Background: Because it is a superficial structure, the penis is ideally suited to ultrasound imaging. A number of disease processes, including Peyronie's disease, penile fractures and tumors, are clearly visualized with ultrasound. Baseline and dynamic assessment of cavernosal arterial changes after pharmaco-stimulation with alprostadil allows standardized diagnosis of arterial and venogenic causes of erectile dysfunction (ED).Objective: To illustrate how to correctly perform flaccid and dynamic penile duplex ultrasound (D-PDU) and in which patients to recommend it.Materials/Methods: An extensive search of the literature was carried out on Pubmed with the insertion of the following Medical Subjects Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords "penile color Doppler ultrasound" "peak systolic velocity" "end-diastolic velocity", "acceleration time", "resistance index".Evidence: In our experience, arterial erectile dysfunction is identified after standardized intracavernous injection (ICI) of alprostadil (10 mcg) when values of peak systolic velocity (PSV) are <35 cm/s and, in the most severe forms, for values <25 cm/s.Arterial insufficiency can also be identified by increased acceleration time (AT) values (>110 ms) and/or by a lack of visualization of helicine arteries at power Doppler mode along with incomplete achievement of penile rigidity. The veno-occlusive incompetence is determined when end-diastolic velocity (EDV) values are >4.5-5 cm/s or in the case of resistance index (RI) values <0.75. The assessment of additional surrogate markers of endothelial dysfunction, that is, intima-media thickness, mean platelet volume (MPV), endothelial progenitor cells (EPC), endothelial cell specific molecule-1(endocan) are also useful in assessing the patient's cardiovascular risk but are still considered investigational in the interpretation of D-PDU results.Conclusion: D-PDU scan after ICI with vasoactive drugs is a safe procedure and represents the gold standard for the diagnostics of penile pathologies and should be performed in men with ED not responding to oral conventional therapies and/or in those requiring accurate stratification of cardiovascular risk.

No abstract

Insulin resistance (IR) is a condition which refers to individuals whose cells and tissues become insensitive to the peptide hormone, insulin. Over the recent years, a wealth of data has made it clear that a synergistic relationship exists between IR, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cancer. Although the underlying mechanism(s) for this association remain unclear, it is well established that hyperinsulinemia, a hallmark of IR, may play a role in tumorigenesis. On the other hand, IR is strongly associated with visceral adiposity dysfunction and systemic inflammation, two conditions which favor the establishment of a pro-tumorigenic environment. Similarly, epigenetic modifications, such as DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNA, in IR states, have been often associated with tumorigenesis in numerous types of human cancer. In addition to these observations, it is also broadly accepted that gut microbiota may play an intriguing role in the development of IR-related diseases, including type 2 diabetes and cancer, whereas potential chemopreventive properties have been attributed to some of the most commonly used antidiabetic medications. Herein we provide a concise overview of the most recent literature in this field and discuss how different but interrelated molecular pathways may impact on tumor development.

Background. Screening strategies for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) earlier than 24-28 weeks of gestation should be considered to prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes. Nonetheless, there is uncertainty about which women would benefit most from early screening and which screening strategies should be offered to women with GDM. The Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) recommendations on selective screening for GDM at 16-18 weeks of gestation are effective in preventing fetal macrosomia in high-risk (HR) women, but the appropriateness of timing and effectiveness of these recommendations in medium- (MR) and low-risk (LR) women are still controversial. Patients and Methods. We retrospectively enrolled 769 consecutive singleton pregnant women who underwent both anomaly scan at 19-21 weeks of gestation and screening for GDM at 16-18 and/or 24-28 weeks of gestation, in agreement with the NHS recommendations and risk stratification criteria. Comparison of maternal characteristics, fetal biometric parameters at anomaly scan (head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter (BPD), abdominal circumference (AC), femur length (FL), estimated fetal weight (EFW)), and neonatal birth weight (BW) percentile among risk groups was examined. Results. 219 (28.5%) women were diagnosed with GDM, while 550 (71.5%) were normal glucose-tolerant women. Out of 164 HR women, only 62 (37.8%) underwent the recommended early screening for GDM at 16-18 weeks of gestation. AC and EFW percentiles, as well as neonates’ BW percentiles, were significantly higher in HR women diagnosed with GDM at 24-28 weeks of gestation with respect to normal glucose-tolerant women, as well as MR and LR women who tested positive for GDM. Comparative analysis between MR and LR women with GDM and women with normal glucose tolerance revealed significant differences in both AC and EFW percentiles (P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in neonatal BW percentiles. Conclusion. In MR and LR women with GDM, a mild acceleration of fetal growth can be detected at the time of anomaly scan. However, in these at-risk categories, the NHS recommendations for screening and treatment of GDM at 24-28 weeks of gestation are still effective in normalizing BW and preventing fetal macrosomia, thus supporting a risk factor-based selective screening program for GDM.

Aims and methods: The aim of this monocentric retrospective observational study was to evaluate the 18-month safety and effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) dulaglutide (DU) 1.5 mg/once weekly as an add-on to metformin (MET) or MET plus conventional insulin secretagogues in a study cohort with excess body weight and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Comparative efficacy versus liraglutide (LIRA) 1.2–1.8 mg/once daily in a study sample naïve to GLP-1 RAs, frequency matching for age, gender, T2D duration, degree of glycemic impairment, cardiovascular comorbidities, and medications, was addressed as a secondary aim. Clinical and biochemical data for efficacy outcomes and information on drug discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) were collected from digital records. Results: Initial analysis included 126 overweight and obese T2D patients (48.4% females). Out of these, 13 discontinued DU due to moderate–severe gastrointestinal AEs after a mean follow-up of 6 (4 standard deviations (SD)) months, while 65 completed 18 months of continuous therapy. At 6 months, there was a significant mean HbA1c reduction of −0.85% (1.17 SD) with respect to baseline values (p < 0.001), which remained stable during 18 months follow-up. These results were accompanied by a moderate weight loss sustained over time, with a mean reduction of −2.0% (4.3 SD) at 6 months and −1.3% (4.8 SD) at 18 months (p = 0.091). At univariate analysis, a negative correlation between baseline body mass index (BMI) and risk of drug discontinuation due to gastrointestinal AEs was observed. The protective effect of obesity against drug discontinuation was confirmed by logistic regression analysis. Neither gender, nor age, nor T2D duration, nor concomitant conventional insulin secretagogue use, nor switching to DU from other GLP-1 RAs influenced its long-term effectiveness. However, higher baseline HbA1c values emerged as predictors of clinically relevant efficacy outcomes, either in terms of HbA1c reduction ≥ 0.5% or body weight loss ≥ 5%. The efficacy outcomes were corroborated by head-to-head comparison with LIRA, a GLP-1 RA with durable beneficial effects on glycemic control and body weight in real-world experiences. With the advantage of once-weekly administration, at 18-month follow-up, a significantly larger fraction of patients on DU therapy reached glycemic targets (HbA1c ≤ 7.0%) when compared to those on LIRA: from 14.8% at baseline (both groups) to 64.8% with DU and 42.6% with LIRA (p = 0.033). Conclusions: Although limited by a retrospective design and lack of constant up-titration for LIRA to the highest dose, these findings indicate that the beneficial responses to DU on a background of MET or MET plus insulin secretagogues are durable, especially in the presence of obesity and greater HbA1c impairment.