Search

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 237310.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 237310.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 219575.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC) is a heterogeneous disease state that is imperfectly understood, and its clinical implications are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on biological aspects, treatment goals, and management of OMPC in daily clinical practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised a modified Delphi method including an explorative survey with various statements and questions, followed by a consensus meeting to discuss and determine the agreement with revised statements and related items. The panel consisted of 34 Dutch representatives from urology, medical and radiation oncology, radiology, nuclear medicine, and basic research. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Agreement was determined with statements (five-point scale). Consensus was defined as >/=75% panel agreement with a statement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Consensus existed for 56% of statements. The panel agreed that OMPC comprises a limited metastatic spread in the hormone-sensitive setting, in both the synchronous and the metachronous presentation. Limited metastatic spread was believed to involve three to five metastases and a maximum of two organs. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan was currently perceived as the most accurate diagnostic imaging modality. Although there was a consensus that targeted treatment of all metastases in OMPC will delay further dissemination of the disease, opinions on specific treatment regimens were divided. Panel outcomes were limited by the lack of scientific evidence on OMPC. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary panel reached a consensus that OMPC is a specific disease state requiring a tailored treatment approach. OMPC registries and clinical studies should focus on both the biology and the clinical parameters in relation to optimal treatment strategies in synchronous and metachronous OMPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: A grou

Contains fulltext : 219575.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC) is a heterogeneous disease state that is imperfectly understood, and its clinical implications are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on biological aspects, treatment goals, and management of OMPC in daily clinical practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised a modified Delphi method including an explorative survey with various statements and questions, followed by a consensus meeting to discuss and determine the agreement with revised statements and related items. The panel consisted of 34 Dutch representatives from urology, medical and radiation oncology, radiology, nuclear medicine, and basic research. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Agreement was determined with statements (five-point scale). Consensus was defined as >/=75% panel agreement with a statement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Consensus existed for 56% of statements. The panel agreed that OMPC comprises a limited metastatic spread in the hormone-sensitive setting, in both the synchronous and the metachronous presentation. Limited metastatic spread was believed to involve three to five metastases and a maximum of two organs. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan was currently perceived as the most accurate diagnostic imaging modality. Although there was a consensus that targeted treatment of all metastases in OMPC will delay further dissemination of the disease, opinions on specific treatment regimens were divided. Panel outcomes were limited by the lack of scientific evidence on OMPC. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary panel reached a consensus that OMPC is a specific disease state requiring a tailored treatment approach. OMPC registries and clinical studies should focus on both the biology and the clinical parameters in relation to optimal treatment strategies in synchronous and metachronous OMPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: A grou

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Oligometastatic prostate cancer (OMPC) is a heterogeneous disease state that is imperfectly understood, and its clinical implications are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on biological aspects, treatment goals, and management of OMPC in daily clinical practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised a modified Delphi method including an explorative survey with various statements and questions, followed by a consensus meeting to discuss and determine the agreement with revised statements and related items. The panel consisted of 34 Dutch representatives from urology, medical and radiation oncology, radiology, nuclear medicine, and basic research. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Agreement was determined with statements (five-point scale). Consensus was defined as >/=75% panel agreement with a statement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Consensus existed for 56% of statements. The panel agreed that OMPC comprises a limited metastatic spread in the hormone-sensitive setting, in both the synchronous and the metachronous presentation. Limited metastatic spread was believed to involve three to five metastases and a maximum of two organs. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan was currently perceived as the most accurate diagnostic imaging modality. Although there was a consensus that targeted treatment of all metastases in OMPC will delay further dissemination of the disease, opinions on specific treatment regimens were divided. Panel outcomes were limited by the lack of scientific evidence on OMPC. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary panel reached a consensus that OMPC is a specific disease state requiring a tailored treatment approach. OMPC registries and clinical studies should focus on both the biology and the clinical parameters in relation to optimal treatment strategies in synchronous and metachronous OMPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: A grou

Contains fulltext : 174807.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: In recent years, the treatment of metastatic melanoma has changed dramatically due to the development of immune checkpoint and mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase inhibitors. A population-based registry, the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), was set up in July 2013 to assure the safety and quality of melanoma care in the Netherlands. This article describes the design and objectives of the DMTR and presents some results of the first 2 years of registration. METHODS: The DMTR documents detailed information on all Dutch patients with unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma. This includes tumour and patient characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, quality of life, healthcare utilisation, informal care and productivity losses. These data are used for clinical auditing, increasing the transparency of melanoma care, providing insights into real-world cost-effectiveness and creating a platform for research. RESULTS: Within 1 year, all melanoma centres were participating in the DMTR. The quality performance indicators demonstrated that the BRAF inhibitors and ipilimumab have been safely introduced in the Netherlands with toxicity rates that were consistent with the phase III trials conducted. The median overall survival of patients treated with systemic therapy was 10.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1-11.1) in the first registration year and 12.7 months (95% CI 11.6-13.7) in the second year. CONCLUSION: The DMTR is the first comprehensive multipurpose nationwide registry and its collaboration with all stakeholders involved in melanoma care reflects an integrative view of cancer management. In future, the DMTR will provide insights into challenging questions regarding the definition of possible subsets of patients who benefit most from the new drugs.

Contains fulltext : 174807.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: In recent years, the treatment of metastatic melanoma has changed dramatically due to the development of immune checkpoint and mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase inhibitors. A population-based registry, the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry (DMTR), was set up in July 2013 to assure the safety and quality of melanoma care in the Netherlands. This article describes the design and objectives of the DMTR and presents some results of the first 2 years of registration. METHODS: The DMTR documents detailed information on all Dutch patients with unresectable stage IIIc or IV melanoma. This includes tumour and patient characteristics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, quality of life, healthcare utilisation, informal care and productivity losses. These data are used for clinical auditing, increasing the transparency of melanoma care, providing insights into real-world cost-effectiveness and creating a platform for research. RESULTS: Within 1 year, all melanoma centres were participating in the DMTR. The quality performance indicators demonstrated that the BRAF inhibitors and ipilimumab have been safely introduced in the Netherlands with toxicity rates that were consistent with the phase III trials conducted. The median overall survival of patients treated with systemic therapy was 10.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1-11.1) in the first registration year and 12.7 months (95% CI 11.6-13.7) in the second year. CONCLUSION: The DMTR is the first comprehensive multipurpose nationwide registry and its collaboration with all stakeholders involved in melanoma care reflects an integrative view of cancer management. In future, the DMTR will provide insights into challenging questions regarding the definition of possible subsets of patients who benefit most from the new drugs.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of clinical imaging of the primary breast tumour post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) related to the post-neoadjuvant histological tumour size (gold standard) and whether this varies with breast cancer subtype. In this study, results of both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) were reported. METHODS: Patients with invasive breast cancer were enrolled in the INTENS study between 2006 and 2009. We included 182 patients, of whom data were available for post-NAC MRI (n=155), US (n=123), and histopathological tumour size. RESULTS: MRI estimated residual tumour size with <10-mm discordance in 54% of patients, overestimated size in 28% and underestimated size in 18% of patients. With US, this was 63%, 20% and 17%, respectively. The negative predictive value in hormone receptor-positive tumours for both MRI and US was low, 26% and 33%, respectively. The median deviation in clinical tumour size as percentage of pathological tumour was 63% (P25=26, P75=100) and 49% (P25=22, P75=100) for MRI and US, respectively (P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, US was at least as good as breast MRI in providing information on residual tumour size post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, both modalities suffered from a substantial percentage of over- and underestimation of tumour size and in addition both showed a low negative predictive value of pathologic complete remission (Gov nr: NCT00314977).

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of clinical imaging of the primary breast tumour post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) related to the post-neoadjuvant histological tumour size (gold standard) and whether this varies with breast cancer subtype. In this study, results of both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) were reported. METHODS: Patients with invasive breast cancer were enrolled in the INTENS study between 2006 and 2009. We included 182 patients, of whom data were available for post-NAC MRI (n=155), US (n=123), and histopathological tumour size. RESULTS: MRI estimated residual tumour size with <10-mm discordance in 54% of patients, overestimated size in 28% and underestimated size in 18% of patients. With US, this was 63%, 20% and 17%, respectively. The negative predictive value in hormone receptor-positive tumours for both MRI and US was low, 26% and 33%, respectively. The median deviation in clinical tumour size as percentage of pathological tumour was 63% (P25=26, P75=100) and 49% (P25=22, P75=100) for MRI and US, respectively (P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, US was at least as good as breast MRI in providing information on residual tumour size post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, both modalities suffered from a substantial percentage of over- and underestimation of tumour size and in addition both showed a low negative predictive value of pathologic complete remission (Gov nr: NCT00314977).

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of clinical imaging of the primary breast tumour post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) related to the post-neoadjuvant histological tumour size (gold standard) and whether this varies with breast cancer subtype. In this study, results of both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) were reported. METHODS: Patients with invasive breast cancer were enrolled in the INTENS study between 2006 and 2009. We included 182 patients, of whom data were available for post-NAC MRI (n=155), US (n=123), and histopathological tumour size. RESULTS: MRI estimated residual tumour size with <10-mm discordance in 54% of patients, overestimated size in 28% and underestimated size in 18% of patients. With US, this was 63%, 20% and 17%, respectively. The negative predictive value in hormone receptor-positive tumours for both MRI and US was low, 26% and 33%, respectively. The median deviation in clinical tumour size as percentage of pathological tumour was 63% (P25=26, P75=100) and 49% (P25=22, P75=100) for MRI and US, respectively (P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, US was at least as good as breast MRI in providing information on residual tumour size post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy. However, both modalities suffered from a substantial percentage of over- and underestimation of tumour size and in addition both showed a low negative predictive value of pathologic complete remission (Gov nr: NCT00314977).