No abstract

Background/aim: The purpose of this study was to investigate proliferation and differentiation markers in colorectal adenocarcinoma and their correlation with clinicopathological factors.Materials and methods: Samples were collected from 38 patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma and 10 healthy controls. E-cadherin, carcinoembryonic antigen (mCEA), cyclin B1, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and erythropoietin (EPO) receptor (EPOR) were examined by immunohistochemistry; VEGF and EPO were examined by real-time PCR. Results:The tumor samples were mostly characterized by large dimension (pT3), moderate level of differentiation (G2), negative lymph node status (N0), and no metastasis. Cyclin B1 and VEGF gene and protein expressions were significantly higher in tumor tissues than in control tissues; E-cadherin expression was significantly decreased in tumor samples and in positive correlation with mCEA. EPO was almost undetectable in tumor tissues of colorectal adenocarcinoma. Significant positive correlation was detected between tumor size and cyclin B1, tumor grade, and lymph node status. Conclusion:Decreased expression of EPO, high levels of VEGF and cyclin B1 expression, predominant moderate tumor differentiation, absence of metastasis, and negative lymph node status may suggest low level of aggressiveness, better prognosis, and longer patient survival.

Introduction/Objective. Bile duct injuries represent a devastating and potentially life-threatening consequence of cholecystectomy. Although most cholecystectomies are currently performed laparoscopically, some complex cases require an open approach. The aim of this report is to present and analyze a single center experience regarding the management of these injuries. Methods. A retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary referral institution. During a 13-year period, we identified a total of 64 patients. Only patients requiring surgical reconstruction to repair bile duct injuries were included in the study. Patients were grouped according to the type of surgical approach, i.e. laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy. Results. Out of 64 patients with bile duct injuries, 38 (59.4%) incurred the injuries during open and 26 (40.6%) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. No differences between the groups were observed concerning the time of bile duct injury diagnosis, type of injury, incidence of concomitant vascular and bile duct injuries, type of reconstruction procedure or complication rates after the primary intervention. The latency of bile duct injury management was found to differ between the study groups. In the open cholecystectomy group, bile duct injuries were managed significantly later than in the laparoscopic one. Conclusion. The results suggest that bile duct injuries occur with equal frequency after laparoscopic as well as open cholecystectomy. However, injuries are managed later after open than after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Tertiary centers have satisfactory outcomes of major bile duct injury reconstruction, with low rates of both morbidity and mortality.

The two CSE techniques did not differ with regards to the procedure time and patient's preference. Procedure time correlated with body habitus, spinal landmarks and the anatomy in the SST group.

With the creation of a global computer network, the internet, all manner of information has become available to scientists and everyone else around the world. The exchange of information gives scientists insight into the most recent scientific discoveries while enabling them at the same time to use the information for their research. Scientists and experts must be sure that their colleagues' research is valid, objective and the results complete. These scientific research characteristics represent scientific honesty. Scientific misconduct can take various forms and can be present in all phases of the scientific research process, but most commonly takes the form of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. The reasons for scientific misconduct can be personal, professional and financial. There is also a "grey zone", which consists of data manipulation and selection, reference citing mistakes, multiple and salami publications, problematic authorships. Every type of misconduct has a detrimental effect on the scientific community. In the public eye, scientists are benevolent seekers of truth with high moral integrity, whose work is of key value to society. Any type of scientific misconduct serves to dishonour the scientific community but also brings confusion into the work of other researchers, therefore significantly slowing down scientific discovery in whole. Digitalization and technological advancement significantly contribute to the early discovery, elimination and sanctioning of any kind of research misconduct. A significant improvement in solving these problems can be achieved through adequate education of young researchers and introducing laws that precisely define penalties for breaking the code of good scientific practice.