Università Campus Bio-Medico

About: Università Campus Bio-Medico is a education organization based out in Rome, Italy. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Medicine. The organization has 2829 authors who have published 8519 publications receiving 193689 citations. The organization is also known as: Universita Campus Bio-Medico & Campus Bio-Medico University.

Systematic Pelvic Lymphadenectomy vs No Lymphadenectomy in Early-Stage Endometrial Carcinoma: Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract: Results The median number of lymph nodes removed was 30 (interquartile range = 22 – 42) in the pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy arm and 0 (interquartile range = 0 – 0) in the no-lymphadenectomy arm ( P < .001). Both early and late postoperative complications occurred statistically significantly more frequently in patients who had received pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy (81 patients in the lymphadenectomy arm and 34 patients in the no-lymphadenectomy arm, P = .001). Pelvic systematic lymphadenectomy improved surgical staging as statistically significantly more patients with lymph node metastases were found in the lymphadenectomy arm than in the no-lymphadenectomy arm (13.3% vs 3.2%, difference = 10.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.3% to 14.9%, P < .001). At a median follow-up of 49 months, 78 events (ie, recurrence or death) had been observed and 53 patients had died. The unadjusted risks for first event and death were similar between the two arms (hazard ratio [HR] for first event = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.71, P = .68, and HR for death = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.70 to 2.07, P = .50). The 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates in an intention-to-treat analysis were similar between arms (81.0% and 85.9% in the lymphadenectomy arm and 81.7% and 90.0% in the no-lymphadenectomy arm, respectively). Conclusion Although systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy statistically significantly improved surgical staging, it did

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

Abstract: In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

COVID-19 diagnosis and management: a comprehensive review.

Abstract: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2, a novel coronavirus from the same family as SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, has spread worldwide leading the World Health Organization to declare a pandemic. The disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), presents flu-like symptoms which can become serious in high-risk individuals. Here, we provide an overview of the known clinical features and treatment options for COVID-19. We carried out a systematic literature search using the main online databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, UpToDate, Embase and Web of Science) with the following keywords: 'COVID-19', '2019-nCoV', 'coronavirus' and 'SARS-CoV-2'. We included publications from 1 January 2019 to 3 April 2020 which focused on clinical features and treatments. We found that infection is transmitted from human to human and through contact with contaminated environmental surfaces. Hand hygiene is fundamental to prevent contamination. Wearing personal protective equipment is recommended in specific environments. The main symptoms of COVID-19 are fever, cough, fatigue, slight dyspnoea, sore throat, headache, conjunctivitis and gastrointestinal issues. Real-time PCR is used as a diagnostic tool using nasal swab, tracheal aspirate or bronchoalveolar lavage samples. Computed tomography findings are important for both diagnosis and follow-up. To date, there is no evidence of any effective treatment for COVID-19. The main therapies being used to treat the disease are antiviral drugs, chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine and respiratory therapy. In conclusion, although many therapies have been proposed, quarantine is the only intervention that appears to be effective in decreasing the contagion rate. Specifically designed randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the most appropriate evidence-based treatment modality.