A novel stepwise micro-TESE approach in non obstructive azoospermia

Background: The purpose of the study was to investigate whether micro-TESE can improve sperm retrieval rate (SRR) compared to conventional single TESE biopsy on the same testicle or to contralateral multiple TESE, by employing a novel stepwise micro-TESE approach in a population of poor prognosis patients with non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA). Methods: Sixty-four poor prognosis NOA men undergoing surgical testicular sperm retrieval for ICSI, from March 2007 to April 2013, were included in this study. Patients inclusion criteria were a) previous unsuccessful TESE, b) unfavorable histology (SCOS, MA, sclerahyalinosis), c) Klinefelter syndrome. We employed a stepwise micro-TESE consisting three-steps: 1) single conventional TESE biopsy; 2) micro-TESE on the same testis; 3) contralateral multiple TESE. Results: SRR was 28.1 % (18/64). Sperm was obtained in both the initial single conventional TESE and in the following micro-TESE. The positive or negative sperm retrieval was further confirmed by a contralateral multiple TESE, when performed. No significant pre-operative predictors of sperm retrieval, including patients’ age, previous negative TESE or serological markers (LH, FSH, inhibin B), were observed at univariate or multivariate analysis. Micro-TESE (step 2) did not improve sperm retrieval as compared to single TESE biopsy on the same testicle (step 1) or multiple contralateral TESE (step 3). Conclusions: Stepwise micro-TESE could represent an optimal approach for sperm retrieval in NOA men. In our view, it should be offered to NOA patients in order to gradually increase surgical invasiveness, when necessary. Stepwise micro-TESE might also reduce the costs, time and efforts involved in surgery

Predictive role of node-rads score in patients with prostate cancer candidates for radical prostatectomy with extended lymph node dissection: comparative analysis with validated nomograms

Background and objectives: The Reporting and Data System (RADS) have been used in the attempts to standardize the results of oncological scans in different scenarios, such as lymph nodes, adding configuration criteria to size determination. We analyze the predictive value of preoperative Node-RADS determination at imaging for pelvic lymph node (PLN) involvement in cases of prostate cancer (PC) considered for radical prostatectomy (RP) with extended lymph node dissection (eLND) and we compare it with validate predictive nomograms (MSKCC, Briganti and Gandaglia). Methods: 150 patients with a histological diagnosis of PC (high risk or intermediate with an estimated risk for pN+ higher than 5% using the Briganti or 7% using the Gandaglia nomogram) submitted for RP with an ePLND from 2018 and 2021 were retrospectively examined. Node-RADS determination was performed in all cases using the preoperative magnetic resonance (MR), performed by a radiologist blinded for pathologic results and compared with the MSKCC, Briganti 2012, Gandaglia 2017 and Gandaglia 2019 nomograms. Results: PLN involvement at final pathology (pN+) was found in 36/150 (24.0%) of cases and the mean percentage of positive LNs in pN+ cases was 15.90 ± 13.40. The mean number of PLNs removed at RP was similar (p = 0.188) between pN0 (23.9 ± 8.0) and pN+ (25.3 ± 8.0) cases. Considering a Node RADS 4-5 positive and a Node RADS 1-2 negative, the PPV was 100% and the NPV was 79.6%. A Node RADS score 4-5 showed a lower sensitivity (0.167 versus 0.972, 1.000, 0.971, 0.960 respectively), a higher specificity (1.000 versus 0.079, 0.096, 0.138, 0.186 respectively) and a similar AUC (0.583 versus 0.591, 0.581, 0.574, 0.597 respectively) when compared to MSKCC, Briganti 2012, Gandaglia 2017 and Gandaglia 2019 nomograms. Conclusions: Our evaluation suggests that Node RADS score, combining configuration criteria to size determination could improve specificity in terms of pathologic PLN prediction but a very low sensitivity has been also described

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field