Methods: A total of 10 dermatologists/aesthetic physicians served on the advisory board. A modified version of the Delphi method was used to arrive at consensus. Members accessed an online platform to review statements on skin quality criteria from their peers, including treatment and measurement options, and voted to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed. Statements that did not have agreement were modified and the members voted again. Consensus was defined as: strong consensus = greater than 95% agreement; consensus = 75% to 95% agreement; majority consent = 50% to 75% agreement; no consensus = less than 50% agreement.
Results: There was strong consensus that good skin quality is defined as healthy, youthful in appearance (appearing younger than a person's chronological age), undamaged skin and that skin quality can be described across all ethnicities by four emergent perceptual categories (EPCs): skin tone evenness, skin surface evenness, skin firmness, and skin glow. The EPCs can be affected by multiple tissue layers (ie, skin surface quality can stem from and be impacted by deep structures or tissues). This means that topical approaches may not be sufficient. Instead, improving skin quality EPCs can require a multilayer treatment strategy.
Conclusion: This global advisory board established strong consensus that skin quality can be described by four EPCs, which can help clinicians determine the appropriate treatment option(s) and the tissue or skin layer(s) to address. Skin quality is important to human health and wellbeing and patients' perception for the need for aesthetic treatment.
METHODS: In total, 299 SNPs previously associated with prostate cancer were evaluated for inclusion in a new PHS, using a LASSO-regularized Cox proportional hazards model in a training dataset of 72,181 men from the PRACTICAL Consortium. The PHS model was evaluated in four testing datasets: African ancestry, Asian ancestry, and two of European Ancestry-the Cohort of Swedish Men (COSM) and the ProtecT study. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated to compare men with high versus low PHS for association with clinically significant, with any, and with fatal prostate cancer. The impact of genetic risk stratification on the positive predictive value (PPV) of PSA testing for clinically significant prostate cancer was also measured.
RESULTS: The final model (PHS290) had 290 SNPs with non-zero coefficients. Comparing, for example, the highest and lowest quintiles of PHS290, the hazard ratios (HRs) for clinically significant prostate cancer were 13.73 [95% CI: 12.43-15.16] in ProtecT, 7.07 [6.58-7.60] in African ancestry, 10.31 [9.58-11.11] in Asian ancestry, and 11.18 [10.34-12.09] in COSM. Similar results were seen for association with any and fatal prostate cancer. Without PHS stratification, the PPV of PSA testing for clinically significant prostate cancer in ProtecT was 0.12 (0.11-0.14). For the top 20% and top 5% of PHS290, the PPV of PSA testing was 0.19 (0.15-0.22) and 0.26 (0.19-0.33), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate better genetic risk stratification for clinically significant prostate cancer than prior versions of PHS in multi-ancestry datasets. This is promising for implementing precision-medicine approaches to prostate cancer screening decisions in diverse populations.
HYPOTHESIS: Medial MAT would improve anteroposterior stability, and lateral MAT would improve rotational stability.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHOD: We retrospectively investigated 31 cases of MAT after a previous total or nearly total meniscectomy and ACL reconstruction between November 2008 and June 2017. Cases were divided into medial (16 cases) and lateral (15 cases) MAT groups. The patients were assessed preoperatively and at the 2-year follow-up.
RESULTS: In the medial MAT group, the International Knee Documentation Committee, Lysholm, Lysholm instability, and Tegner scores improved significantly at the 2-year follow-up, and there were also significant improvements in the anterior drawer, Lachman, and pivot-shift tests. In the lateral MAT group, the Lysholm and Tegner scores improved significantly at the 2-year follow-up, as had the anterior drawer and Lachman tests but not the pivot-shift test. The medial MAT group showed significant improvement in side-to-side difference on Telos stress radiographs, from 6.5 mm (preoperatively) to 3.6 mm (2-year follow-up) (P = .001), while the lateral MAT group showed no significant change. There was no progression of arthritis in either group.
CONCLUSION: Medial MAT improved not only anteroposterior stability but also rotational stability in the meniscus-deficient ACL-reconstructed knee. Lateral MAT showed improvements in the anterior drawer and Lachman tests but not in the pivot-shift test or side-to-side difference on Telos stress radiographs in meniscus-deficient ACL-reconstructed knees. Instability and pain are indications for MAT in meniscus-deficient ACL-reconstructed knees.
METHODS: We performed a genome-wide survival analysis of cause-specific death in 24,023 prostate cancer patients (3,513 disease-specific deaths) from the PRACTICAL and BPC3 consortia. Top findings were assessed for replication in a Norwegian cohort (CONOR).
RESULTS: We observed no significant association between genetic variants and prostate cancer survival.
CONCLUSIONS: Common genetic variants with large impact on prostate cancer survival were not observed in this study.
IMPACT: Future studies should be designed for identification of rare variants with large effect sizes or common variants with small effect sizes.
SIGNIFICANCE: We demonstrate that combining large-scale GWA meta-analysis findings across cancer types can identify completely new risk loci common to breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers. We show that the identification of such cross-cancer risk loci has the potential to shed new light on the shared biology underlying these hormone-related cancers. Cancer Discov; 6(9); 1052-67. ©2016 AACR.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 932.
METHODS: 63 patients who underwent remnant-preserving single-bundle PCL reconstruction between 2011 and 2018 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the femoral tunnel position: group A (33 patients with anatomical femoral tunnel) and group H (30 patients with high femoral tunnels). The femoral tunnel was positioned at the center (group A) or upper margin (group H) of the remnant anterolateral bundle. The position of the femoral tunnel was evaluated using the grid method on three-dimensional computed tomography. Clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates were compared between the groups at the 2-year follow-up.
RESULTS: The position of the femoral tunnel was significantly high in group H than in group A (87.4% ± 4.2% versus 76.1% ± 3.7%, p
Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction using anatomic versus low tibial tunnels. We hypothesized that the outcomes of low tibial tunnel placement would be superior to those of anatomic tibial tunnel placement at the 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction.
Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data for patients who underwent remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction between March 2011 and January 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years (N = 63). On the basis of the tibial tunnel position on postoperative computed tomography, the patients were divided into those with anatomic placement (group A; n = 31) and those with low tunnel placement (group L; n = 32). Clinical scores (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity level), range of motion, complications, and stability test outcomes at follow-up were compared between the 2 groups. Graft signal on 1-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans was compared between 22 patients in group A and 17 patients in group L.
Results: There were no significant differences between groups regarding clinical scores or incidence of complications, no between-group differences in posterior drawer test results, and no side-to-side difference on Telos stress radiographs (5.2 ± 2.9 mm in group A vs 5.1 ± 2.8 mm in group L; P = .900). Postoperative 1-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans showed excellent graft healing in both groups, with no significant difference between them.
Conclusion: The clinical and radiologic outcomes and complication rate were comparable between anatomic tunnel placement and low tibial tunnel placement at 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction. The findings of this study suggest that both tibial tunnel positions are clinically feasible for remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction.