How Dialysis Patients Cope with a Curfew? A Comparison of Psychological Status between Hemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Introduction: There are many differences between hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) treatments, including their impact on the psychological status of the patients. In this study, our aim was to compare the psychological statuses of HD and PD patients during the social isolation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We conducted this cross-sectional study on adult HD and PD patients when the curfew measures were in effect. We used an electronic form composed of 3 sections to collect data. In the first section, we collected data on the demographics and clinical and laboratory parameters of the patients. The second and third sections consisted of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) questionnaires, respectively. Results: The HD (n = 116) and PD (n = 130) groups were similar regarding age and sex, and they had similar HADS anxiety scores. HADS depression scores were higher in PD patients (p = 0.052). IES-R scores were significantly higher in PD patients in comparison to HD patients (p = 0.001). Frequencies of abnormal HADS-anxiety (p = 0.035) and severe psychological impact (p = 0.001) were significantly higher in PD patients. Discussion/Conclusion: During the social isolation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic, HD patients had better mood profiles than PD patients. A more stable daily routine, an uninterrupted face-to-face contact with health-care workers, and social support among patients in the in-center dialysis environment might be the cause of the favorable mood status. PD patients might need additional psychological support during those periods

Clinicopathological Characteristics and Prognosis of Patients According To Recurrence Time After Radical Nephrectomy for Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Multicenter Study of Anatolian Society of Medical Oncology (ASMO)

Aim: We investigated the clinicopathological features in patients with recurrent RCC within 5 years or more than 5 years after nephrectomy and determined predictors of survival and response treatment after recurrence. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 144 patients with disease recurrence; 73 had recurrence more than 5 years after radical nephrectomy. We compared clinicopathological characteristics in patients with disease recurrence before vs. after 5 years. In addition, we investigated predictors of survival and response to treatment after recurrence. Results: Seventy-one patients (49%) were diagnosed with recurrence within 5 years after radical nephrectomy (early recurrence) and 73 patients (51%) were diagnosed with recurrence more than 5 years after radical nephrectomy (late recurrence). Fuhrman grade, tumor necrosis and lymphovascular invasion were statistically significantly different between the two groups (p<0.001, p=0.013, p=0.026, respectively). The late recurrence patients were significantly associated with the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) favorable risk group compared to patients with early recurrence (p=0.001). From the time of disease recurrence, median Overall Survival (OS) was 36.0 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 30.7-412) months in the late recurrence group, and 19 (95% CI 15.4-22.5) months in the early recurrence group (p=0.01). The median Progression Free Survival (PFS) was 6 (95% CI 3.87-8.12) months in the early recurrence group, and 18 (95% CI 15.4-20.5) months for the late recurrence group (p<0.001). Conclusion: Early recurrence was significantly associated with Fuhrman grade 3-4, tumor necrosis, lymphovascular invasion, MSKCC poor- risk group compared to patients with late recurrence. The study also demonstrated a potential prognostic value of late recurrence in terms of PFS and OS

Clinical and molecular evaluation of MEFV gene variants in the Turkish population: a study by the National Genetics Consortium

Familial Mediterranean fever (FMF) is a monogenic autoinflammatory disorder with recurrent fever, abdominal pain, serositis, articular manifestations, erysipelas-like erythema, and renal complications as its main features. Caused by the mutations in the MEditerranean FeVer (MEFV) gene, it mainly affects people of Mediterranean descent with a higher incidence in the Turkish, Jewish, Arabic, and Armenian populations. As our understanding of FMF improves, it becomes clearer that we are facing with a more complex picture of FMF with respect to its pathogenesis, penetrance, variant type (gain-of-function vs. loss-of-function), and inheritance. In this study, MEFV gene analysis results and clinical findings of 27,504 patients from 35 universities and institutions in Turkey and Northern Cyprus are combined in an effort to provide a better insight into the genotype-phenotype correlation and how a specific variant contributes to certain clinical findings in FMF patients. Our results may help better understand this complex disease and how the genotype may sometimes contribute to phenotype. Unlike many studies in the literature, our study investigated a broader symptomatic spectrum and the relationship between the genotype and phenotype data. In this sense, we aimed to guide all clinicians and academicians who work in this field to better establish a comprehensive data set for the patients. One of the biggest messages of our study is that lack of uniformity in some clinical and demographic data of participants may become an obstacle in approaching FMF patients and understanding this complex disease