Measurement of serum total and free prostate-specific antigen in women with colorectal carcinoma

We investigated the diagnostic value and the relationship with clinicopathological features of total and free prostate-specific antigen by measuring the concentrations of these markers in the sera of 75 women with colorectal carcinoma and in 30 healthy women. Measurements were performed by immunoradiometric assay which utilizes monoclonal and polyclonal anti-prostate-specific antigen antibodies; the lowest detection level for both markers was 0.01 ng ml−1. Free prostate-specific antigen levels were significantly higher in women with colorectal carcinoma than healthy women (P=0.006). The percentage of free prostate-specific antigen predominant (free prostate-specific antigen/total prostate-specific antigen >50%) subjects was 20% in colorectal carcinoma patients and 3.3% in healthy women (P=0.035). Cut-off values were 0.34 ng ml−1 for total prostate-specific antigen and 0.01 ng ml−1 for free prostate-specific antigen. In women with colorectal carcinoma, total prostate-specific antigen positivity was 20% and free prostate-specific antigen positivity was 34.6%. When compared to negatives, total prostate-specific antigen positive patients had a lower percentage of well-differentiated (P=0.056) and early stage (stages I and II) tumours (P=0.070). However, patients with predominant free prostate-specific antigen, had a higher percentage of well-differentiated (P=0.014) and early stage tumours (P=0.090) than patients with predominant bound prostate-specific antigen. In conclusion, although the sensitivity of free prostate-specific antigen predominancy is low (20%), in distinguishing women with colorectal carcinoma than healthy women, its specificity is high (96.7%). Free prostate-specific antigen predominancy tends to be present in less aggressive tumours. These findings may indicate clinical significance of preoperative measurement of serum total and free prostate-specific antigen in women with colorectal carcinoma

Randomized Comparison of Final Kissing Balloon Dilatation Versus No Final Kissing Balloon Dilatation in Patients With Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Treated With Main Vessel Stenting: The Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study III

Background— It is unknown whether the preferred 1-stent bifurcation stenting approach with stenting of the main vessel (MV) and optional side branch stenting using drug-eluting stents should be finalized by a kissing balloon dilatation (FKBD). Therefore, we compared strategies of MV stenting with and without FKBD. Methods and Results— We randomized 477 patients with a bifurcation lesion to FKBD (n=238) or no FKBD (n=239) after MV stenting. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events: cardiac death, non–procedure-related index lesion myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, or stent thrombosis within 6 months. The 6-month major adverse cardiac event rates were 2.1% and 2.5% ( P =1.00) in the FKBD and no-FKBD groups, respectively. Procedure and fluoroscopy times were longer and more contrast media was needed in the FKBD group than in the no-FKBD group. Three hundred twenty-six patients had a quantitative coronary assessment. At 8 months, the rate of binary (re)stenosis in the entire bifurcation lesion (MV and side branch) was 11.0% versus 17.3% ( P =0.11), in the MV was 3.1% versus 2.5% ( P =0.68), and in the side branch was 7.9% versus 15.4% ( P =0.039) in the FKBD versus no-FKBD groups, respectively. In patients with true bifurcation lesions, the side branch restenosis rate was 7.6% versus 20.0% ( P =0.024) in the FKBD and no-FKBD groups, respectively. Conclusions— MV stenting strategies with and without FKBD were associated with similar clinical outcomes. FKBD reduced angiographic side branch (re)stenosis, especially in patients with true bifurcation lesions. The simple no-FKBD procedures resulted in reduced use of contrast media and shorter procedure and fluoroscopy times. Long-term data on stent thrombosis are needed. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00914199. </jats:sec

Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE) : a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial

Background Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the standard treatment for revascularisation in patients with left main coronary artery disease, but use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for this indication is increasing. We aimed to compare PCI and CABG for treatment of left main coronary artery disease. Methods In this prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, patients with left main coronary artery disease were enrolled in 36 centres in northern Europe and randomised 1: 1 to treatment with PCI or CABG. Eligible patients had stable angina pectoris, unstable angina pectoris, or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Exclusion criteria were ST-elevation myocardial infarction within 24 h, being considered too high risk for CABG or PCI, or expected survival of less than 1 year. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause mortality, non-procedural myocardial infarction, any repeat coronary revascularisation, and stroke. Non-inferiority of PCI to CABG required the lower end of the 95% CI not to exceed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1 . 35 after up to 5 years of follow-up. The intention-to-treat principle was used in the analysis if not specified otherwise. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, number NCT01496651. Findings Between Dec 9, 2008, and Jan 21, 2015, 1201 patients were randomly assigned, 598 to PCI and 603 to CABG, and 592 in each group entered analysis by intention to treat. Kaplan-Meier 5 year estimates of MACCE were 29% for PCI (121 events) and 19% for CABG (81 events), HR 1 . 48 (95% CI 1 . 11-1 . 96), exceeding the limit for non-inferiority, and CABG was significantly better than PCI (p=0 . 0066). As-treated estimates were 28% versus 19% (1 . 55, 1 . 18-2 . 04, p= 0 . 0015). Comparing PCI with CABG, 5 year estimates were 12% versus 9% (1 . 07, 0 . 67-1 . 72, p= 0 . 77) for all-cause mortality, 7% versus 2% (2 . 88, 1 . 40-5 . 90, p= 0 . 0040) for non-procedural myocardial infarction, 16% versus 10% (1 . 50, 1 . 04-2 . 17, p= 0 . 032) for any revascularisation, and 5% versus 2% (2 . 25, 0 . 93-5 . 48, p= 0 . 073) for stroke. Interpretation The findings of this study suggest that CABG might be better than PCI for treatment of left main stem coronary artery disease.Peer reviewe

Reperfusion therapy for ST elevation acute myocardial infarction 2010/2011: current status in 37 ESC countries

Aims Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the preferred reperfusion therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We conducted this study to evaluate the contemporary status on the use and type of reperfusion therapy in patients admitted with STEMI in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) member countries. Methods and results A cross-sectional descriptive study based on aggregated country-level data on the use of reperfusion therapy in patients admitted with STEMI during 2010 or 2011. Thirty-seven ESC countries were able to provide data from existing national or regional registries. In countries where no such registries exist, data were based on best expert estimates. Data were collected on the use of STEMI reperfusion treatment and mortality, the numbers of cardiologists, and the availability of PPCI facilities in each country. Our survey provides a brief data summary of the degree of variation in reperfusion therapy across Europe. The number of PPCI procedures varied between countries, ranging from 23 to 884 per million inhabitants. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis were the dominant reperfusion strategy in 33 and 4 countries, respectively. The mean population served by a single PPCI centre with a 24-h service 7 days a week ranged from 31 300 inhabitants per centre to 6 533 000 inhabitants per centre. Twenty-seven of the total 37 countries participated in a former survey from 2007, and major increases in PPCI utilization were observed in 13 of these countries. Conclusion Large variations in reperfusion treatment are still present across Europe. Countries in Eastern and Southern Europe reported that a substantial number of STEMI patients are not receiving any reperfusion therapy. Implementation of the best reperfusion therapy as recommended in the guidelines should be encourage