ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Idiopathic megacolon (IM) is a rare condition with a more or less known etiology, which involves management challenges, especially therapeutic, and both gastroenterology and surgery services. With insufficiently drawn out protocols, but with occasionally formidable complications, the condition management can be difficult for any general surgery team, either as a failure of drug therapy (in the context of a known case, initially managed by a gastroenterologist) or as a surgical emergency (in which the diagnostic surprise leads additional difficulties to the tactical decision), when the speed imposed by the severity of the case can lead to inadequate strategies, with possibly critical consequences. METHOD: With such a motivation, and having available experience limited by the small number of cases (described by all medical teams concerned with this pathology), the revision of the literature with the update of management landmarks from the surgical perspective of the pathology appears as justified by this article. RESULTS: If the diagnosis of megacolon is made relatively easily by imaging the colorectal dilation (which is associated with initial and/or consecutive clinical aspects), the establishing of the diagnosis of idiopathic megacolon is based in practice almost exclusively on a principle of exclusion, and after evaluating the absence of some known causes that can lead to the occurrence of these anatomic and clinical changes, mimetically, clinically, and paraclinically, with IM (intramural aganglionosis, distal obstructions, intoxications, etc.). If the etiopathogenic theories, based on an increase in the performance of the arsenal of investigations of the disease, have registered a continuous improvement and an increase of objectivity, unfortunately, the curative surgical treatment options still revolve around the same resection techniques. Moreover, the possibility of developing a form of etiopathogenic treatment seems as remote as ever.
ABSTRACT
One of the most common types of cancer worldwide (9th most commonly diagnosed) is renal cell carcinoma (RCC). It is more common in developed countries and it usually develops in individuals between 60 and 70 years of age. The earlier the disease is identified, the lower the morbidity. Therefore molecular markers that exist in blood and urine may be used for earlier detection and diagnosis but also for the follow-up of the patient after treatment, whether surgical or oncological. The trend is to analyze the gene and protein expression as they constitute a source for new biomarkers. These markers are promising but in clinical practice regarding disease management, they are rarely used. Biological markers can be employed in many tumors because they can identify the prognostic value for individual treatment. However, markers for RCC are not validated, and their analysis is currently under investigation. Previous findings have demonstrated that the metastatic potential of RCC can be predicted using the biological features of the tumor cell. It is believed that the transformation from epithelial to mesenchymal phenotype gives the tumor cell the ability to metastasize. The purpose of this review was to identify the most valuable tumor markers that can be clinically used for the prognosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with renal tumors.
ABSTRACT
Bladder tumors are frequently diagnosed urologic malignant diseases with an extremely high recurrence rate compared to other neoplastic tumors. Urothelial bladder carcinomas are mostly identified in their incipient form, as non-muscle invasive, but despite that, a third of them develop into aggressive recurrent disease. The diagnosis of bladder carcinoma at this moment is established using cytology and cystoscopy and is a great challenge for clinicians due to the lack of sensitivity. Urinary biomarkers could improve and enhance the diagnosis and screening techniques and determine a more accurate recurrence rate. However, bladder cancer is a heterogeneous disease and the existence of a single marker test with reduced cost is unlikely; thus, until then, the use of a panel of markers to obtain valuable information is inevitable even though suboptimal for use. To improve this deadlock, new biomarker panels should be identified and prepared to equalize the cost-efficiency balance. The present paper is a literature review concerning the most commonly used tumor markers in urinary bladder cancer as well as the most commonly encountered genetic modifications in such patients.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: BPH with prostatitis represents one of the most common urological pathologies affecting most men. The etiology of both conditions remains at the discretion of the various assumptions. OBJECTIVES: The body's cellular immune response in prostate adenoma is a less studied aspect which we have focused on, in this paper. The correlation with a wide range of information from specific investigations such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and total histopathology was the secondary aim of this work. METHODS: The study included 31 patients who underwent surgery for prostate adenoma (TUR-P, simple prostatectomy) between 08.2013 and 03.2014. Patients presenting urinary tract infection were excluded from the study. Preoperative evaluation of the immunological examination consisted of lymphocyte immunophenotyping (T, B, NK cells) from peripheral blood performed by flow cytometry. Total PSA was performed in serum by enzyme immunoassay EIA. RESULTS: In all forms of anatomoclinical BPH we found the presence of two major cellular changes: decrease of suppressor/cytotoxic T-cells and decrease of B cells. These deficits may confer an increased susceptibility to viral infection and tumor transformation. NK cells were grown in BPH associated with inflammation. PSA-prostate specific antigen values were grown at less than 50% of the patients in all clinical forms of BPH.
