8%) by needle biopsy and prostatectomy, of which 9 (1%) were atypical and 2 (0.2%) were benign upon review. A major discrepancy in Gleason score was present in 124 cases (14.7%), of which 57 (46.0%) were upgraded and 67 (54%) were downgraded. Of cases with a final Gleason score

of 6, 8.4% were originally diagnosed as 7 (7.8%) or 8-10 (0.6%), 21% with a final score of 7 had an original score of 6 (13.2%) or 8-10 (7.8%) and 21 of 61 (34%) with a score of 8-10 were originally diagnosed as 7 or less. There were 80 cases (64.5%) of disagreement between scores 6 and 7. Of the 777 cases with the positive core number in each report 71 (9.1%) had discrepancies. After review the positive core number was higher in 45 cases (63.4%) and lower in 26 (36.6%).

We noted a significant difference in the highest cancer percent in a core in 76 of 844 evaluable cases (9%) in which BIX 01294 inhibitor cancer Navitoclax Apoptosis inhibitor was originally underestimated. In 60 of 76 cases (78.9%) cancer discontinuously involved the core on review. Review revealed perineural invasion in 138 of 844 cases (16.3%) that was not originally reported in 37 of 138 (26.8%). In 4 cases review showed extraprostatic extension on needle biopsy.\n\nConclusions: Compared to a smaller study more than 10 years ago at our institution the rate of unconfirmed cancer was identical (1.2%). To our knowledge this is the first study to analyze concordance upon review of the number of positive cores and maximum percent positive in a core (each discrepancy 9%). In a few cases mandatory second opinion on prostate needle biopsy results in significant differences that may affect therapy.”
“Nickel sensitivity is common and selleck products increasing in prevalence. This review discusses nickel sensitivity and its association with body piercing and other environmental factors, occupational relevance, and potential

implications for implantable metal medical devices. In addition, current European legislation that limits the release of nickel from jewelry is highlighted and an argument for similar legislation elsewhere is presented.”
“Objectives: To evaluate the clinical presentation and comorbidities of hypertensive crisis in our own population.\n\nMethods: In this cohort based study, we investigate the clinical presentation and comorbidities of hypertensive crisis by evaluating the data collected between January and April 2009 We included 154 patients admitted with systolic and diastolic blood pressure of >179 mm Hg and >119 mm Hg (based on the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure criteria) in the Department of Internal Medicine, Salmaniya Medical Complex, Kingdom of Bahrain\n\nResults: In the study population, 64.3% had hypertensive urgency (blood pressure elevation without end organ damage) and 35 7% had hypertensive emergency (blood pressure elevation with end organ damage).