An Optimized Zebrafish Nursery Feeding Regimen Improves Growth Rates and Labor Costs.

Setting nutritional standards for larval zebrafish (Danio rerio) that maximize growth, survival, and reproductive success is challenging. We evaluated the effects of different feeding regimens on larval zebrafish by comparing Gemma Micro 75 pelleted diet and live-type L rotifers (Brachionus plicatilis) in 3 feeding regimens starting at 9 days postfertilization (dpf): bolus feeding of live diet (BL), continuous feeding of live diet (CL), and pelleted diet (PD). Animals in the PD and CL groups were longer than the BL group at 4-5 weeks postfertilization. The PD group was also greater in body depth than both live diet groups. There was no significant difference in weight between the groups. There were also no significant differences in fecundity or sex ratios indicating that all feeding methods successfully promote growth of a useful breeding stock of fish. In addition, we quantified the equipment, consumable, and labor costs associated with these methods, and found that the PD regimen was superior to both live diet regimens. These data suggest that providing a high nutrient-density pelleted diet to larval and juvenile zebrafish is an effective means to increase early growth and to decrease cost and labor associated with nursery care.

ISUOG Practice Guidelines: ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth.

INTRODUCTION These Guidelines aim to describe appropriate assessment of fetal biometry and diagnosis of fetal growth disorders. These disorders consist mainly of fetal growth restriction (FGR), also referred to as intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) and often associated with small­for­gestational age (SGA), and large­for­gestational age (LGA), which may lead to fetal macrosomia; both have been associated with a variety of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Screening for, and adequate management of, fetal growth abnormalities are essential components of antenatal care, and fetal ultrasound plays a key role in assessment of these conditions. The fetal biometric parameters measured most commonly are biparietal diameter (BPD), head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur diaphysis length (FL). These biometric measurements can be used to estimate fetal weight (EFW) using various different formulae1. It is important to differentiate between the concept of fetal size at a given timepoint and fetal growth, the latter being a dynamic process, the assessment of which requires at least two ultrasound scans separated in time. Maternal history and symptoms, amniotic fluid assessment and Doppler velocimetry can provide additional information that may be used to identify fetuses at risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Accurate estimation of gestational age is a prerequisite for determining whether fetal size is appropriate­for­gestational age (AGA). Except for pregnancies arising from assisted reproductive technology, the date of conception cannot be determined precisely. Clinically, most pregnancies are dated by the last menstrual period, though this may sometimes be uncertain or unreliable. Therefore, dating pregnancies by early ultrasound examination at 8­14 weeks, based on measurement of the fetal crown­rump length (CRL), appears to be the most reliable method to establish gestational age. Once the CRL exceeds 84 mm, HC should be used for pregnancy dating2­4. HC, with or without FL, can be used for estimation of gestational age from the mid­trimester if a first­trimester scan is not available and the menstrual history is unreliable. When the expected delivery date has been established by an accurate early scan, subsequent scans should not be used to recalculate the gestational age1. Serial scans can be used to determine if interval growth has been normal. In these Guidelines, we assume that the gestational age is known and has been determined as described above, the pregnancy is singleton and the fetal anatomy is normal. Details of the grades of recommendation used in these Guidelines are given in Appendix 1. Reporting of levels of evidence is not applicable to these Guidelines.

Pautas de ISUOG para la práctica: evaluación ecográfica de la biometría y el crecimiento fetal INTRODUCCIÓN: El objetivo de estas Pautas es describir la evaluación adecuada de la biometría fetal y el diagnóstico de los trastornos del crecimiento fetal. Estos trastornos consisten principalmente en la restricción del crecimiento fetal (RCF), también conocida como restricción del crecimiento intrauterino (RCIU), que a menudo está asociada con un tamaño pequeño para la edad gestacional (PEG) o grande para la edad gestacional (GEG), que pueden dar lugar a la macrosomía fetal; ambos se han asociado con una variedad de resultados maternos y perinatales adversos. La detección y el tratamiento adecuado de las anomalías del crecimiento fetal son componentes esenciales de la atención prenatal, y la ecografía fetal desempeña un papel fundamental en la evaluación de estas afecciones. Los parámetros biométricos fetales medidos con mayor frecuencia son (todas las siglas procedentes del inglés) el diámetro biparietal (BPD), el perímetro cefálico (HC), el perímetro abdominal (AC) y la longitud de la diáfisis del fémur (FL). Estas mediciones biométricas se pueden utilizar para estimar el peso del feto (PEF) mediante fórmulas diferentes1 . Es importante diferenciar entre el concepto de tamaño fetal en un momento dado y el crecimiento fetal en sí, siendo este último un proceso dinámico cuya evaluación requiere al menos dos ecografías separadas en el tiempo. La historia y los síntomas de la madre, la evaluación del líquido amniótico y la velocimetría Doppler pueden proporcionar información adicional que se puede utilizar para identificar los fetos bajo riesgo de resultados adversos del embarazo. La estimación precisa de la edad gestacional es un prerrequisito para determinar si el tamaño del feto es apropiado para la edad gestacional (AEG). Excepto en el caso de los embarazos procedentes de tecnologías de reproducción asistida, la fecha de concepción no se puede determinar con precisión. Clínicamente, la fecha de la mayoría de los embarazos se establece en función del último período menstrual, aunque a veces esto puede ser incierto o poco fiable. Por lo tanto, el fechado de los embarazos mediante ecografía temprana a las 8-14 semanas, mediante la medición de la longitud céfalo-caudal (LCC) fetal, parece ser el método más fiable para establecer la edad gestacional. Una vez que la LCC excede los 84 mm, se debe usar el HC2-4 para establecer la fecha del embarazo. El HC, con o sin FL, se puede utilizar para estimar la edad gestacional a partir de la mitad del primer trimestre si no se dispone de una ecografía del primer trimestre y el historial menstrual no es fiable. Cuando se ha establecido la fecha prevista del parto mediante una exploración temprana precisa, no se deben utilizar exploraciones posteriores para recalcular la edad gestacional1 . Las exploraciones en serie se pueden utilizar para determinar si el intervalo del crecimiento ha sido normal. En estas Pautas se asume que la edad gestacional es conocida y ha sido determinada según lo anterior, que el embarazo es de feto único y que la anatomía fetal es normal. En el Apéndice 1 se detallan los grados de recomendación utilizados en estas Pautas. El informe sobre los niveles de evidencia no es aplicable a estas Pautas.

Cost-effective prostate cancer detection. Reduction of low-yield biopsies. Investigators of the American Cancer Society National Prostate Cancer Detection Project.

BACKGROUND: In hopes of limiting low-yield prostate biopsies, results of digital rectal examination (DRE), transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), prostate specific antigen (PSA) and age-related PSA values, gland-volume-adjusted PSA levels, and longitudinal PSA changes were analyzed to identify their cost-effectiveness as prognostic indicators in screening, biopsy, and follow-up of patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: Twenty-nine hundred men with complete data sets from an initial cohort of 2999 men with an annual follow-up for up to 5 years were examined. Intrapatient PSA and gland-volume variability, optimal PSA operating points (o.p.), and test performance scores were determined for each parameter. Decision analysis was then applied retrospectively to each parameter to determine the cancer detection yield, biopsy requirements, and costs for commonly used detection strategies. RESULTS: For the initial screening decision, the optimal PSA o.p. was 3.0 ng/ml but increased to 5.0 ng/ml in combination with DRE, whereas age-related PSA performed no better than did PSA. The mean intrapatient variability in TRUS gland volume (+5.5 cc) relative to mean volume (34 cc) was 16%, which was less than the 28% (0.64/2.3 ng/ml) relative variability for PSA. For biopsy decisions, using PSA density (PSAD) with a level of 0.12 ng/ml/cc there was no significant difference in accuracy compared with the systematic biopsy of all patients with elevated PSA or age-related PSA levels. Rather than perform systematic biopsy on all patients with PSA levels greater than 4 ng/ml, decision analysis showed that a 16-55% reduction in biopsies could be achieved with a respective cancer loss of 4-25% by limiting biopsy to patients with an increased PSAD level and/or abnormal results of DRE. Using age-related PSA criteria in combination with DRE reduced biopsies by 12% but resulted in minimal cost reductions. The greatest biopsy reduction relative to cancer yield and lowest cost per cancer detected occurred with PSAD-driven biopsy strategies. During follow-up, longitudinal changes in absolute PSA and PSAD levels were significantly better (P < 0.05) than the percentage change in PSA levels per year. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-effective prostate cancer detection with PSA as a parameter is better achieved if screening and biopsy decisions are not linked intimately. A tailored-biopsy approach for patients with disproportionately elevated PSA levels of suspicious DRE results in the greatest biopsy reduction by selecting lower risk groups for more conservative follow-up.

Results and costs of investigating newly detected hypertensive patients.

1. Eighty unselected hypertensive subjects were investigated at a cost of $78.00 per patient, in a short out-patient study programme. Seven (9%) were found to have a cause for their hypertension; incidental abnormalities were found in twenty-two (28%). 2. The combination of clinical selection and planned out-patient investigation should detect all patients with secondary hypertension.