This prospective study was performed to investigate epidemiological characteristics in terms of the age- and sex-specific incidence in patients with perforated and nonperforated appendicitis. The study population comprised 1486 consecutive patients who underwent appendectomy for suspected acute appendicitis between 1989 and 1993. Two patient cohorts [n = 544 (37%)] were analyzed with regard to prehospitalization duration of symptoms and in-hospital observation time. The crude incidence of acute appendicitis was 86 per 100,000 per year. Although the incidence of nonperforated appendicitis was highest among adolescents and young adults (13-40 years of age), perforated appendicitis occurred at almost the same incidence in all sex and age groups. The diagnostic accuracy was 76%. Perforated appendicitis occurred in 19%, with higher rates in small children and the elderly, irrespective of gender. A high diagnostic accuracy was not associated with an increased rate of perforation. In small children and the elderly, the diagnostic accuracy was low and the perforation rate high. Patients with perforation had a significantly longer duration of symptoms as well as in-hospital observation time than did patients with nonperforated appendicitis. Perforated appendicitis showed a different incidence pattern than nonperforated appendicitis and was associated with a significantly longer duration of symptoms and in-hospital observation time, probably due to patient-related factors. We suggest this observation deserves attention regarding clinical diagnosis and treatment decision-making for patients with suspected acute appendicitis.
Independent studies have shown that in node negative breast cancer patients less than 71 years, the proliferation marker mitotic activity index (MAI) is the strongest, most well reproducible prognosticator and chemotherapy success predictor. The MAI overshadows the prognostic value of tubule formation, nuclear atypia and thereby grade. An often used crude mitotic impression is much less prognostic than the MAI; strict adherence to the MAI protocol is therefore important. The prognostic value of the MAI is age dependent: although patients with a MAI > or = 10 always have a poor prognosis irrespective of age, a low MAI (<10) loses its favourable prognostic association in women >70 years. PPH3 counts are prognostically stronger than the MAI, and markers such as Cyclin-B and E2FR are promising, but must be validated. Compared with commercial prognostic gene expression signatures, the MAI is at least as strong prognostically, has far fewer false positive results and as such should be included as an independent feature in any node negative breast cancer pathology report.
Endocrine therapy is a key treatment strategy to control or eradicate hormone-responsive breast cancer. However, resistance to endocrine therapy leads to breast cancer relapse. The recent extension of adjuvant tamoxifen treatment up to 10 years actualizes the need for identifying biological markers that may be used to monitor predictors of treatment response. MicroRNAs are promising biomarkers that may fill the gap between preclinical knowledge and clinical observations regarding endocrine resistance. MicroRNAs regulate gene expression by posttranscriptional repression or degradation of mRNA, most often leading to gene silencing. MicroRNAs have been identified directly in the primary tumor, but also in the circulation of breast cancer patients. The few available studies investigating microRNA in patients suggest that seven microRNAs (miR-10a, miR-26, miR-30c, miR-126a, miR-210, miR-342 and miR-519a) play a role in tamoxifen resistance. Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) reveals that these seven microRNAs interact more readily with estrogen receptor (ER)-independent pathways than ER-related signaling pathways. Some of these pathways are targetable (e.g., PIK3CA), suggesting that microRNAs as biomarkers of endocrine resistance may have clinical value. Validation of the role of these candidate microRNAs in large prospective studies is warranted.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.