No abstract

Purpose: Nearly all eye drops contain preservatives to decrease contamination. Nonpreservatives such as disodium-ethylene diamine tetra-acetate (EDTA) and phosphate-buffered saline are also regularly added as buffering agents. These components can add to the toxicity of eye drops and cause ocular surface disease. To evaluate the potential toxicity of these common components and their comparative effects on the ocular surface, a tissue culture model utilizing immortalized corneal and conjunctival epithelial cells was utilized. Methods: Immortalized human conjunctival and corneal epithelial cells were grown. At confl uency, medium was replaced with 100 μL of varying concentrations of preservatives: benzalkonium chloride (BAK), methyl paraben (MP), sodium perborate (SP), chlorobutanol (Cbl), and stabilized thimerosal (Thi); varying concentrations of buffer: EDTA; media (viable control); and formalin (dead control). After 1 h, solutions were replaced with 150 μL of MTT (3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5-diphenyl tetrazonium bromide). After 4 h, solutions decanted, 100 μL of acid isopropanol added, and the optical density determined at 572 nm to evaluate cell viability. Results: Conjunctival and corneal cell toxicity was seen with all preservatives. Depending upon concentration, BAK exhibited from 56% to 89% toxicity. In comparison, Cbl exhibited from 50% to 86%, MP from 30% to 76%, SP from 23% to 59%, and Thi from 70% to 95%. EDTA with minimal toxicity (from 6% to 59%) was indistinguishable from SP. Conclusions: Generally, the order of decreasing toxicity at the most commonly used concentrations: Thi (0.0025%) > BAK (0.025%) > Cbl (0.25%) > MP (0.01%) > SP (0.0025%) ≈ EDTA (0.01%). Even at low concentration, these agents will cause some degree of ocular tissue damage.

Purpose: Radical treatments for prostate cancer are associated with significant morbidity, including incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Advances in the field of prostate MRI and desire to reduce treatment morbidities have led to a rapid growth in focal treatments for prostate cancer. Here, we review novel focal prostate cancer treatments and their associated recent clinical data, with a particular focus on data reported within the last 24 months. Recent findings: High Intensity Focal Ultrasound (HIFU), Focal Laser Ablation (FLA), Irreversible Electroporation (IRE), Focal Cryotherapy, and Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) have been used as treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer treatment. Despite the great variety of treatment techniques, each of these modalities is characterized by a significant rate of prostate cancer persistence within treatment zones (6–50%) and the presence of residual cancer within the prostate on re-biopsy (24–49%). These treatments, however, are associated with very low rates of high-grade complications, rare incontinence, and only mild or transient reductions in erectile function. The most common adverse events are urinary tract infections, hematuria, and urinary retention. Summary: Prostate cancer focal therapy is an attractive option for well selected patients due to its low complication profile, however long-term oncologic outcome is still lacking and early recurrence rates are high, limiting the ability of most urologic associations from endorsing its routine use.

No abstract