top of page

Professional Group

Public·36 members
Easton Rivera
Easton Rivera

Castration Castratrix 1



Purpose: To explore the genomic profiles of Chinese patients with castration sensitive prostate cancer and those with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer via germline and circulating tumor DNA sequencing.




Castration castratrix 1


Download File: https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmiimms.com%2F2u5zdB&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AOvVaw2p5davU6o7bV54eE4ZTQzC



Results: We successfully sequenced DNA from 396 blood samples and 32 matched tumor tissue samples from 396 patients. We observed a similar frequency of deleterious germline alterations between patients with castration sensitive prostate cancer and metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (8.9% vs 9.8%, p >0.05). There was a high consistency (90.9%) between metastatic tumor tissue and matched circulating tumor DNA. Among patients who were circulating tumor DNA positive we observed significantly higher alteration frequencies of CDK12 (27.2% vs 6.4%, p


Conclusions: Through genomic profiling of prostate cancer across clinical states we identified a similar frequency of deleterious germline alterations between patients with castration sensitive prostate cancer and metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. We explored the genomic diversity of androgen receptor and DNA damage repair pathway genes between patients with metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer and metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. Higher alteration frequencies of CDK12 and FOXA1 were observed in our metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer cohort than in the SU2C-PCF cohort. Our findings support the view that circulating tumor DNA sequencing could guide clinical treatment for metastatic prostate cancer.


Background: Current standard of care for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer supplements androgen deprivation therapy with either docetaxel, second-generation hormonal therapy, or radiotherapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of abiraterone plus prednisone, with or without radiotherapy, in addition to standard of care.


Interpretation: Combining androgen deprivation therapy, docetaxel, and abiraterone in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer improved overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival with a modest increase in toxicity, mostly hypertension. This triplet therapy could become a standard of care for these patients.


Chemical castration, sometimes called medical castration, refers to the use of chemicals or drugs to stop sex hormone production. While many people know about this process as a way to stop sex offenders, medical castration is used as a treatment for tumors that feed on sex hormones. The treatment, also called hormone therapy, may be used to treat breast cancer and prostate cancer.


Using anesthesia and/or analgesia during surgical castration prevents pain to the piglet. Still, this can be considered only as an intermediate solution for the short-term because it is still adverse to animal integrity, it is still resource-inefficient and it adds costs. For these reasons, surgical castration with pain relief is not sustainable for the long run in mainstream production, even if it might possibly be a solution for some production systems aiming at very high-quality products. The review papers presented in this special issue focus on the two remaining alternatives: entire males and immunocastration.


Immunocastration is a procedure where a vaccine is injected into the animal that inhibits steroid production by the testes. Immunocastration is effective only after the second vaccination. Before the second vaccination, animals behave and perform the same way as entire males. Immunocastration takes effect gradually after the second vaccination, some traits being affected more rapidly than others (Figure 2). Several weeks are needed for full effectiveness on all affected traits.


Welfare and meat quality issues can be raised by immunocastration, although to a lesser degree than in entire males. Vaccination may result in some stress to the animals, particularly during the second vaccination in heavier animals. This problem becomes more serious where a third vaccination is needed in very heavy animals. The same fat quality problems as in entire males can be encountered, although to a lesser extent. The longer the time interval between second vaccination and slaughter, the more immunocastrates are similar to surgical castrates for meat quality, but also for resource inefficiency. The delay between second immunization and slaughter is a convenient tool to obtain the desired meat quality characteristics achieve with a price to pay in terms of reduced performance and efficiency.


The main challenge for immunocastration in Europe is that most markets are reluctant to accept it, under the assumption that consumers may consider it as not acceptable. The results of a survey conducted within the framework of IPEMA [9] suggest that informed consumers readily accept immunocastration. A still open question is to find a smart way of informing the consumers. More generally which are the reasons why most European pork chains are reluctant to use immunocastration?


Castration of male calves destined for beef production is a common management practice performed in the United States amounting to approximately 15 million procedures per year. Societal concern about the moral and ethical treatment of animals is increasing. Therefore, production agriculture is faced with the challenge of formulating animal welfare policies relating to routine management practices such as castration. To enable the livestock industry to effectively respond to these challenges there is a need for more data on management practices that are commonly used in cattle production systems. The objective of this survey was to describe castration methods, adverse events and husbandry procedures performed by U.S. veterinarians at the time of castration. Invitations to participate in the survey were sent to email addresses of 1,669 members of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners and 303 members of the Academy of Veterinary Consultants.


After partially completed surveys and missing data were omitted, 189 responses were included in the analysis. Surgical castration with a scalpel followed by testicular removal by twisting (calves 90 kg) was the most common method of castration used. The potential risk of injury to the operator, size of the calf, handling facilities and experience with the technique were the most important considerations used to determine the method of castration used. Swelling, stiffness and increased lying time were the most prevalent adverse events observed following castration. One in five practitioners report using an analgesic or local anesthetic at the time of castration. Approximately 90% of respondents indicated that they vaccinate and dehorn calves at the time of castration. Over half the respondents use disinfectants, prophylactic antimicrobials and tetanus toxoid to reduce complications following castration.


The results of this survey describe current methods of castration and associated management practices employed by bovine veterinarians in the U.S. Such data are needed to guide future animal well-being research, the outcomes of which can be used to develop industry-relevant welfare guidelines.


Castration of male calves destined for beef production is one of the most common livestock management practices performed in the United States amounting to approximately 15 million procedures per year [1]. Methods of castration are typically associated with physical, chemical or hormonal damage to the testicles [2]. In most production settings, physical castration methods are the most common. These can be subdivided into procedures involving surgical removal of the testes, or methods that irreparably damage the testicles by interruption of the blood supply using a castration clamp (Burdizzo castration), rubber ring or latex band [3]. Data describing the prevalence of each of these castration methods as performed by veterinarians in the United States are deficient in the published literature.


Societal concern about the moral and ethical treatment of animals is becoming more prevalent [10]. In particular, negative public perception of castration and dehorning is increasing, with calls for the development of practices to relieve pain and suffering in livestock [11]. Production agriculture is faced with the challenge of formulating animal welfare policies relating to routine management practices such as castration. To enable the livestock industry to effectively respond to these challenges there is a need for more data on management practices that are commonly being used in production settings [12]. The objective of this survey was to describe castration methods, adverse events and husbandry procedures performed by U.S. veterinarians at the time of castration. Such data are needed to guide future animal well-being research so that the outcomes can be used to formulate industry-relevant welfare guidelines.


Over 83 percent (157/189) of respondents indicated that in their practices, producers were primarily responsible for performing castrations in perinatal calves less than 90 kg. In contrast, 129 respondents (68%) reported that castration of calves weighing more than 270 kg was conducted by a veterinarian. There were no reports of castrations performed by veterinary technicians (Figure 4).


Surgical castration with a scalpel (108; 57%) followed by testicular removal by either manually twisting the testicles (84; 44%) or use of an emasculator (69/189; 36%) was the most frequently used method (Figure 5). Other methods of surgical castration that were used less often included using a Newberry Knife (61; 32%) or a conventional knife (26; 14%) to incise the scrotum and a Henderson Castration Tool (16; 8%) or surgical ligation (8%) to remove the testicles. Elastrator rubber rings (84; 44%) were the most commonly used non-surgical castration method employed in calves less than 90 kg. This was followed by banders (42; 22%) and the burdizzo clamp (39; 21%).


About

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...

Members

Group Page: Groups_SingleGroup
bottom of page