RESUMEN
Only few studies regarding glomerulonephritis, with relatively small numbers of patients, have so far been published from different centers in Saudi Arabia, and have reported conflicting results regarding the patterns, even in the same city. The possible reasons for these differences include the small number of patients in the different studies, differences in the indications for renal biopsies, referral bias, geographical differences, and, sometimes, the non-availability of the necessary diagnostic facilities in the reporting centers. In order to overcome these problems, a registry for glomerulonephropathy was attempted in Saudi Arabia. Six large referral hospitals from different regions of Saudi Arabia participated in this registry. Biopsy reports and clinical information of 1294 renal biopsies were obtained. There were 782 renal biopsies due to glomerulonephritis (GN) accounting for 77.2% of the total biopsies. Five hundred eighty seven (72.6%) were primary glomerulonephritidis. Focal and segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) (21.3%) and membrano-proliferative glomerulonephritis (MPGN) (20.7%) were the most common types found in the primary glomerulonephritidis. Membranous glomerulonephritis (MGN) was present in only 10.6% of the cases. IgA nephropathy was found in 6.5% of the cases. Of the secondary glomerulo-nephritides, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) was the most common indication for biopsy (57.0%) and amyloidosis was found in only 3.2% of the biopsies. In conclusion, FSGS and MPGN were the most common forms of primary glomerulonephritis in adult patients in Saudi Arabia. MGN was not as common as in the western world. SLE was the commonest cause of secondary GN. Amyloidosis was not as common as in other Arab countries. There is a need for more centers from Saudi Arabia to join this national GN registry. Similar registries can be established in different Arab countries, which all would, hopefully, lead to a Pan-Arab GN registry.
RESUMEN
We interviewed 500 adult females without personal history of any type of cancer to assess their awareness and attitude toward various aspects of breast cancer. The mean age (SD) of participants was 31.6 (+/- 8.5) years with a range of 18 to 62 years. After control for level of education, age was not found to be a statistically significant factor that influenced participants' performance. Also not statistically significant was the history of having a relative who had cancer. Conversely, education was the only examined factor that correlated with interviewees' awareness and attitude. Individuals with university or higher education (level III) were more knowledgeable (statistically significant) than uneducated or those with only primary schooling (level I), or those participants who only had intermediate or high school education (level II). On the other hand, the responses of those individuals with education level I generally performed in a fashion similar to those at education level II. The general outcome of this exercise was that unacceptably high proportions of females at all education levels were either wrong or uncertain about some fundamental aspects of breast cancer etiology, risk factors, clinical features, detection methods, and management. Also shown was the relatively high percentages of those, particularly in education level I, who held misconceptions about unconventional management or the complications of conventional methods. We conclude that academic education alone is not enough to assure that recommended health behaviors will be adopted. For establishing cancer health education or cancer prevention and early detection programs, primary care physicians and community cancer centers should work jointly. Brief guidelines are proposed.