Pancreatic injury revealed in abdominal ultrasound: a case report.

Pancreatic laceration due to blunt trauma is relatively uncommon and it is less likely to accompany injury of a retroperitoneal organ. While renal injuries are easily detectable in both clinical and radiographic imaging examination, pancreatic injuries are difficult to diagnose clinically and in several cases remain occult. Although ultrasonography is not generally recommended for initial assessment of the trauma patient and its role is limited in the follow-up of contained intra- or perihepatic bilomas that are treated conservatively, it was demonstrated to be capable for exploration of pancreatic injuries as well. We present a case of a 23-year-old male with pancreatic injury found in ultrasonography.

The phenomenon of multifocality does not affect the biologic behavior of histologic prostate carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The affect of multifocality on the biologic behavior of histologic prostate carcinoma is a controversial issue. The aim of this study was to determine if tumor multifocality influences the prognosis of patients with prostatic cancer. MATERIAL/METHODS: Samples consisted of 264 autopsy tissues from men older than 40 years of age and less than 98 years of age who died (between August 2002 and December 2005) of diseases other than clinically diagnosed prostate carcinoma. The entire prostate and seminal vesicles were sectioned, tinted, and fixed in acetic acid. Specimens were immersed in formalin, serial sectioned at a thickness of 4 mm, postfixed, resectioned at a thickness of 2 mm, dehydrated, cleared in xylene, and immersed in paraffin. Two expert pathologists examined the sections. RESULTS: Most latent carcinomas (61%) were multifocal and were composed of 2 or more foci. Ninety percent of distinct foci were found to originate from the peripheral zone. Multifocality was more common among larger prostates, and large tumors were almost exclusively multifocal. Half of these had a total volume less than 1 cm3 and a Gleason score of 2 to 6; there was a clear correlation between tumor volume and Gleason score. Heterogeneity of Gleason grade in multifocal tumors was proportional to the number of foci. No statistically significant difference was observed with respect to capsular penetration or perineural or vascular invasion of multifocal tumors compared to those of unifocal tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Despite relative heterogeneity, the biologic behavior of multifocal tumors is not different from that observed in unifocal histologic tumors.

Does educational printed material manage to change compliance with prostate cancer screening?

BACKGROUND/AIM: The effects of printed educational material on cancer screening in women (Pap test and mammography) are well documented and confirmed by several studies. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of similar printed educational material on prostate cancer screening by PSA and DRE. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thousand five hundred men aged between 50 and 86 years of age, who attended our institutions for various medical conditions except prostate-related conditions, were randomly assigned to two study groups. Men in the informed group, received an educational leaflet with simple, general information on prostate cancer screening methods given by their physician along with treatment and other regular recommendations, while men in the non-informed group, were only informed by their physician in the examination room during an interview. RESULTS: After 24 months, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of DRE screening. The percentages of men who were actually screened by DRE were 4 and 5% in the informed and non-informed groups, respectively, while the difference in the percentages of PSA screening was of statistical significance, with 31% of men screened in the non-informed group as compared to 93% of men screened in the informational leaflet group. CONCLUSIONS: A single, one-shift distribution of printed educational material on prostate cancer screening, changed their attitude regarding prostate cancer screening only in favour of PSA testing, while did not manage to change the DRE acceptance behavior. However, since the combination of the two tests is more sensitive for diagnosis than either one alone, there is a need of introducing intervention strategies, in the efforts of ameliorating the prostate cancer screening behavior.