PubMed · 16270057
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Paroma Basu. 2005. Double jeopardy.. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm1105-1132
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to determine threshold probabilities needed to perform endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and those needed to treat patients suspected of having malignancy and then to compare these thresholds to the pre- and posttest probabilities of malignancy associated with benign, atypical, suspicious, and malignant diagnoses. The goal was to aid endoscopists in making appropriate clinical decisions based on both quantitative and qualitative approaches. METHODS: The study included 633 consecutive patients. A decision tree was constructed to estimate the "treatment" threshold. Using treatment threshold and likelihood ratios, the authors determined the "no-test-test" and "test-treatment" thresholds. Pretest probability was compared with no-test-test and test-treatment thresholds, and the post-EUS-FNA probability of malignancy for each diagnostic category with the treatment threshold. Results were stratified by lesion site, lesion size, and cytopathologist. RESULTS: EUS-FNA has a wide range of pretest probabilities within which it could be performed (0.06-0.98). The posttest probabilities for malignancy, 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.967-0.996) and 0.09 (95% CI, 0.057-0.126), after a positive or a negative result, respectively, were significantly different from the treatment threshold but not those of suspicious, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.767-0.994) diagnosis. The posttest probability of atypical diagnosis, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.407-0.772), was not significantly different from that of pretest probability. Results did not vary by lesion size, organ site, or cytopathologist. CONCLUSION: The authors demonstrated the uncertainty associated with EUS-FNA diagnostic categories and used the threshold approach to qualify quantitatively the decision to perform EUS-FNA and the decision to treat patients suspected of having malignancy.
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is one of the most aggressive primary brain tumors, with a grim prognosis despite maximal treatment. Advancements in the past decades have not significantly increased the overall survival of patients with this disease. The recurrence of GBM is inevitable, its management often unclear and case dependent. In this report, the authors summarize the current literature regarding the natural history, surveillance algorithms, and treatment options of recurrent GBM. Furthermore, they provide brief discussions regarding current novel efforts in basic and clinical research. They conclude that although recurrent GBM remains a fatal disease, the literature suggests that a subset of patients may benefit from maximal treatment efforts. Nevertheless, further research effort in all aspects of GBM diagnosis and treatment remains essential to improve the overall prognosis of this disease.
PURPOSES: The development of a national protocol to formalize the screening of Dutch cancer survivors on potential late cancer treatment effects and the medical terminology used in describing the patient follow up procedures. METHODS: A combined evidence-based and qualitative approach, the Glaser's State of the Art Strategy, was used to reach consensus on how to screen Dutch cancer survivors on late cancer treatment effects. A core working group set up a first proposal of a screening protocol and a handbook of medical term definitions by incorporating available research evidence (1980-2003), clinical expertise and definitions from Dutch medical dictionaries and textbooks. External experts reviewed this proposal in a cycle of two postal and two discussion rounds. The follow-up procedures and medical term definitions described in the draft screening protocol were to be accepted if consensus among external experts was > or =50%. RESULTS: A protocol for screening cancer survivors on late cancer treatment effects was developed describing the follow-up procedures for cancer survivors according to previous therapeutic exposures. Four hundred and twenty one medical terms were used in describing these follow-up procedures. One hundred and fifteen of these terms were classified as multi-interpretable and 101 of these terms were defined. No definitions could be found for the remaining 14 medical terms. CONCLUSIONS: We succeeded in reaching consensus throughout The Netherlands on a protocol to screen cancer survivors on late cancer treatment effects. This protocol is now in use by all Dutch outpatient clinics and warrants that the screening of cancer survivors is consistent across The Netherlands. The screening protocol specifies in detail how screening of cancer survivors should take place and can therefore be used by clinicians who were not involved in the consensus study.