No abstract available.

No abstract available.

No abstract available.

No abstract available.
Tonsillectomy*

No abstract available.
Congenital Hypothyroidism*

No abstract available.
Suicide, Attempted*

The 5 year-survival rates were examined to evaluate the prognositic significance of the expression of the p53 protein and the positivity of the PCNA in 108 cases of advanced gastric carcinoma. The p53 protein and PCNA were stained by immunohistochemistry in the tissue of the gastrectomized specimen. The results were as follows. 1) The overall 5 year-survival rate of advanced gastric carcinoma was 42.3 % and the significant prognostic factors were a pathologic stage and p53 protein(p<0.005). 2) The expanding or infiltrating type by Ming's classification and the intestinal or difftise type by Lauren's classification had similar prognosis. 514_ @@l %R-t 3) The 5 year-survival rate of the p53-positive group was 25.1% and that of p53-negative group was 56.1%(p<0.005). 4) The 5 year-survival rate of the PCNA low-grade tumors by PCNA stain(<50%)was 48.7% and that of the high-grade tumor(>=50%)was 29.9%(p>0.1). 5) There was a tendency to have a good prognosis in the p53-negative group and low grade tumors in the stage 11, III, and IV. There was a significant difference between p53 protein positive and negative groups in the stage III(p<0.005), but no significant differences were found in the other groups. The above results indicate that the p53 protein is an another useful tool for prediction of the prognosis in advanced gastric carcinoma.
Stomach Neoplasms

No abstract available.
Child* ; Cryptococcosis* ; Humans

No abstract available.
Chromosome Aberrations*

The diagnostic value of GHRH in assessing GH secretion in biochemical GH sufficient short children was examined. GHRH (1microgram/kg i.v bolus) was given to three groups (upslope, trough, downslope) arbitrarily classified according to the basal pulsatile GH secretory pattern before GHRH administration. Cmax following GHRH administration were variable and overlapping. Two children in downslope group, three children in trough group, and one child in upslope group showed subnormal GH responses to GHRH administration despite of normal GH response to more than two classical GH provocative tests (Fig.1). The time of maximal GH response after GHRH administration (Tmax) in upslope group was significantly faster than those in other two groups (Fig.2). There was a highly significant correlation between AUC and Cmax (p<0.001) after GHRH administration (Fig.3) which suggests that AUC or Cmax can be used for parameters of GH response to GHRH each other. The AUC and Cmax after GHRH administration between three groups were significantly different (2764+/-579.1ng/ml min, 52.6 ng/ml, respectively in upslope group; 1645+/-383.9ng/ml min, 37.7+/-9.4ng/ml, respectively in downslope group; 1098+/-150.2ng/ml min, 26.3+/-4.5ng/ml, respectively in trough group)(p<0.005) (Fig.4, Table 1). In conclusion, GH responses to GHRH adminstration could be variable according to the basal GH secretory rhythm. Therefore, we should be cautious in interpreting the GH response to GHRH to evaluate the GH secretory capacity because subnormal GH response to GHRH administration could be observed even if normal GH response to classical GH provocative tests. In addition, the classification of these arbitary three groups (upslope, trough, and downslope) is remained to defined so as to promote the diagnostic value of GHRH in GH deficiency.
Area Under Curve ; Child* ; Classification ; Growth Hormone* ; Humans