No abstract available.
alpha-Fetoproteins* ; Birth Weight* ; Immunoglobulins* ; Parturition*

PURPOSE: We evaluated clinical characteristics, sperm retrieval rates, and birth rates in a relatively large number of infertile patients with Y chromosome microdeletions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed clinical data from 213 patients with nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA) and 76 patients with oligoasthenoteratozoospermia (OATS) who were tested for Y chromosome microdeletion from March 2004 to June 2011. RESULTS: Of the 289 patients, 110 patients presented with Y chromosome microdeletion and 179 patients presented with no microdeletion. Among the patients with Y chromosome microdeletions, 83/110 (75.4%) were NOA patients and 27/110 (24.5%) were OATS patients. After subdividing the patients with Y chromosome microdeletion, 29 had azoospermia factor (AZF)b-c microdeletion and 81 had AZFc microdeletion. The sperm retrieval rate was similar between patients with Y chromosome microdeletion and those with no microdeletion (26.6% vs. 25.6%, p=0.298) after multiple testicular sperm extraction (TESE). Excluding 53 patients who did not undergo TESE, 30 patients were analyzed. All of the 9 men with AZFb-c microdeletion had a complete absence of sperm despite multiple TESE. However, multiple TESE was successful for 9 of 21 patients with only AZFc microdeletion (p=0.041). Twenty patients with Y chromosome microdeletion gave birth. CONCLUSIONS: In NOA and OATS patients, no significant difference in the sperm retrieval rate was shown between patients with Y chromosome microdeletion and those with no microdeletion. Patients with short Y chromosome microdeletion such as AZFc microdeletion have better prognoses for sperm retrieval and an increased chance of conception than do patients with larger microdeletions such as AZFb-c microdeletion.
Avena ; Azoospermia ; Birth Rate ; Chromosome Deletion ; Chromosomes, Human, Y ; Fertilization ; Humans ; Infertility, Male ; Male ; Parturition ; Prognosis ; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted ; Retrospective Studies ; Sex Chromosome Aberrations ; Sex Chromosome Disorders of Sex Development ; Sperm Retrieval ; Spermatozoa ; Y Chromosome

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of immediate primary repair (IPR) compared with delayed repair (DR) after initial suprapubic cystostomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of 60 patients with bulbous urethral disruption after blunt trauma from February 2001 to March 2011. Seventeen patients who presented in an acute injury state underwent IPR; 43 patients underwent DR after the initial suprapubic cystostomy. None of the patients had undergone previous urethral manipulation. We compared the outcomes, including stricture, impotence, and incontinence, between the two management approaches. We also measured the time to spontaneous voiding, the duration of suprapubic diversion, and the number of days spent in the hospital. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 20.5 months (range, 13 to 59 months; mean, 23.3 months). Among 17 patients in the IPR group, strictures developed in 2 patients (11.7%), and among 53 patients in the DR group, strictures developed in 8 patients (18.6%, p=0.709). The incidences of impotence and incontinence were similar in both groups (17.6% and 0% in the IPR group vs. 27.9% and 4.6% in the DR group, p=0.520 and 1.000, respectively). The time to spontaneous voiding and the duration of suprapubic diversion were significantly shorter in the IPR group (average 27.3 and 33.4 days, respectively) than in the DR group (average 191.6 and 198.1 days, respectively; p<0.001 and <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: IPR may provide comparable outcomes to DR and allow for shorter times to spontaneous voiding and reduce the duration of suprapubic diversion.
Constriction, Pathologic ; Cystostomy ; Erectile Dysfunction ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Incidence ; Male ; Urethra ; Urethral Stricture ; Urologic Surgical Procedures

PURPOSE: To investigate the role of low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy-based multimodal therapy in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) and analyze its optimal indications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of 50 high-risk PCa patients [clinical stage > or =T2c, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >20 ng/mL, or biopsy Gleason score > or =8] who had undergone 125I LDR brachytherapy since April 2007. We excluded those with a follow-up period <3 years. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) followed the Phoenix definition. BCR-free survival rates were compared between the patients with Gleason score > or =9 and Gleason score < or =8. RESULTS: The mean initial PSA was 22.1 ng/mL, and mean D90 was 244.3 Gy. During a median follow-up of 39.2 months, biochemical control was obtained in 72% (36/50) of the total patients; The estimated 3-year BCR-free survival was 92% for the patients with biopsy Gleason scores < or =8, and 40% for those with Gleason scores > or =9 (p<0.001). In Cox multivariate analysis, only Gleason score > or =9 was observed to be significantly associated with BCR (p=0.021). Acute and late grade > or =3 toxicities were observed in 20% (10/50) and 36% (18/50) patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that 125I LDR brachytherapy-based multimodal therapy in high-risk PCa produced encouraging relatively long-term results among the Asian population, especially in patients with Gleason score < or =8. Despite small number of subjects, biopsy Gleason score > or =9 was a significant predictor of BCR among high risk PCa patients after brachytherapy.
Aged ; Combined Modality Therapy ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Multivariate Analysis ; Neoplasm Grading ; Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology/*radiotherapy ; Radiation Dosage ; Regression Analysis ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.