Search

HLA-mismatches in hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation are associated with an impaired overall survival (OS). The aim of this study is to explore whether the Predicted Indirectly ReCognizable HLA-Epitopes (PIRCHE) algorithm can be used to identify HLA-mismatches that are related to an impaired transplant outcome. PIRCHE are computationally predicted peptides derived from the patient’s mismatched-HLA molecules that can be presented by donor-patient shared HLA. We retrospectively scored PIRCHE numbers either presented on HLA class-I (PIRCHE-I) or class-II (PIRCHE-II) for a Dutch multicenter cohort of 103 patients who received a single HLA-mismatched (9/10) unrelated donor transplant in an early phase of their disease. These patients were divided into low and high PIRCHE-I and PIRCHE-II groups, based on their PIRCHE scores, and compared using multivariate statistical analysis methods. The high PIRCHE-II group had a significantly impaired OS compared to the low PIRCHE-II group and the 10/10 reference group (HR: 1.86, 95%-CI: 1.02–3.40; and HR: 2.65, 95%-CI: 1.53–4.60, respectively). Overall, PIRCHE-II seem to have a more prominent effect on OS than PIRCHE-I. This impaired OS is probably due to an increased risk for severe acute graft-vs.-host disease. These data suggest that high PIRCHE-II scores may be used to identify non-permissible HLA mismatches within single HLA-mismatched hematopoietic stem-cell transplantations.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is a frequently performed procedure worldwide with a negative perception, leading to reluctance to undergo the procedure. Perceptions could differ depending on the specific indication for the colonoscopy. AIMS: To compare patient satisfaction with the colonoscopy procedure between five different patient groups: inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), familial predisposition for cancer, adenoma/carcinoma surveillance, symptoms suggestive of cancer, and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). METHODS: A prospective questionnaire study was carried out in two regional hospitals and two tertiary teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 797 consecutive patients scheduled for colonoscopy between October 2009 and June 2010, 146 (18%) IBD, 153 (19%) adenoma or carcinoma surveillance, 104 (13%) familial predisposition, 280 (35%) symptoms suggestive of cancer, and 114 (14%) IBS-like symptoms, were included. Two questionnaires were administered: one on the day of the procedure and another 6 weeks after the procedure. The main outcome measurements were embarrassment, pain, burden, most burdensome aspect, and overall level of satisfaction. RESULTS: Patients with IBD and IBS reported significantly more embarrassment and burden from the bowel preparation phase (P=0.040 and 0.018, respectively) and more pain during the colonoscopy procedure (P=0.018). This difference in pain was also observed when adjusting for volume of sedation administered, familiarity with the endoscopist, duration of the colonoscopy, or whether or not an intervention was performed. All patient groups were less satisfied with the procedure at 6 weeks than directly after the colonoscopy; they recalled more embarrassment and burden, but less pain. CONCLUSION: Patient groups, defined by indication for colonoscopy, experience the colonoscopy procedure differently.

1 november 2010, Contains fulltext : 89831.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs can decide upon the type of fecal occult blood test (FOBT): the guaiac FOBT (g-FOBT) or the immunological FOBT (i-FOBT). The effectiveness of any screening program depends not only on the diagnostic performance of the screening test but also on the compliance and general acceptance of the test by the public. Any decision on the type of FOBT for CRC screening should also take acceptation and perception into account. The aim of the present study was to study differences in patient perception between i-FOBT and g-FOBT and differences in perception and participation rates among relevant subgroups in a population based study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Differences in patient perception of i-FOBT and g-FOBT and differences in perception and participation rates among relevant subgroups were investigated (n = 20,623) by sending a short questionnaire to all invited to the first Dutch CRC screening trial. RESULTS: i-FOBT was perceived significantly more favorable than g-FOBT. About 1275 (32%) participants reported the g-FOBT not easy to use, not easy to perform, disgusting or shameful compared to 742 (16%) for the i-FOBT (p < 0.001). The participation rate was significantly higher in those who received i-FOBT compared to the g-FOBT group: 6159 of 10,322 (60%) versus 4839 of 10,301 (47%) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the selection of i-FOBT as the more appropriate test for population screening programs.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most prevalent type of cancer in Europe. Early detection and removal of CRC or its precursor lesions by population screening can reduce mortality. Colonoscopy and computed tomography colonography (CT colonography) are highly accurate exams and screening options that examine the entire colon. The success of screening depends on the participation rate. We designed a randomized trial to compare the uptake, yield and costs of direct colonoscopy population screening, using either a telephone consultation or a consultation at the outpatient clinic, versus CT colonography first, with colonoscopy in CT colonography positives.Methods and design: 7,500 persons between 50 and 75 years will be randomly selected from the electronic database of the municipal administration registration and will receive an invitation to participate in either CT colonography (2,500 persons) or colonoscopy (5,000 persons) screening. Those invited for colonoscopy screening will be randomized to a prior consultation either by telephone or a visit at the outpatient clinic. All CT colonography invitees will have a prior consultation by telephone. Invitees are instructed to consult their general practitioner and not to participate in screening if they have symptoms suggestive for CRC. After providi

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most prevalent type of cancer in Europe. Early detection and removal of CRC or its precursor lesions by population screening can reduce mortality. Colonoscopy and computed tomography colonography (CT colonography) are highly accurate exams and screening options that examine the entire colon. The success of screening depends on the participation rate. We designed a randomized trial to compare the uptake, yield and costs of direct colonoscopy population screening, using either a telephone consultation or a consultation at the outpatient clinic, versus CT colonography first, with colonoscopy in CT colonography positives. Methods and design: 7,500 persons between 50 and 75 years will be randomly selected from the electronic database of the municipal administration registration and will receive an invitation to participate in either CT colonography (2,500 persons) or colonoscopy (5,000 persons) screening. Those invited for colonoscopy screening will be randomized to a prior consultation either by telephone or a visit at the outpatient clinic. All CT colonography invitees will have a prior consultation by telephone. Invitees are instructed to consult their general practitioner and not to participate in screening if they have symptoms suggestive for CRC. After providing informed consent, participants will be scheduled for the screening procedure. The primary outcome measure of this study is the participation rate. Secondary outcomes are the diagnostic yield, the expected and perceived burden of the screening test, level of informed choice and cost-effectiveness of both screening methods. Discussion: This study will provide further evidence to enable decision making in population screening for colorectal cancer.

Contains fulltext : 69072.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: Compared with screening programs for breast and cervical cancer, reported participation rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are low. The effectiveness of a screening program is strongly influenced by the participation rate. The aim of this study was to investigate the main reasons not to participate in a population-based, invitational CRC screening program. METHODS: In the Dutch study program for CRC screening, a random selection of 20 623 persons were invited received a faecal occult blood test. Of the non-participants, 500 were randomly selected and contacted for a standardized telephone interview from November 2006 to May 2007 to document the main reason not to participate. RESULTS: In total, 312 (62%) non-participants could be included for analysis. Most frequently, reported reasons for non-participation were time-related or priority-related (36%), including 'did not notice test in mailbox' (13%) and 'forgot' (8%). Other reasons were health-related issues, such as 'severe illness' (9%), or emotional reasons, such as 'family circumstances' (7%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the reported reasons not to participate reflect low priority for screening. Adding extra instructions and information, and addressing specific concerns through additional interventions should be considered to improve individual decision-making about participation in future CRC population-based screening programs.

Contains fulltext : 70155.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVES: Participation in screening should be the outcome of an informed decision. We evaluated whether invitees in the first Dutch colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme were adequately informed after having received a detailed information leaflet. METHODS: A total of 20,623 subjects aged 50-75 years were invited to the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening programme. All received a detailed information leaflet by mail between May 2006 and January 2007. After two weeks, a reminder letter was sent to all invitees, accompanied by a survey on CRC and screening. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 9594 invitees (47%). Almost all responders (99%) found the leaflet clear and readable. Almost all indicated that CRC can be treated better if found early (99%). Only 20% of the responders answered all knowledge-related answers correctly. Almost half of the responders (47%) believed that a negative FOBT excludes the presence of CRC. Older age and having a positive family member for CRC were correctly identified as risk factors by 80%. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that although an information leaflet was reported as being clear and readable, the information provided in it was not always understood well. This suggests that other educational options should be investigated in order to improve general knowledge of CRC in screening invitees.

Purpose: Pelvic-floor rehabilitation does not provide the same degree of relief in all fecal incontinent patients. We aimed at studying prospectively the ability of tests to predict the outcome of pelvic-floor rehabilitation in patients with fecal incontinence. Materials and methods: Two hundred fifty consecutive patients (228 women) underwent medical history and a standardized series of tests, including physical examination, anal manometry, pudendal nerve latency testing, anal sensitivity testing, rectal capacity measurement, defecography, endoanal sonography, and endoanal magnetic resonance imaging. Subsequently, patients were referred for pelvic-floor rehabilitation. Outcome of pelvic-floor rehabilitation was quantified by the Vaizey incontinence score. Linear regression analyses were used to identify candidate predictors and to construct a multivariable prediction model for the posttreatment Vaizey score. Results: After pelvic-floor rehabilitation, the mean baseline Vaizey score (18, SD±3) was reduced with 3.2 points (p<0.001). In addition to the baseline Vaizey score, three elements from medical history were significantly associated with the posttreatment Vaizey score (presence of passive incontinence, thin stool consistency, primary repair of a rupture after vaginal delivery at childbed) (R2, 0.18). The