Bladder cancer (BC) is a disease that requires lifelong surveillance due to its high recurrence rate. An efficient method for the non-invasive rapid monitoring of patient prognosis and downstream phenotype characterization is warranted. Here, we develop an integrated procedure to detect aggressive mesenchymal exfoliated bladder cancer cells (EBCCs) from patients in a label-free manner. Using a combination of filtration and inertial focusing principles, the procedure allowed the focusing of EBCCs in a single stream-line for high-throughput separation from other urine components such as large squamous cells and blood cells using a microfluidic sorting device. Characterization of enriched cells can be completed within hours, suggesting a potential utility for real-time detection. We also demonstrate high efficiency of cancer cell recovery (93.3 ± 4.8%) and specific retrieval of various epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) phenotype cell fractions from respective outlets of the microfluidic device. EMT is closely associated with metastasis, drug resistance and tumor-initiating potential. This procedure is validated with clinical samples, and further demonstrate the efficacy of bladder wash procedure to reduce EBCCs counts over time. Overall, the uniqueness of a rapid and non-invasive method permitting the separation of different EMT phenotypes shows high potential for clinical utility. We expect this approach will better facilitate the routine screening procedure in BC and greatly enhance personalized treatment.
Barbed closure sutures appear to be safe and effective in laparoscopic upper gastrointestinal procedures for closing enterotomies provided appropriate technique is used. The potential benefit is simplifying intracorporeal enterotomy closure.
Objectives: To identify predictive factors for the development of sepsis/septic shock postdecompression of calculi-related ureteric obstruction using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and to compare clinical outcomes and odd risk ratios of patients developing sepsis/septic shock following the insertion of percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) versus insertion of retrograde ureteral stenting (RUS). Methods: Clinico-epidemiological data of patients who underwent PCN and/or RUS in two institutions for calculi-related ureteric obstruction were retrospectively collected from January 2014 to December 2020. Results: 537 patients (244 patients in PCN group, 293 patients in RUS group) from both institutions were eligible for analysis based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients with PCN were generally older, had poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, and larger obstructive ureteral calculi compared to patients with RUS. Patients with PCN had longer durations of fever, the persistence of elevated total white cell and creatinine, and longer hospitalization stays compared with patients who had undergone RUS. RUS up-front has more unsuccessful interventions compared with PCN. There were no significant differences in the change in SOFA score postintervention between the two interventions. In multivariate analysis, the higher temperature just prior to the intervention (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 2.039, p = 0.003) and Cardiovascular SOFA score of 1 (adjusted OR:4.037, p = 0.012) were significant independent prognostic factors for the development of septic shock postdecompression of ureteral obstruction. Conclusions: Our study reveals that both interventions have similar overall risk of urosepsis, septic shock and mortality rate. Despite a marginally higher risk of failure, RUS should be considered in patients with lower procedural risk. Patients going for PCN should be counseled for a longer stay. Post-HDU/-ICU monitoring, inotrope support postdecompression should be considered for patients with elevated temperature within 1 h preintervention and cardiovascular SOFA score of 1.
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.