The pH of the skin surface and its impact on the barrier function

The `acid mantle' of the stratum corneum seems to be important for both permeability barrier formation and cutaneous antimicrobial defense. However, the origin of the acidic pH, measurable on the skin surface, remains conjectural. Passive and active influencing factors have been proposed, e. g. eccrine and sebaceous secretions as well as proton pumps. In recent years, numerous investigations have been published focusing on the changes in the pH of the deeper layers of the stratum corneum, as well as on the influence of physiological and pathological factors. The pH of the skin follows a sharp gradient across the stratum corneum, which is suspected to be important in controlling enzymatic activities and skin renewal. The skin pH is affected by a great number of endogenous factors, e. g. skin moisture, sweat, sebum, anatomic site, genetic predisposition and age. In addition, exogenous factors like detergents, application of cosmetic products, occlusive dressings as well as topical antibiotics may influence the skin pH. Changes in the pH are reported to play a role in the pathogenesis of skin diseases like irritant contact dermatitis, atopic dermatitis, ichthyosis, acne vulgaris and Candida albicans infections. Therefore, the use of skin cleansing agents, especially synthetic detergents with a pH of about 5.5, may be of relevance in the prevention and treatment of those skin diseases. Copyright (c) 2006 S. Karger AG, Base

Relapse in resected lung cancer revisited: does intensified follow up really matter? A prospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>beside the well known predominance of distant vs. loco-regional relapse, several aspects of the relapse pattern still have not been fully elucidated.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>prospective, controlled study on 88 patients operated for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a 15 months period. Stage IIIA existed in 35(39.8%) patients, whilst stages IB, IIA and IIB existed in 10.2%, 4.5% and 45.5% patients respectively. Inclusion criteria: stage I-IIIA, complete resection, systematic lymphadenectomy with at least 6 lymph node groups examined, no neoadjuvant therapy, exact data of all aspects of relapse, exact data about the outcome of the treatment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>postoperative lung cancer relapse occurred in 50(56.8%) patients. Locoregional, distant and both types of relapse occurred in 26%, 70% and 4% patients respectively. Postoperative cancer relapse occurred in 27/35(77.1%) pts. in the stage IIIA and in 21/40(52.55) pts in the stage IIB. In none of four pts. in the stage IIA cancer relapse occurred, unlike 22.22% pts. with relapse in the stage IB. The mean disease free interval in the analysed group was 34.38 ± 3.26 months.</p> <p>The mean local relapse free and distant relapse free intervals were 55 ± 3.32 and 41.62 ± 3.47 months respectively Among 30 pts. with the relapse onset inside the first 12 month after the lung resection, in 20(66.6%) pts. either T3 tumours or N2 lesions existed. In patients with N0, N1 and N2 lesions, cancer relapse occurred in 30%, 55.6% and 70.8% patients respectively</p> <p>Radiographic aspect T stage, N stage and extent of resection were found as significant in terms of survival. Related to the relapse occurrence, although radiographic aspect and extent of resection followed the same trend as in the survival analysis, only T stage and N stage were found as significant in the same sense as for survival. On multivariate, only T and N stage were found as significant in terms of survival.</p> <p>Specific oncological treatment of relapse was possible in 27/50(54%) patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>the intensified follow up did not increase either the proportion of patients detected with asymptomatic relapse or the number of patients with specific oncological treatment of relapse.</p

Pulmonary metastasectomy versus continued active monitoring in colorectal cancer (PulMiCC): a multicentre randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Lung metastasectomy in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer has been widely adopted without good evidence of survival or palliative benefit. We aimed to test its effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: Multidisciplinary teams in 13 hospitals recruited participants with potentially resectable lung metastases to a multicentre, two-arm RCT comparing active monitoring with or without metastasectomy. Other local or systemic treatments were decided by the local team. Randomisation was remote and stratified by site with minimisation for age, sex, primary cancer stage, interval since primary resection, prior liver involvement, the number of metastases, and carcinoembryonic antigen level. The central Trial Management Group were blind to patient allocation until completion of the analysis. Analysis was on intention to treat with a margin for non-inferiority of 10%. RESULTS: Between December 2010 and December 2016, 65 participants were randomised. Characteristics were well-matched in the two arms and similar to those in reported studies: age 35 to 86 years (interquartile range (IQR) 60 to 74); primary resection IQR 16 to 35 months previously; stage at resection T1, 2 or 3 in 3, 8 and 46; N1 or N2 in 31 and 26; unknown in 8. Lung metastases 1 to 5 (median 2); 16/65 had previous liver metastases; carcinoembryonic antigen normal in 55/65. There were no other interventions in the first 6 months, no crossovers from control to treatment, and no treatment-related deaths or major adverse events. The Hazard ratio for death within 5 years, comparing metastasectomy with control, was 0.82 (95%CI 0.43, 1.56). CONCLUSIONS: Because of poor and worsening recruitment, the study was stopped. The small number of participants in the trial (N = 65) precludes a conclusive answer to the research question given the large overlap in the confidence intervals in the proportions still alive at all time points. A widely held belief is that the 5-year absolute survival benefit with metastasectomy is about 35%: 40% after metastasectomy compared to < 5% in controls. The estimated survival in this study was 38% (23-62%) for metastasectomy patients and 29% (16-52%) in the well-matched controls. That is the new and important finding of this RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT01106261. Registered on 19 April 2010

UVA/UVA1 phototherapy and PUVA photochemotherapy in connective tissue diseases and related disorders: a research based review

BACKGROUND: Broad-band UVA, long-wave UVA1 and PUVA treatment have been described as an alternative/adjunct therapeutic option in a number of inflammatory and malignant skin diseases. Nevertheless, controlled studies investigating the efficacy of UVA irradiation in connective tissue diseases and related disorders are rare. METHODS: Searching the PubMed database the current article systematically reviews established and innovative therapeutic approaches of broad-band UVA irradiation, UVA1 phototherapy and PUVA photochemotherapy in a variety of different connective tissue disorders. RESULTS: Potential pathways include immunomodulation of inflammation, induction of collagenases and initiation of apoptosis. Even though holding the risk of carcinogenesis, photoaging or UV-induced exacerbation, UVA phototherapy seems to exhibit a tolerable risk/benefit ratio at least in systemic sclerosis, localized scleroderma, extragenital lichen sclerosus et atrophicus, sclerodermoid graft-versus-host disease, lupus erythematosus and a number of sclerotic rarities. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the data retrieved from the literature, therapeutic UVA exposure seems to be effective in connective tissue diseases and related disorders. However, more controlled investigations are needed in order to establish a clear-cut catalogue of indications