Background: There is still no wide agreement regarding the efficacy of the serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRPs), pleural fluid levels of CRP (CRPpf), and their ratio (CRPr) in the discrimination between transudative (Tr) and exudative (Ex) pleural effusions (PEs). Most of the previous studies were conducted on small cohorts, and the role of CRPs in the CRPpf gradient (CRPg) in this discrimination has not been previously reported. The present study aims to assess the diagnostic efficacy of CRPs, CRPpf, CRPg, and CRPr in the discrimination between TrPE and ExPE in a relatively large cohort of patients with PE. Methods: The study population included 492 patients with PE, 210 of them with TrPE and 282 with ExPE. The levels of CRPs and CRPpf were measured, and the CRPg and CRPr were calculated. The values are presented as mean ± SD. Results: The mean levels of CRPs, CRPpf, CRPg, and CRPr of the TrPEs were 11.3 ± 5.7 mg/L, 4.6 ± 2.8 mg/L, 6.7 ± 3.9 mg/L, and 0.40 ± 0.14, respectively, and for the ExPEs, they were 140.5 ± 112.8 mg/L, 52.8 ± 53.2 mg/L, 87.2 ± 72.4 mg/L, and 0.37 ± 0.15, respectively. The levels of CRPs, CRPpf, and CRPg were significantly higher in the ExPEs than in the TrPEs (p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found between the two groups for the levels of CRPr (p = 0.15). The best cut-off value calculated by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for discriminating TrPE from ExPE was for CRPs, 20.5 mg/L with area under the curve (AUC) = 97% and p < 0.0001; for CRPpf, 9.9 mg/L with AUC = 95% and p < 0.0001; and for CRPg, 13.6 mg/L with AUC = 96% and p < 0.0001. Conclusion: CRPs, CRPpf, and CRPg are strong markers for discrimination between TrPE and ExPE, while CRPr has no role in this discrimination.

Objective: Gleason scoring system remains the pathological method of choice for prostate cancer (Pca) grading. However, this method of tumor tissue architectural structure grading is still affected by subjective assessment and might succumb to several disadvantages, mainly inter-observer variability. These limitations might be diminished by determining characteristic cellular heterogeneity parameters which might improve Gleason scoring homogeneity. One of the quantitative tools of tumor assessment is the morphometric characterization of tumor cell nuclei. We aimed to test the relationship between various morphometric measures and the Gleason score assigned to different prostate cancer samples. Materials and Methods: We reviewed 60 prostate biopsy samples performed at a tertiary uro-oncology center. Each slide was assigned a Gleason grade according to the International Society of Urological Pathology contemporary grading system by a single experienced uro-pathologist. Samples were assigned into groups from grades 3 to 5. Next, the samples were digitally scanned (×400 magnification) and sampled on a computer using Image-Pro-Plus software^©. Manual segmentation of approximately 100 selected tumor cells per sample was performed, and a computerized measurement of 54 predetermined morphometric properties of each cell nuclei was recorded. These characteristics were used to compare the pathological group grades assigned to each specimen. Results: Initially, of the 54 morphometric parameters evaluated, 38 were predictive of Gleason grade (p < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, 7 independent parameters were found to be discriminative of different Pca grades: minimum radius shape, intensity—minimal gray level, intensity—maximal gray level, character—gray level (green), character—gray level (blue), chromatin color, fractal dimension, and chromatin texture. A formula to predict the presence of Gleason grade 3 vs. grades 4 or 5 was developed (97.2% sensitivity, 100% specificity). Discussion: The suggested morphometry method based on seven selected parameters is highly sensitive and specific in predicting Gleason score ≥ 4. Since discriminating Gleason score 3 from ≥4 is essential for proper treatment selection, this method might be beneficial in addition to standard pathological tissue analysis in reducing variability among pathologists.

Background: Lung cancer is among the most prevalent and serious forms of cancer, characterized by an allogenic phenotype that presents significant therapeutic challenges. Materials and Methods: We analyzed medical records from January 2022 to August 2023, focusing on individuals aged 18 and older diagnosed with resectable NSCLC who received neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy prior to surgical intervention. Results: The cohort comprised 56 patients, predominantly smokers (95%) and male (74%), with 80% presenting the disease at stage III. Of the participants, 44 underwent surgery, with 95% receiving lobar resection. Clinical assessments via PET-CT imaging revealed an 86% rate of response or disease stabilization, while pathological evaluations showed complete and major pathological responses in 61% of cases. Conclusions: This real-world data supports the safety and efficacy of incorporating immune checkpoint inhibitors in the neoadjuvant treatment of NSCLC, followed by surgical resection.

Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) allows for the detection of driver alterations at high resolution, but the limited number of approved targeted therapies and their high costs have contributed to its limited clinical utilization. We retrospectively compared data of 946 women with ovarian cancer (11.4% were referred to CGP, and 88.6% served as control) to examine whether CGP provides a prognosis benefit. Patient baseline parameters were similar between the groups. Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, disease stage at diagnosis, and recurrence status showed statistically significantly longer median overall survival (mOS) in the CGP group versus the control (73.4 versus 54.5 months, p < 0.001). Fifty-four patients (52.9%) had actionable mutations with potential treatments; twenty-six (48.2%) were treated with matched targeted therapy, showing a trend for longer mOS than the eighty-six women in the CGP group who were not given a suggested treatment (105.5 versus 63.6 months, p = 0.066). None of the genomic alterations predicted metastasis location. CCNE1 amplification and KRAS mutations were associated with shorter mOS. Patients with tumor mutation burden ≥4 mutations/megabase had longer mOS. High loss of heterozygosity was associated with longer mOS (99.0 versus 48.2 months, p = 0.004). CGP testing may provide both prognostic and predictive insights for treatment of patients with ovarian cancer. Prospective studies of larger cohorts are warranted.

Objectives: The role of serum C-reactive protein (CRPs) and pleural fluid CRP (CRPpf) in discriminating uncomplicated parapneumonic effusion (UCPPE) from complicated parapneumonic effusion (CPPE) is yet to be validated since most of the previous studies were on small cohorts and with variable results. The role of CRPs and CRPpf gradient (CRPg) and of their ratio (CRPr) in this discrimination has not been previously reported. The study aims to assess the diagnostic efficacy of CRPs, CRPpf, CRPr, and CRPg in discriminating UCPPE from CPPE in a relatively large cohort. Methods: The study population included 146 patients with PPE, 86 with UCPPE and 60 with CPPE. Levels of CRPs and CRPpf were measured, and the CRPg and CRPr were calculated. The values are presented as mean ± SD. Results: Mean levels of CRPs, CRPpf, CRPg, and CRPr of the UCPPE group were 145.3 ± 67.6 mg/L, 58.5 ± 38.5 mg/L, 86.8 ± 37.3 mg/L, and 0.39 ± 0.11, respectively, and for the CPPE group were 302.2 ± 75.6 mg/L, 112 ± 65 mg/L, 188.3 ± 62.3 mg/L, and 0.36 ± 0.19, respectively. Levels of CRPs, CRPpf, and CRPg were significantly higher in the CPPE than in the UCPPE group (p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found between the two groups for levels of CRPr (p = 0.26). The best cut-off value calculated by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for discriminating UCPPE from CPPE was for CRPs, 211.5 mg/L with area under the curve (AUC) = 94% and p < 0.0001, for CRPpf, 90.5 mg/L with AUC = 76.3% and p < 0.0001, and for CRPg, 142 mg/L with AUC = 91% and p < 0.0001. Conclusions: CRPs, CRPpf, and CRPg are strong markers for discrimination between UCPPE and CPPE, while CRPr has no role in this discrimination.