ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the correlation between testicular shear wave elastography (SWE) values and semen analysis results in men with infertility. METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control study. Patients were categorized as normal, abnormal, or azoospermic based on sperm analysis results. Testicular volume was measured using B-mode ultrasonography using the Lambert formula. Subsequently, 40-80 regions of interest measuring 1.5 × 1.5 mm were manually positioned in both testicles based on their size, and two-dimensional SWE was applied through virtual touch imaging quantification software. RESULTS: The patients had a mean age of 33.79 ± 6.3 years, with semen analysis revealing normal results in 15 patients (22.4%), pathological findings in 35 patients (52.2%), and azoospermia in 17 patients (25.4%). Right, left, total, and mean testicular volumes were significantly lower in patients with azoospermia compared to those in both normal and impaired semen parameters (P < .05). Conversely, testicular elastography scores were higher in patients with azoospermia than in the other groups (P < .05). The significant negative correlation between volume and elastographic findings remained independent of age (r = 0.4, P < .001). The accuracy rates for detecting impaired semen parameters and azoospermia were 94.3% and 94.1%, respectively, after considering factors such as age, testicular volume (right/left/total), and elastography (right/left/total). Notably, the total mean elastography score ranked first, with 100% in the independent normalized importance distribution of these variables. CONCLUSION: SWE can be used effectively alone or in combination with other diagnostic tools to evaluate histopathological changes in the testicles of male patients with infertility.
ABSTRACT
AIM: To determine the relationship between androgen receptor (AR) gene polymorphism and prostate cancer in our society. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine patients diagnosed with prostate cancer and 34 benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients who were diagnosed in 2010 met the study criteria. The inclusion criteria included patients whose diagnosis was confirmed with a biopsy, with the presence of adequate pathologic material for review, between the ages of 40 and 80, and who were healthy men without a family history of prostate cancer. The exclusion criteria excluded men diagnosed with another cancer and those who had kin with a history of prostate cancer. A direct DNA sequencing method was utilized for detection of polymorphisms. RESULTS: CAG repeat length varied from 13 to 28 (mean: 21.67) for the BPH group and 12 to 28 (mean: 21.74) for the prostate cancer group. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density and the androgen receptor (AR) CAG repeat had a statistically significant negative correlation in the BPH group. A statistically significant difference was associated between AR CAG repeat and PSA density. CONCLUSION: Randomized prospective studies should be planned with larger patient and control groups and with more variables, which may open new horizons in prostate cancer screening and early detection.
Subject(s)
Prostatic Neoplasms/genetics , Receptors, Androgen/genetics , Trinucleotide Repeats/genetics , Aged , Genotype , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Phenotype , Polymorphism, Genetic , Prospective Studies , Prostate-Specific Antigen/genetics , Prostatic Hyperplasia/diagnosis , Prostatic Hyperplasia/genetics , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Sequence Analysis, DNAABSTRACT
Currently, the increasing number of article submissions to scientific journals forces editors to be more selective in their acceptance of papers. Consequently, editors have increased the frequency of their use of scientific referee mechanisms. For many researchers, the publication of a scientific article in a high impact factor journal is a gradual and difficult process. After preparation and submission of a manuscript, one of the most important issue is responding to the comments of referees. However, there is a paucity of published reports in the literature describing how to respond to these comments. The aim of this review is to assist researchers/authors in responding to referee comments as part of the publication process for scientific articles.
