http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Standard Semen Parameters vs. Sperm Kinematics to Predict Sperm DNA Damage
Aghazarian Artin,Huf Wolfgang,Pflüger Heinz,Klatte Tobias 대한남성과학회 2021 The World Journal of Men's Health Vol.39 No.1
Purpose: The aims of this study were to associate sperm kinematics and standard semen parameters with sperm DNA damage and to evaluate whether the addition of sperm kinematics improve the multivariable prediction of sperm DNA fragmentation compared to standard semen parameters alone. Materials and Methods: We evaluated sperm kinematics, standard semen parameters, and DNA fragmentation index (DFI) in 122 men. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were fitted to evaluate the association of sperm kinematics and standard semen parameters with pathologically damaged sperm DNA (DFI≥26%), and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were calculated for these models. Results: On univariate analyses, average velocity, curvilinear velocity, straight-line velocity, straightness (STR), beat-cross frequency (BCF), and the percentage of progressive motile sperm cells (PPMS) were significantly associated with pathologically damaged sperm DNA. Likewise, among standard semen parameters, sperm concentration, progressive motility, normal morphology, and vitality were found to be linked with sperm DNA damage. On the multivariate analysis, vitality was the strongest predictor of pathologically damaged sperm DNA with an area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of 88.3%. Adding STR, BCF, and PPMS to vitality increased the AUROC to the significant extent of 91.5%. Conclusions: Sperm vitality is the most accurate routine-based laboratory test for the prediction of pathologically damaged sperm DNA, but the addition of sperm kinematics increases its accuracy. Both standard semen parameters and sperm kinematics are complementary in predicting pathologically damaged sperm DNA, and might serve as a new tool to screen for fertile men.
Sebastian L. Hofbauer,Michela de Martino,Christoph Seemann,Nura Zamani,Ilaria Lucca,Andrea Haitel,Shahrokh F. Shariat,Tobias Klatte 대한비뇨의학회 2014 Investigative and Clinical Urology Vol.55 No.8
Purpose: To evaluate the impact of presenting symptoms on survival in a contemporaryseries of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Materials and Methods: We prospectively recorded data on the presenting symptoms,pathology, and RCC-specific survival of 633 consecutive RCC patients who underwentsurgery between 2003 and 2012. Results: Four hundred thirty-three RCCs (68%) were incidental, 111 (18%) were associatedwith local symptoms, and 89 (14%) were associated with systemic symptoms. Among those with incidental RCC, 317 patients (73%) were completely asymptomaticand 116 patients (27%) presented with symptoms not related to the tumor. During amedian follow-up interval of 40 months (interquartile range: 39 to 69 months), 77 patientsdied from RCC. In univariate analyses, symptom classification was significantlyassociated with RCC-specific survival (p<0.001). Patients with incidental RCC andunrelated symptoms tended to have worse prognosis than did patients who were completelyasymptomatic, although this difference was not statistically significant(p=0.057). The symptom classification was associated with advanced TNM stages (p<0.001) and grade (p<0.001). Conclusions: This study confirms that presenting symptoms are associated with tumorcharacteristics and survival. The majority of RCCs are diagnosed incidentally in patientswithout any symptoms or with symptoms not related to RCC. Patients in the lattergroup tend to have a worse prognosis than do patients who are completelyasymptomatic. With the increasing number of incidentally diagnosed RCCs, substratificationof patients with incidental tumors may be prognostically relevant.