Referral Center Experience With Nonpalpable Contraceptive Implant Removals.

ObjectiveTo describe our experience with office removal of nonpalpable contraceptive implants at our referral center.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study by reviewing the charts of patients referred to our family planning specialty center for nonpalpable or complex contraceptive implant removal from January 2015 through December 2018. We localized nonpalpable implants using high-frequency ultrasonography and skin mapping in radiology, followed by attempted removal in the office using local anesthesia and a modified vasectomy clamp. We abstracted information on demographics, implant location, and outcomes.ResultsOf 61 referrals, 55 patients attended their scheduled appointments. Seven patients had palpable implants; six elected removal. The other 48 patients had ultrasound localization, which identified 47 (98%) of the implants; the remaining patient had successful localization with computed tomography imaging. Nonpalpable implants were suprafascial (n=22), subfascial (n=25) and intrafascial (n=1); four of these patients opted to delay removal. Of 50 attempted office removals, all palpable (n=6), all nonpalpable suprafascial (n=21 [100%, 95% CI 83-100%]), and 19 out of 23 (83%, 95% CI 67-98%) subfascial implants were successful. Three of the four patients with failed subfascial implant office removal had successful operating room removal with a collaborative orthopedic surgeon; the other patient sought removal elsewhere. Transient postprocedure neuropathic complaints were noted in 7 out of 23 (30%, 95% CI 12-49%) subfascial and 1 out of 21 (5%, 95% CI 0-13%) suprafascial removals (P=.048). Nonpalpable implants were more likely to be subfascial in nonobese patients (24/34, 71%) as compared with obese (1/13, 8%) patients (P<.001). Seven (28%) of the 25 subfascially located implants had been inserted during a removal-reinsertion procedure through the same incision.ConclusionMost nonpalpable contraceptive implants can be removed in the office by an experienced subspecialty health care provider after ultrasound localization. Some patients may experience transient postprocedure neuropathic pain. Nonpalpable implants in thinner women are more likely to be in a subfascial location

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Lung Cancer: Underlying Pathophysiology and New Therapeutic Modalities

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer are major lung diseases affecting millions worldwide. Both diseases have links to cigarette smoking and exert a considerable societal burden. People suffering from COPD are at higher risk of developing lung cancer than those without, and are more susceptible to poor outcomes after diagnosis and treatment. Lung cancer and COPD are closely associated, possibly sharing common traits such as an underlying genetic predisposition, epithelial and endothelial cell plasticity, dysfunctional inflammatory mechanisms including the deposition of excessive extracellular matrix, angiogenesis, susceptibility to DNA damage and cellular mutagenesis. In fact, COPD could be the driving factor for lung cancer, providing a conducive environment that propagates its evolution. In the early stages of smoking, body defences provide a combative immune/oxidative response and DNA repair mechanisms are likely to subdue these changes to a certain extent; however, in patients with COPD with lung cancer the consequences could be devastating, potentially contributing to slower postoperative recovery after lung resection and increased resistance to radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Vital to the development of new-targeted therapies is an in-depth understanding of various molecular mechanisms that are associated with both pathologies. In this comprehensive review, we provide a detailed overview of possible underlying factors that link COPD and lung cancer, and current therapeutic advances from both human and preclinical animal models that can effectively mitigate this unholy relationship

Non-Palpable Contraceptive Implant Removals: Experience From a Referral Center

ObjectiveTo describe our experience with office removal of nonpalpable contraceptive implants at our referral center.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study by reviewing the charts of patients referred to our family planning specialty center for nonpalpable or complex contraceptive implant removal from January 2015 through December 2018. We localized nonpalpable implants using high-frequency ultrasonography and skin mapping in radiology, followed by attempted removal in the office using local anesthesia and a modified vasectomy clamp. We abstracted information on demographics, implant location, and outcomes.ResultsOf 61 referrals, 55 patients attended their scheduled appointments. Seven patients had palpable implants; six elected removal. The other 48 patients had ultrasound localization, which identified 47 (98%) of the implants; the remaining patient had successful localization with computed tomography imaging. Nonpalpable implants were suprafascial (n=22), subfascial (n=25) and intrafascial (n=1); four of these patients opted to delay removal. Of 50 attempted office removals, all palpable (n=6), all nonpalpable suprafascial (n=21 [100%, 95% CI 83-100%]), and 19 out of 23 (83%, 95% CI 67-98%) subfascial implants were successful. Three of the four patients with failed subfascial implant office removal had successful operating room removal with a collaborative orthopedic surgeon; the other patient sought removal elsewhere. Transient postprocedure neuropathic complaints were noted in 7 out of 23 (30%, 95% CI 12-49%) subfascial and 1 out of 21 (5%, 95% CI 0-13%) suprafascial removals (P=.048). Nonpalpable implants were more likely to be subfascial in nonobese patients (24/34, 71%) as compared with obese (1/13, 8%) patients (P<.001). Seven (28%) of the 25 subfascially located implants had been inserted during a removal-reinsertion procedure through the same incision.ConclusionMost nonpalpable contraceptive implants can be removed in the office by an experienced subspecialty health care provider after ultrasound localization. Some patients may experience transient postprocedure neuropathic pain. Nonpalpable implants in thinner women are more likely to be in a subfascial location

In vivo RNAi screen identifies NLK as a negative regulator of mesenchymal activity in glioblastoma

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most lethal brain cancer with profound genomic alterations. While the bona fide tumor suppressor genes such as PTEN, NF1, and TP53 have high frequency of inactivating mutations, there may be the genes with GBM-suppressive roles for which genomic mutation is not a primary cause for inactivation. To identify such genes, we employed in vivo RNAi screening approach using the patient-derived GBM xenograft models. We found that Nemo-Like Kinase (NLK) negatively regulates mesenchymal activities, a characteristic of aggressive GBM, in part via inhibition of WNT/beta-catenin signaling. Consistent with this, we found that NLK expression is especially low in a subset of GBMs that harbors high WNT/mesenchymal activities. Restoration of NLK inhibited WNT and mesenchymal activities, decreased clonogenic growth and survival, and impeded tumor growth in vivo. These data unravel a tumor suppressive role of NLK and support the feasibility of combining oncogenomics with in vivo RNAi screen.Y