The correlation between histopathological results post-prostate biopsy and after radical prostatectomy

Clinica Urologie, Spitalul Clinic Județean Mureș, Universitatea de Medicină, Farmacie, Științe și Tehnologie, Târgu Mureș, Al VII-lea Congres de Urologie, Dializã si Transplant Renal din Republica Moldova cu participare internațională 19-21 iunie 2019Introducere: Adenocarcinomul de prostată este cel mai frecvent cancer în rândul bărbaților, fiind a doua cauză de deces, după cancerul de plămâni, de aceea interesul pentru studierea acestei afecțiuni este tot mai mare. Sistemul de grading pentru carcinoamele prostatice este sistemul Gleason, care se bazează pe gradul de diferențiere glandulară si pe pattern-ul de crestere al tumorii (1-5). Scopul: Scopul studiului este de a compara rezultatele EHP de la puncția biopsie prostatică si prostatectomia totală. Materiale și metode: Studiul este unul retrospectiv, pe o perioadă de trei ani, cuprinzând un număr de 42 pacienti internați în Clinica Urologie Tg. Mures în perioada 1 Ianuarie 2016 – 31 decembrie 2018. Au fost incluși în studiu toți pacienții cu cancer de prostată confirmat prin puncție biopsie prostatică, care au beneficiat de prostatectomie totală. Au fost excluși pacienții cu cancer de prostată dovedit prin PBP care au beneficiat de alt tip de tratament. Rezultate: Din cei 42 de pacienți, 25 (59.52%) au fost operați clasic, iar 17 (40.48%) au fost operați laparoscopic. Preoperator, 11 pacienți au avut scorul Gleason 6 (3+3) – 26.19%, 19 pacienți 7 (3+4) – 45.23%, 9 pacienți au avut 7 (4+3) – 21.43%, 2 pacienți au avut Gleason 8 (4+4) – 4.76% si 1 pacient a avut scorul 9 (4+5) – 2.39%. Postoperator, la 21 de pacienți – 50%, scorul Gleason a ramas nemodificat, la 16 pacienți – 38.09, a fost mai mare, la 3 pacienți – 7.15%, a fost mai mic, iar la 2 pacienți – 4.76 – cancerul de prostată nu a mai fost pus în evidență pe piesa de prostatectomie. Concluzii: În ansamblu, fiabilitatea rezultatele EHP a biopsiilor transrectale în prognosticul diagnosticului a fost una bună. Cu toate acestea, limitările clasificării Gleason bazate pe biopsie trebuie luate în considerare atunci când se indică modalitatea terapeutică.Introduction: Prostate adenocarcinoma is the most common type of cancer among men, being the second cause of death, after lung cancer, therefore the interest in studying this disease is increasing. Grading system of prostate carcinoma is Gleason Score, which is based on the degree of glandular differentiation and the tumor growth pattern. Aim: The aim of the study is compare the histopathological results from prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Materials and methods: The study is a retrospective one which included 42 patients admitted in Urology Clinic of Mures County Clinica Hospital between 1 January 2016 – 31 Decembre 2018. The including criteria were patients with prostate cancer confirmed by prostate biopsy, who underwent radical prostatectomy. The excluding criteria were patients with prostate cancer confirmed by prostate biopsy, who received another type of treatment. Results: Out of the 42 patients included in the study, 25 (59.52%) of them were classically operated and 17 (40.48%) were operated laparoscopically.Preoperatively, 11 patients had Gleson score 6 (3+3) – 26.19%, 19 patients had it 7 (3+4) – 45.23%, 9 patients had Gleason score 7 (4+3) – 21.43%, 2 patients hat it 8 (4+4) – 4.76% and 1 had it 9 (4+5) – 2.39%. Postoperatively, 21 patients – 50% had the Gleason score unchanged, 16 patients – 38.09% had a higher Gleason score, 3 patients – 7.16% and in 2 patients the prostate cancer couldn’t be revealed on prostatectomy pieces. Conclusions: Overall, the reliability of histopathological results of transrectal biopsies in prognosis of diagnostic was good. However, the limitations of Gleason score established on prostate biopsies should be considered when indicating the therapeutic mode

Effects of beef cattle temperament on feed and water intake

Temperament scoring systems encompass a variety of subjective and objective methods. Chute scoring may be the most common subjective method, and is often used by breed associations in their docility genetic evaluations. The most commonly used objective method is exit velocity, which is calculated from the amount of time it takes for an animal to cross 1.83 meters when exiting the working chute. Measurements of temperament collected using both objective and subjective methodologies have been shown to be heritable, and are associated with differences in cortisol levels and average daily gain in the scientific literature. Thus, the objective of this study was to characterize individual animal variation in feed and water intake and evaluate the relationship between beef cattle temperament and feed and water intake. Five objective (exit velocity; EV) and subjective (chute scores; CS) temperament measures were collected on 106 beef steers every 2 weeks over a 70 d feed and water intake test, CS were ordinal, and reflected the temperament of the animal in the chute (1=calm, 4= continuous resistance). EV was calculated using times recorded by electronic eyes (FarmTek). Entry scores were also collected as a control variable and reflected the mechanisms used to encourage the steers to enter the chute. Daily feed and water intakes on each individual animal were recorded using an Insentec system. All data were averaged over the 70 d test period and included length of each feeding/watering event, number of daily intake events, and mean intake. A general linear model was utilized to evaluate the relationships between temperament measures and intake. CS (averaged over the 5 timepoints) and EV (averaged over the 5 timepoints) did not have a significant impact on feed or water intake (P > 0.05). It is possible that this result is due to the fact that most animals in the study were calm, and thus did not include a lot of variation in these traits. Variation in feed and water intake as described by the standard deviation of all daily intake measures was related to overall feed and water intake, and animals that tend to have higher intakes also have higher variability in their daily feed and water intakes (P, 0.05). In addition, the number of daily feed events and the length spent at the bunk are both significant predictors of feed and water intake (P < 0.05)