Purpose: To evaluate the morbidity, functional and oncological outcome of irreversible electroporation (IRE) as a focal therapy for prostate cancer (PCa) when used in “active surveillance (AS)” candidates refusing standard treatment options. Materials and Methods: IRE was performed under general anaesthesia, and the transurethral catheter was removed one day after intervention in all patients. Pre- and post-interventional voiding parameters (measured by International Prostate Symptom Score Questionnaire [IPSS], uroflowmetry and post-void residue) were compared. Follow-up (FU) was observed over a minimum of six months, including oncological outcome (controlled by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, rebiopsy, prostate-specific antigen dynamic as well as the need and type of secondary treatment) and general functional outcome (International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire, satisfaction of the procedure). Results: Twenty-four patients refusing AS or standard treatment with a median FU of 18.7 months were included. IPSS showed nine patients with mild, 12 with moderate and two with severe obstructive voiding symptoms pre-intervention (focal IRE). Median IPSS pre-IRE was 9 points, 8.5 (p=0.341) at six months and 10 (p=0.392) after 12 months, respectively. Pre-IRE maximum urinary flow (Qmax) (median: 16.1±8.0 mL/sec) and Qmax after catheter removal (16.2±7.6 mL/sec) did not differ significantly (p=0.904). Thirteen PCa recurrences occurred (54.2%). Out-of-lesion-PCa was found in 12/13 patients (92.3%), while 4/13 patients showed in-lesion-PCa recurrence simultaneously (30.8%). In one patient, there was an in-lesion-PCa recurrence only (7.7%). Six out of 24 patients (25.0%) received a secondary treatment. All patients were satisfied with the IRE procedure. Conclusions Focal IRE underperforms regarding the overall oncological outcome and should not be offered as an equivalent therapy to established curative treatment strategies. Nevertheless, under a strict FU regimen, its lack of significant additional morbidity compared to an active surveillance strategy makes IRE a feasible alternative for low-risk PCa in highly selected patients as a personalised approach.

Purpose: To evaluate the morbidity, functional and oncological outcome of irreversible electroporation (IRE) as a focal therapy for prostate cancer (PCa) when used in “active surveillance (AS)” candidates refusing standard treatment options. Materials and Methods: IRE was performed under general anaesthesia, and the transurethral catheter was removed one day after intervention in all patients. Pre- and post-interventional voiding parameters (measured by International Prostate Symptom Score Questionnaire [IPSS], uroflowmetry and post-void residue) were compared. Follow-up (FU) was observed over a minimum of six months, including oncological outcome (controlled by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, rebiopsy, prostate-specific antigen dynamic as well as the need and type of secondary treatment) and general functional outcome (International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire, satisfaction of the procedure). Results: Twenty-four patients refusing AS or standard treatment with a median FU of 18.7 months were included. IPSS showed nine patients with mild, 12 with moderate and two with severe obstructive voiding symptoms pre-intervention (focal IRE). Median IPSS pre-IRE was 9 points, 8.5 (p=0.341) at six months and 10 (p=0.392) after 12 months, respectively. Pre-IRE maximum urinary flow (Qmax) (median: 16.1±8.0 mL/sec) and Qmax after catheter removal (16.2±7.6 mL/sec) did not differ significantly (p=0.904). Thirteen PCa recurrences occurred (54.2%). Out-of-lesion-PCa was found in 12/13 patients (92.3%), while 4/13 patients showed in-lesion-PCa recurrence simultaneously (30.8%). In one patient, there was an in-lesion-PCa recurrence only (7.7%). Six out of 24 patients (25.0%) received a secondary treatment. All patients were satisfied with the IRE procedure. Conclusions Focal IRE underperforms regarding the overall oncological outcome and should not be offered as an equivalent therapy to established curative treatment strategies. Nevertheless, under a strict FU regimen, its lack of significant additional morbidity compared to an active surveillance strategy makes IRE a feasible alternative for low-risk PCa in highly selected patients as a personalised approach.

Purpose: To evaluate the morbidity, functional and oncological outcome of irreversible electroporation (IRE) as a focal therapy for prostate cancer (PCa) when used in “active surveillance (AS)” candidates refusing standard treatment options. Materials and Methods: IRE was performed under general anaesthesia, and the transurethral catheter was removed one day after intervention in all patients. Pre- and post-interventional voiding parameters (measured by International Prostate Symptom Score Questionnaire [IPSS], uroflowmetry and post-void residue) were compared. Follow-up (FU) was observed over a minimum of six months, including oncological outcome (controlled by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, rebiopsy, prostate-specific antigen dynamic as well as the need and type of secondary treatment) and general functional outcome (International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire, satisfaction of the procedure). Results: Twenty-four patients refusing AS or standard treatment with a median FU of 18.7 months were included. IPSS showed nine patients with mild, 12 with moderate and two with severe obstructive voiding symptoms pre-intervention (focal IRE). Median IPSS pre-IRE was 9 points, 8.5 (p=0.341) at six months and 10 (p=0.392) after 12 months, respectively. Pre-IRE maximum urinary flow (Qmax) (median: 16.1±8.0 mL/sec) and Qmax after catheter removal (16.2±7.6 mL/sec) did not differ significantly (p=0.904). Thirteen PCa recurrences occurred (54.2%). Out-of-lesion-PCa was found in 12/13 patients (92.3%), while 4/13 patients showed in-lesion-PCa recurrence simultaneously (30.8%). In one patient, there was an in-lesion-PCa recurrence only (7.7%). Six out of 24 patients (25.0%) received a secondary treatment. All patients were satisfied with the IRE procedure. Conclusions Focal IRE underperforms regarding the overall oncological outcome and should not be offered as an equivalent therapy to established curative treatment strategies. Nevertheless, under a strict FU regimen, its lack of significant additional morbidity compared to an active surveillance strategy makes IRE a feasible alternative for low-risk PCa in highly selected patients as a personalised approach.

Purpose: To evaluate the morbidity, functional and oncological outcome of irreversible electroporation (IRE) as a focal therapy for prostate cancer (PCa) when used in “active surveillance (AS)” candidates refusing standard treatment options. Materials and Methods: IRE was performed under general anaesthesia, and the transurethral catheter was removed one day after intervention in all patients. Pre- and post-interventional voiding parameters (measured by International Prostate Symptom Score Questionnaire [IPSS], uroflowmetry and post-void residue) were compared. Follow-up (FU) was observed over a minimum of six months, including oncological outcome (controlled by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, rebiopsy, prostate-specific antigen dynamic as well as the need and type of secondary treatment) and general functional outcome (International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire, satisfaction of the procedure). Results: Twenty-four patients refusing AS or standard treatment with a median FU of 18.7 months were included. IPSS showed nine patients with mild, 12 with moderate and two with severe obstructive voiding symptoms pre-intervention (focal IRE). Median IPSS pre-IRE was 9 points, 8.5 (p=0.341) at six months and 10 (p=0.392) after 12 months, respectively. Pre-IRE maximum urinary flow (Qmax) (median: 16.1±8.0 mL/sec) and Qmax after catheter removal (16.2±7.6 mL/sec) did not differ significantly (p=0.904). Thirteen PCa recurrences occurred (54.2%). Out-of-lesion-PCa was found in 12/13 patients (92.3%), while 4/13 patients showed in-lesion-PCa recurrence simultaneously (30.8%). In one patient, there was an in-lesion-PCa recurrence only (7.7%). Six out of 24 patients (25.0%) received a secondary treatment. All patients were satisfied with the IRE procedure. Conclusions Focal IRE underperforms regarding the overall oncological outcome and should not be offered as an equivalent therapy to established curative treatment strategies. Nevertheless, under a strict FU regimen, its lack of significant additional morbidity compared to an active surveillance strategy makes IRE a feasible alternative for low-risk PCa in highly selected patients as a personalised approach.

Purpose: To evaluate the morbidity, functional and oncological outcome of irreversible electroporation (IRE) as a focal therapy for prostate cancer (PCa) when used in “active surveillance (AS)” candidates refusing standard treatment options. Materials and Methods: IRE was performed under general anaesthesia, and the transurethral catheter was removed one day after intervention in all patients. Pre- and post-interventional voiding parameters (measured by International Prostate Symptom Score Questionnaire [IPSS], uroflowmetry and post-void residue) were compared. Follow-up (FU) was observed over a minimum of six months, including oncological outcome (controlled by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, rebiopsy, prostate-specific antigen dynamic as well as the need and type of secondary treatment) and general functional outcome (International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire, satisfaction of the procedure). Results: Twenty-four patients refusing AS or standard treatment with a median FU of 18.7 months were included. IPSS showed nine patients with mild, 12 with moderate and two with severe obstructive voiding symptoms pre-intervention (focal IRE). Median IPSS pre-IRE was 9 points, 8.5 (p=0.341) at six months and 10 (p=0.392) after 12 months, respectively. Pre-IRE maximum urinary flow (Qmax) (median: 16.1±8.0 mL/sec) and Qmax after catheter removal (16.2±7.6 mL/sec) did not differ significantly (p=0.904). Thirteen PCa recurrences occurred (54.2%). Out-of-lesion-PCa was found in 12/13 patients (92.3%), while 4/13 patients showed in-lesion-PCa recurrence simultaneously (30.8%). In one patient, there was an in-lesion-PCa recurrence only (7.7%). Six out of 24 patients (25.0%) received a secondary treatment. All patients were satisfied with the IRE procedure. Conclusions Focal IRE underperforms regarding the overall oncological outcome and should not be offered as an equivalent therapy to established curative treatment strategies. Nevertheless, under a strict FU regimen, its lack of significant additional morbidity compared to an active surveillance strategy makes IRE a feasible alternative for low-risk PCa in highly selected patients as a personalised approach.

In our prior research, polymer nanoparticles (NPs) containing tobramycin displayed robust antibacterial efficacy against biofilm-embedded Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) and Burkholderia cenocepacia (B. cenocepacia) cells, critical pathogens in cystic fibrosis. In the current study, we investigated the deposition of a nanoparticulate carrier composed of poly(d,l-lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) and poly(ethylene glycol)-block-PLGA (PEG-PLGA) that was either covalently bonded with cyanine-5-amine (Cy5) or noncovalently bound with freely embedded cationic rhodamine B (RhB), which served as a drug surrogate. After exposing these NPs to bacteria, we performed cell fractionation and fluorescence analysis, which highlighted the accumulation of Cy5 in the outer membranes (OMs) and the accumulation of RhB in the cytoplasm (CP) of cells. The results indicated that these organic NPs are effective vehicles for targeted antibiotic delivery in bacterial cells, explaining the observed increase in the efficacy of encapsulated tobramycin against biofilms. This work emphasizes the potential of PEG-PLGA-based formulations for advanced drug delivery strategies.

Objective:Afghanistan has witnessed a long-lasting 4-decade armed conflict,which together with high levels of poverty and interpersonal violence,resulted in high incidence and prevalence of mental disorders in general population,including children and adolescents.Until mid-2018,there was neither mental health care facility nor a child psychiatrist in Afghanistan.Here,we report the establishment of the first children and adolescents'mental health center(CAMHC)in Herat province of Afghanistan. Methods:In July 2018,CAMHC was initiated at Mental Health Training Center-Herat.CAMHC was initially planned by the International Assistance Mission(IAM)and Herat Public Health Directorate;and financially sup-ported by the Tearfund UK,the United Methodist Committee on Relief and Tearfund Australia.The target pop-ulation of CAMHC was children and adolescents in Herat and neighboring provinces,healthcare professionals,staff of government and non-governmental organizations,school teachers and community leaders. Results:A group of eight mental health professionals were trained and made the interdisciplinary board for di-agnosis and management of mental disorders in children and adolescents.During the initial three-year period,2 448 patients,including 1 264(51.6％)boys and 1 184(48.4％)girls,presented with mental disorders to CAMHC.Diagnosis and management of mental disorders were performed according to standard international protocols.Eighteen awareness-raising seminars were held;2 000 leaflets,10 000 posters,and 30 000 brochures were pre-pared and distributed;and two short video clips were produced and broadcast via IAM website,social media and local TV channels.A database was developed to house for project data,assessment of outcomes and reporting to stakeholders. Conclusion:Establishment of CAMHC resulted in significant achievements in diagnosis and management of men-tal disorders among children and adolescents,healthcare staff capacity building,and awareness-raising about mental disorders.Data obtained in CAMHC offers government,mental health professionals and the community the opportunity of improving mental health in the region.