Overexpression of FoxM1 is associated with tumor progression in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Fork head box M1 (FoxM1) is a proliferation-associated transcription factor essential for cell cycle progression. Numerous studies have documented that FoxM1 has multiple functions in tumorigenesis and its elevated levels are frequently associated with cancer progression. The present study was conducted to investigate the expression of FoxM1 and its prognostic significance in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Meanwhile, the function of FoxM1 in human ccRCC was further investigated in cell culture models. METHODS: Real-time quantitative PCR, western blot and immunohistochemistry were used to explore FoxM1 expression in ccRCC cell lines and primary ccRCC clinical specimens. FoxM1 expression was knocked down by small interfering RNA (siRNA) in Caki-1 and 786-O cells; proliferation, colony formation, cell cycle, migration, invasion, and angiogenesis were assayed. RESULTS: FoxM1 expression was up-regulated in the majority of the ccRCC clinical tissue specimens at both mRNA and protein levels. Clinic pathological analysis showed that FoxM1 expression was significantly correlated with primary tumor stage (P <0.001), lymph node metastasis (P = 0.01), distant metastasis (P = 0.01), TNM stage (P < 0.001) and histological grade (P = 0.003). The Kaplan-Meier survival curves revealed that high FoxM1 expression was associated with poor prognosis in ccRCC patients (P < 0.001). FoxM1 expression was an independent prognostic marker of overall ccRCC patient survival in a multivariate analysis (P = 0.008). Experimentally, we found that down-regulation of FoxM1 inhibited cell proliferation and induced cell cycle arrest with reduced expression of cyclin B1, cyclin D1, and Cdk2, and increased expression of p21 and p27. Also, down-regulation of FoxM1 reduced expression and activity of matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2), MMP-9 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), resulting in the inhibition of migration, invasion, and angiogenesis. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that FoxM1 expression is likely to play important roles in ccRCC development and progression, and that FoxM1 is a prognostic biomarker and a promising therapeutic target for ccRCC.

Lysosomal-Associated Transmembrane Protein 5 Promotes Proliferation, Migration, and Invasion of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most aggressive and deadly cancer of the urinary system and is regulated by multiple signaling pathways. However, the specific molecular mechanisms underlying ccRCC have not been fully studied or demonstrated. This study aimed to elucidate the function of lysosomal-associated transmembrane protein 5 (LAPTM5) in ccRCC cell lines and animal models and determine the potential underlying mechanisms. Our results demonstrated that LAPTM5 expression in patients with ccRCC was significantly higher in the tumor group than that in the adjacent nontumor group. Moreover, LAPTM5 promoted proliferation, migration, and invasion of ccRCC cells through the gain and loss of the function of LAPTM5 in 786-0 and Caki-1 cell lines. Similar results regarding LAPTM5 overexpression were obtained in BALB/c nude mice. In addition, LAPTM5 activated the Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK)/p38 signaling cascade by interacting with Ras-related C3 botulinum toxin substrate 1 (RAC1). Treatment with an RAC1 inhibitor eliminated the effects of LAPTM5 in ccRCC. In conclusion, these results indicate that LAPTM5 may be a new therapeutic target for ccRCC via activation of the RAC1-JNK/p38 axis.

Clinical practice guideline for transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate for benign prostatic hyperplasia (2021 Edition).

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is highly prevalent among older men, impacting on their quality of life, sexual function, and genitourinary health, and has become an important global burden of disease. Transurethral plasmakinetic resection of prostate (TUPKP) is one of the foremost surgical procedures for the treatment of BPH. It has become well established in clinical practice with good efficacy and safety. In 2018, we issued the guideline "2018 Standard Edition". However much new direct evidence has now emerged and this may change some of previous recommendations. The time is ripe to develop new evidence-based guidelines, so we formed a working group of clinical experts and methodologists. The steering group members posed 31 questions relevant to the management of TUPKP for BPH covering the following areas: questions relevant to the perioperative period (preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative) of TUPKP in the treatment of BPH, postoperative complications and the level of surgeons' surgical skill. We searched the literature for direct evidence on the management of TUPKP for BPH, and assessed its certainty generated recommendations using the grade criteria by the European Association of Urology. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of an ungraded consensus-based statement. Finally, we issued 36 statements. Among them, 23 carried strong recommendations, and 13 carried weak recommendations for the stated procedure. They covered questions relevant to the aforementioned three areas. The preoperative period for TUPKP in the treatment of BPH included indications and contraindications for TUPKP, precautions for preoperative preparation in patients with renal impairment and urinary tract infection due to urinary retention, and preoperative prophylactic use of antibiotics. Questions relevant to the intraoperative period incorporated surgical operation techniques and prevention and management of bladder explosion. The application to different populations incorporating the efficacy and safety of TUPKP in the treatment of normal volume (< 80 ml) and large-volume (≥ 80 ml) BPH compared with transurethral urethral resection prostate, transurethral plasmakinetic enucleation of prostate and open prostatectomy; the efficacy and safety of TUPKP in high-risk populations and among people taking anticoagulant (antithrombotic) drugs. Questions relevant to the postoperative period incorporated the time and speed of flushing, the time indwelling catheters are needed, principles of postoperative therapeutic use of antibiotics, follow-up time and follow-up content. Questions related to complications incorporated types of complications and their incidence, postoperative leukocyturia, the treatment measures for the perforation and extravasation of the capsule, transurethral resection syndrome, postoperative bleeding, urinary catheter blockage, bladder spasm, overactive bladder, urinary incontinence, urethral stricture, rectal injury during surgery, postoperative erectile dysfunction and retrograde ejaculation. Final questions were related to surgeons' skills when performing TUPKP for the treatment of BPH. We hope these recommendations can help support healthcare workers caring for patients having TUPKP for the treatment of BPH.

[Sperm retrieval and the predictive parameter of non-obstructive azoospermia: a meta-analysis of literatures 1990 to 2008].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate which sperm retrieval technique is suitable for the non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA) patient, and to identify the relevant predictive parameters. METHODS: Literatures on NOA patients who had undergone sperm retrieval and pathological examination of testis were identified from Cochrane Library, CNKI and Medline (1990 to 2008) and analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-five articles were enrolled. When testicular fine needle aspiration (TEFNA) was compared with testicular sperm extraction (TESE), the sperm retrieval rate of the former was 23.0%, significantly lower than that of the latter (52.2%, RR: 0.49, 95%CI: 0.41 - 0.60, P < 0.05); and when TESE was compared with micro-surgical testicular sperm extraction (mTESE), the sperm retrieval rate of the former was 35.7%, significantly lower than that of the latter (54.6%, RR: 0.70, 95%CI: 0.50 - 0.98, P < 0.05). Sperm retrieval rate was closely correlated with the testicular pathological category of the NOA patients. The sperm retrieval rates of the patients with hypospermatogenesis (HS), maturation arrest (MA), and Sertoli cell only syndrome (SCOS) were 76.7%, 46.2%, and 32.8% respectively (RR: 1.65, 2.40, 1.50; 95%CI: 1.21 - 2.91, 1.85 - 6.90, 1.02 - 2.26, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: mTESE is the best sperm retrieval technique. A better to choice before deciding the treatment program of NOA patients is to identify the testicular pathological category in the NOA patients, and then to predict the outcome of TESE before assisted reproduction technology.

Prospective randomized comparison of transumbilical two-port laparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic varicocele ligation.

We have established a novel method named transumbilical two-port laparoscopic varicocele ligation (TTLVL) for varicocele, which is still needed to evaluate. In this study, 90 patients with left idiopathic symptomatic varicoceles of grades II-III according to the Dubin grading system were randomly assigned to TTLVL (n = 45) and conventional laparoscopic varicocele ligation (CLVL) (n = 45). The demographic, intraoperative, postoperative, and follow-up data were recorded and compared between the two groups. All the procedures in the two groups were completed successfully with no intraoperative complications and no conversions to open surgery. No significant difference was found in the operative time, resuming ambulation, bowel recovery, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative resolution of scrotal pain between the two groups (P > 0.05). However, the postoperative mean visual analog pain scale scores for TTLVL group were all less at 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, and 7 days postoperatively compared to CLVL (P = 0.001, 0.010, 0.006, and 0.027, respectively). The mean patient scar assessment questionnaire score in postoperative month 3 was 29.7 for TTLVL group compared with 32.1 for CLVL group (P < 0.001). There was no testicular atrophy observed in both groups during the follow-up period. The study shows that TTLVL is a safe, feasible, and effective minimally invasive surgical alternative to CLVL for the treatment of varicocele. Compared with CLVL, TTLVL may decrease postoperative pain and improve the cosmetic outcomes.