Measurement and Characterization of the Stationary Noise in Narrowband Power Line Communication

Understanding the interference scenario in power lines network is a key step to characterize the power line communication (PLC) system. This paper focuses on the characterization and modelling of the stationary noise in Narrowband PLC. Measurement and analysis of noise is carried out in the Tunisian outdoor Low Voltage (LV) power line network in the frequency band below 500 kHz. Based on existing models and measurements results, a parametric model of noise is proposed; the model parameters are statistically studied.Comment: 11th International Conference on Networks & Communications (NeTCoM 2019

PD‐1 inhibition in congenital pigment synthesizing metastatic melanoma

A newborn female child was born with a congenital pigment synthesizing melanoma of the scalp. Further workup revealed metastatic disease within the liver, lungs, and left tibia. Whole exome sequencing was performed on multiple samples that revealed one somatic mutation, lysine methyltransferase 2C (KMT2C), at low allelic frequency but no v‐Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF), NF‐1 mutation. Programmed death ligand 1 was moderately expressed. Treatment was initiated with the programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor nivolumab. The patient tolerated this treatment well with minimal toxicity. She is now over a year out from initial diagnosis, continuing on nivolumab, with stable disease.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139985/1/pbc26702.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139985/2/pbc26702_am.pd

Short bowel mucosal morphology, proliferation and inflammation at first and repeat STEP procedures

Background: Although serial transverse enteroplasty (STEP) improves function of dilated short bowel, a significant proportion of patients require repeat surgery. To address underlying reasons for unsuccessful STEP, we compared small intestinal mucosal characteristics between initial and repeat STEP procedures in children with short bowel syndrome (SBS). Methods: Fifteen SBS children, who underwent 13 first and 7 repeat STEP procedures with full thickness small bowel samples at median age 1.5 years (IQR 0.7-3.7) were included. The specimens were analyzed histologically for mucosal morphology, inflammation and muscular thickness. Mucosal proliferation and apoptosis was analyzed with MIB1 and Tunel immunohistochemistry. Results: Median small bowel length increased 42% by initial STEP and 13% by repeat STEP (p - 0.05), while enteral caloric intake increased from 6% to 36% (p 0.07) during 14 (12-42) months between the procedures. Abnormal mucosal inflammation was frequently observed both at initial (69%) and additional STEP (86%, p 0.52) surgery. Villus height, crypt depth, enterocyte proliferation and apoptosis as well as muscular thickness were comparable at first and repeat STEP (p>0.05 for all). Patients, who required repeat STEP tended to be younger (p 0.057) with less apoptotic crypt cells (p-0.031) at first STEP. Absence of ileocecal valve associated with increased intraepithelial leukocyte count and reduced crypt cell proliferation index (p Conclusions: No adaptive mucosal hyperplasia or muscular alterations occurred between first and repeat STEP. Persistent inflammation and lacking mucosal growth may contribute to continuing bowel dysfunction in SBS children, who require repeat STEP procedure, especially after removal of the ileocecal valve. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

Connecting the Dots: A Rare Cause of Pulmonary Nodules in a 13-Year-Old Boy

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/140177/1/ped.2014.0392.pd

Detection of Helicobacter ganmani-Like 16S rDNA in Pediatric Liver Tissue

Background. To determine the presence of Helicobacter species in the liver biopsy specimens from children with various chronic liver diseases as data in adult literature suggests a possible role of these bacteria in their pathogenesis.Materials and methods. Paraffin sections of 61 liver biopsies of pediatric patients with miscellaneous diseases and autopsy liver tissue from 10 control subjects with no evidence of preexisting liver disease were examined for the presence of Helicobacter species by a genus-specific seminested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay. PCRproducts of positive samples were further characterized by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) and DNA-sequence analysis. Based on those results, a seminested PCR assay for H. ganmani was developed and applied to the samples.Results. On analysis, 40/61 patient samples were positive in the genus-specific Helicobacter PCR and 4/10 from the control group. The nucleotide sequences of 16S rDNA fragments were 99100 similar to mainly Helicobacter sp. liver and H. ganmani. PCR-products similar to H. canis and H. bilis were also found. The 16S rDNAs of control specimens showed similarity to Helicobacter sp. liver. In the H. ganmani-specific PCR analysis 19 patients, but none of the controls, were positive.Conclusions. Amplified Helicobacter 16S rDNAs were related to Helicobacter sp. liver or H. ganmani in liver biopsy specimens of pediatric patients. The possible significance of Helicobacter species in pediatric liver diseases needs to be evaluated further in prospective studies

Malignant risk of indeterminate pediatric thyroid nodules—An institutional experience

BackgroundFew studies focus on pediatric thyroid nodules categorized under indeterminate diagnostic categories. The current study was conducted to assess the risk of malignancy of indeterminate pediatric thyroid nodules.MethodsA search of the institutional electronic pathology database from 01/2011 to 09/2018 was performed to identify pediatric (<21 years old) thyroid nodules that were interpreted as follicular lesion of undetermined significance (FLUS), suspicious for follicular neoplasm (SFN), or suspicious for malignancy (SFM) and subsequently managed with surgery, repeat fine‐needle aspiration (FNA), or ≥ 6 months of clinical/imaging monitoring. Results of follow‐up (F/U) surgical resections and repeat FNA/Afirma tests, and clinical and radiologic data were collected.ResultsWe identified 46 cases from 42 patients (11‐20 years old, 33 females and 9 males), including 30 FLUS, 10 SFN, and 6 SFM. Twenty‐five FLUS, ten SFN, and six SFM cases underwent surgery. The histology revealed carcinomas in 36% of FLUS, 20% of SFN, and 100% of SFM categories; follicular adenomas in 32% of FLUS and 80% of SFN categories; and benign nodules in 32% of FLUS category. All five nonsurgically treated FLUS cases were considered benign based on the findings of repeat FNA/Afirma tests (n = 3, 3‐22 months F/U) or clinical/radiologic exams (n = 2, 8‐12 months F/U).ConclusionsBased on a limited study cohort, malignancy was identified in 36%, 20%, and 100% of surgically managed pediatric thyroid nodules categorized as FLUS, SFN, and SFM, respectively; suggesting a markedly higher malignant rate than the implied malignant risk for FLUS and SFM categories in adults.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151306/1/dc24266.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151306/2/dc24266_am.pd

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer—metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: The experts voted on controversial questions where high- level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration- resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration- resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. Results and limitations: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Conclusions: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Twitter summary: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. Take-home message: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration- resistant prostate cancer is summarised here

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I : Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.publishedVersionPeer reviewe

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/high-risk and locally advanced disease, biochemical relapse, and side effects of hormonal treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.11.002Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.We gratefully acknowledge the following organisations for providing financial support for the APCCC 2022: The City of Lugano and Movember Foundation. Ros Eeles is supported by a National Institute of Health Research grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. We also acknowledge sponsorship from several for-profit organisations for APCCC 2022, including Advanced Accelerator Applications, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer Health Care, Debiopharm, MSD, Janssen Oncology, Myovant Sciences, Orion Pharma, Pfizer Oncology, Roche, Telix Innovations SA, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Lantheus, and Tolmar. These for-profit organisations supported the conference financially but had no input on the scientific content or the final publication.Accepted versio

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Part I: intermediate-/high-risk and locally advanced disease, biochemical relapse, and side effects of hormonal treatment: report of the advanced prostate cancer consensus conference 2022

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions