instruction:
In this task, you are given a passage which has a question and the context. You have to generate an answer to the question based on the information present in the context.
question:
Context: The objective of the present study was to investigate the relationship between colorectal and prostate cancer.', 'All Victorian men who developed metachronous colorectal and prostate cancer with the first primary diagnosed between 1982 and 1993 were identified retrospectively from the Victorian Cancer Registry and were followed up to the end of 1995. Analyses were stratified by age group and years of follow up. The cause of death in those men who had prostate cancer following colorectal cancer was determined. The stage of colorectal cancer was compared between men with and without second primary prostate cancer and the grade of prostate cancer was compared with men who did not have a prior colorectal cancer.', 'Men who develop colorectal cancer are at increased risk of prostate cancer, with the greatest risk in men under the age of 65 (Relative risk approximately 2). Men with first primary colorectal cancer are more likely to develop prostate cancer than colorectal second primaries, and men who develop second primary prostate cancer are more likely to die of prostate cancer than colorectal cancer.\Question: Are men with colorectal cancer predisposed to prostate cancer?
answer:
Younger men diagnosed with colorectal cancer are at increased risk of prostate cancer. However, there is no direct evidence that screening for prostate cancer leads to a reduction in mortality. This should be considered when discussing long-term follow up.


question:
Context: The caudal-type homeodomain transcriptional factor CDX2, a member of the caudal-related homeobox gene family, plays a crucial role in the regulation of cell proliferation and differentiation in the gut. Recent studies have reported that expression of CDX2 was an independent marker of outcome in patients with resected adenocarcinoma of ampulla of Vater, gastric cancer, and colon cancer. The clinicopathological significance of CDX2 expression has hitherto remained unclear in biliary tract carcinoma (BTC). The aim of this study was to determine whether CDX2 expression in BTC indicates clinical outcome.', 'The expression of CDX2 was investigated immunohistochemically in surgically resected specimens from 164 patients with BTC, including 74 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas, 49 extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas, and 41 gallbladder carcinomas. The correlation between expression of CDX2 and clinicopathological factors, including overall survival, tumor location, tumor stage, and degree of tumor differentiation, was examined in patients with BTC.', 'In total, 27 of the 164 (16.46%) patients with BTC expressed CDX2. The frequency of CDX2 expression was much higher in the extrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas (22.45%) and gallbladder carcinomas (29.27%) than in the intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas (5.41%), the difference being statistically significant (P = 0.002). Factors influencing survival on univariate analysis were tumor stage (P < 0.00001), degree of tumor differentiation (P = 0.0002), and CDX2 expression (P = 0.01). On multivariate analysis using the Cox proportional hazard model, CDX2 expression and tumor stage were independent prognostic factors in patients with BTC.\Question: Is expression of the caudal-type homeodomain transcription factor CDX2 related to clinical outcome in biliary tract carcinoma?
answer:
Expression of CDX2 was an independent indicator of outcome in patients with BTC in addition to tumor stage and tumor differentiation. The mechanism by which CDX2 expression influences behavior of biliary tract carcinoma needs further investigation.


question:
Context: To determine if bilateral S3 lead placement during the stage I trial period improves the "success" rate for advancing to stage II (permanent) sacral neuromodulator placement.', 'A retrospective chart review of 124 (20 male and 104 female) patients undergoing stage I sacral neuromodulation (InterStim, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota) implantation for the treatment of refractory voiding dysfunction was performed. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on unilateral versus bilateral stage I lead placement in the S3 foramina. Both groups were then evaluated and compared with regards to overall "success", defined as progression from stage I to stage II placement.', 'Fifty-five (44%) patients underwent unilateral stage I lead placement and 69 (56%) received bilateral S3 leads. Successful stage I trials were reported in 32/55 (58%) and 53/69 (76%) of unilateral and bilateral cohorts, respectively (P = 0.03). Five wound infections were reported-2 (3.6%) following unilateral and 3 (4.3%) after bilateral stage I lead placement. No other complications were encountered.\Question: Do unilateral versus bilateral stage I neuromodulator lead placement for the treatment of refractory voiding dysfunction?
answer:

Bilateral stage I neuromodulation trial provides a significantly higher rate of improvement in refractory voiding symptoms to allow for the progress to stage II implantation.