (Coordinated Translational Groups 2017 (GCTRA16015SEOA) (M.V.), LAB AECC 2019 (LABAE19002VALI) (M.V.), ERC CoG (864759) (M.V.), Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (SFRH/bd/100089/2014) (C.M.), Boehringer-Ingelheim Fonds MD Fellowship (L.M.), La Caixa International PhD Program Fellowship-Marie Skłodowska-Curie (LCF/BQ/DI17/11620028) (P.G.-G.), La Caixa INPhINIT Fellowship (LCF/BQ/DI19/11730044) (A.P.-A.), MINECO-Severo Ochoa PhD Fellowship (BES-2017-081995) (L.A.-E.) and an AECC postdoctoral fellowship (POSTD19016PRIE) (N.P.). M.V. is an EMBO YIP member (4053). Additional support was provided by Gertrud and Erich Roggenbuck Stiftung (M.M.), Science Foundation Ireland Frontiers for the Future Award (19/FFP/6443) (L.Y.), Science Foundation Ireland Strategic Partnership Programme, Precision Oncology Ireland (18/SPP/3522) (L.Y.), Breast Cancer Now Fellowship Award with the generous support of Walk the Walk (2019AugSF1310) (D.V.), Science Foundation Ireland (20/FFP-P/8597) (D.V.), Paradifference Foundation (C.F.-T.), “la Caixa” Foundation (ID 100010434) (A.I.), European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement 847648 (CF/BQ/PI20/11760029) (A.I.), Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown (N.S.), Lisboa Regional Operational Programme (Lisboa 2020) (LISBOA01-0145-FEDER-022170) (N.S.), NCI (R01 CA227629; R01 CA218133) (S.I.G.), Fundació Roses Contra el Càncer (J.B.-B.), Ministerio de Universidades FPU Fellowship (FPU 18/00069) (P.T.), MICIN-Agencia Estatal de Investigación Fellowships (PRE2020-093032 and BES-2017-080415) (P.M. and E. Cintado, respectively), Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades-E050251 (PID2019-110292RB-I00) (J.L.T.), FCT (PTDC/MED-ONC/32222/2017) (C.C.F.), Fundação Millennium bcp (C.C.F.), private donations (C.C.F.) and the Foundation for Applied Cancer Research in Zurich (E.L.R. and M.W.)

Impact of varicocele repair on semen parameters in infertile men: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: Despite the significant role of varicocele in the pathogenesis of male infertility, the impact of varicocele repair (VR) on conventional semen parameters remains controversial. Only a few systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) have evaluated the impact of VR on sperm concentration, total motility, and progressive motility, mostly using a before-after analytic approach. No SRMA to date has evaluated the change in conventional semen parameters after VR compared to untreated controls. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of VR on conventional semen parameters in infertile patients with clinical varicocele compared to untreated controls. Materials and Methods: A literature search was performed using Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases following the Population Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICOS) model (Population: infertile patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: VR [any technique]; Comparison: infertile patients with clinical varicocele that were untreated; Outcome: sperm concentration, sperm total count, progressive sperm motility, total sperm motility, sperm morphology, and semen volume; Study type: randomized controlled trials and observational studies). Results: A total of 1,632 abstracts were initially assessed for eligibility. Sixteen studies were finally included with a total of 2,420 infertile men with clinical varicocele (1,424 patients treated with VR vs. 996 untreated controls). The analysis showed significantly improved post-operative semen parameters in patients compared to controls with regards to sperm concentration (standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.739; 95% CI 1.129 to 2.349; p<0.001; I2 =97.6%), total sperm count (SMD 1.894; 95% CI 0.566 to 3.222; p<0.05; I2 =97.8%), progressive sperm motility (SMD 3.301; 95% CI 2.164 to 4.437; p<0.01; I 2 =98.5%), total sperm motility (SMD 0.887; 95% CI 0.036 to 1.738; p=0.04; I2 =97.3%) and normal sperm morphology (SMD 1.673; 95% CI 0.876 to 2.470; p<0.05; I2 =98.5%). All the outcomes showed a high inter-study heterogeneity, but the sensitivity analysis showed that no study was sensitive enough to change these results. Publication bias was present only in the analysis of the sperm concentration and progressive motility. No significant difference was found for the semen volume (SMD 0.313; 95% CI -0.242 to 0.868; I2 =89.7%). Conclusions: This study provides a high level of evidence in favor of a positive effect of VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men with clinical varicocele. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first SRMA to compare changes in conventional semen parameters after VR with changes in parameters of a control group over the same period. This is in contrast to other SRMAs which have compared semen parameters before and after VR, without reference to a control group. Our findings strengthen the available evidence and have a potential to upgrade professional societies’ practice recommendations favoring VR to improve conventional semen parameters in infertile men