C.E. Jacobi

Diagnostic hysteroscopy in abnormal uterine bleeding: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Background  This study was conducted to assess the accuracy and feasibility of diagnostic hysteroscopy in the evaluation of intrauterine abnormalities in women with abnormal uterine bleeding.

Maggot Debridement Therapy of Infected Ulcers: Patient and Wound Factors Influencing Outcome – A Study on 101 Patients with 117 Wounds

INTRODUCTION It has been known for centuries that maggots are potent debriding agents capable of removing necrotic tissue and slough. In January 2004, the US Food and Drug Administration decided to regulate maggot debridement therapy (MDT). As it is still not clear which wounds are likely or unlikely to benefit from MDT, we performed a prospective study to gain more insight in patient and wound characteristics influencing outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS In the period between August 2002 and December 2005, patients with infected wounds with signs of gangrenous or necrotic tissue who seemed suited for MDT were enrolled in the present study. In total, 101 patients with 117 ulcers were treated. Most wounds were worst-case scenarios, in which maggot therapy was a treatment of last resort. RESULTS In total, 72 patients (71%) were classified as ASA III or IV. In total, 78 of 116 wounds (67%) had a successful outcome. These wounds healed completely (n = 60), healed almost completely (n = 12) or were clean at least (n = 6) at last follow-up. These results seem to be in line with those in the literature. All wounds with a traumatic origin (n = 24) healed completely. All wounds with septic arthritis (n = 13), however, failed to heal and led in half of these cases to a major amputation. According to a multivariate analysis, chronic limb ischaemia (odds ratio [OR], 7.5), the depth of the wound (OR, 14.0), and older age (>or= 60 years; OR, 7.3) negatively influenced outcome. Outcome was not influenced by gender, obesity, diabetes mellitus, smoking, ASA-classification, location of the wound, wound size or wound duration. CONCLUSIONS Some patient characteristics (i. e. gender, obesity, smoking behaviour, presence of diabetes mellitus and ASA-classification at presentation) and some wound characteristics (i. e. location of the wound, wound duration and size) do not seem to contra-indicate eligibility for MDT. However, older patients and patients with chronic limb ischaemia or deep wounds are less likely to benefit from MDT. Septic arthritis does not seem to be a good indication for MDT.

Risk estimation for healthy women from breast cancer families: New insights and new strategies

Risk estimation in breast cancer families is often estimated by use of the Claus tables. We analyzed the family histories of 196 counselees; compared the Claus tables with the Claus, the BRCA1/2, the BRCA1/2/ models; and performed linear regression analysis to extend the Claus tables with characteristics of hereditary breast cancer. Finally, we compared the Claus extended method with the Claus, the BRCA1/2, and the BRCA1/2/u models. We found 47% agreement for Claus table versus Claus model; 39% agreement for Claus table versus BRCA1/2 model; 48% agreement for Claus table versus BRCA1/2/u model; 37% agreement for Claus extended method versus Claus model; 44% agreement for Claus extended model versus BRCA1/2 model; and 66% agreement for Claus extended method versus BRCA1/2/u model. The regression formula (Claus extended method) for the lifetime risk for breast cancer was 0.08 + 0.40 ∗ Claus Table + 0.07 ∗ ovarian cancer + 0.08 ∗ bilateral breast cancer + 0.07 ∗ multiple cases. This new method for risk estimation, which is an extension of the Claus tables, incorporates information on the presence of ovarian cancer, bilateral breast cancer, and whether there are more than two affected relatives with breast cancer. This extension might offer a good alternative for breast cancer risk estimation in clinical practice.

Maggot debridement therapy: free-range or contained? An in-vivo study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine which method of maggot debridement therapy- free-range or contained-is more effective for wound healing. METHODS: In vivo study of 64 patients with 69 chronic wounds that showed signs of gangrenous or necrotic tissue. Patients were treated with either free-range or contained maggot debridement therapy according to maggot availability, dressing difficulty, and physician preference. RESULTS: Significantly better outcomes were achieved with the free-range technique versus the contained technique (P = .028). With the free-range technique, the mean number of maggot applications and the total number of maggots per treatment were significantly lower than with the contained application technique (P = .028 and P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSION: This clinical in vivo study supports in vitro studies in which containment of maggots was found to reduce the effectiveness of maggot debridement therapy.

Maggot Debridement Therapy in the Palliative Setting

Success rates of Maggot Debridement Therapy (MDT) differ, but range from 70% to 80%. In this article it is argued that wound closure is not always feasible and is not always the aim of the treatment. A patient is described in whom the intent of MDT was not wound closure, but infection removal, reduction of odor, and eventually prevention of a below knee amputation. This succeeded: the pain was diminished, the odor reduced, and the wound showed signs of healing. Still the patient died. In maggot literature, as with other wound treatments, outcome is recorded as closed or as failed. In our opinion, MDT has other indications besides wound closure.

Prevalence of family histories of breast cancer in the general population and the incidence of related seeking of health care

Breast cancer is the most widespread cancer in women in western countries, currently accounting for one third of all cancers in women.1,2 The lifetime risk of developing breast cancer is 9% in the United Kingdom,3 10% in The Netherlands,1 and 12% in the United States.4 About 15%–20% of all cases of breast cancer are thought to be familial,5,6 and about 5%–10% of all breast cancers are attributed to the known breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. 7–9 In most European countries nationwide breast cancer screening programmes are available for women of 50 years and older,10 whereas comprehensive screening for breast cancer in women under the age of 50 has been found cost ineffective. It is widely acknowledged that women who have relatives with breast cancer have an increased risk of developing breast cancer themselves.11,12 Consequently, screening for breast cancer might be advisable and cost effective in the subgroup of women under the age of 50 with a familial predisposition to breast cancer. We therefore started a study on the cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening in women under 50 with a familial predisposition to this cancer. For this study we needed information on the distribution of family histories of breast cancer among women under the age of 50 in the general population who might visit a healthcare doctor with concerns about their family history of breast cancer. Several studies have reported information on the percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer among cases of breast cancer and healthy controls.11 However, no such information is available for the general population. Other researchers have made attempts to gain information on the percentage of women in the general population who might be at an increased risk for …

Breast Cancer Screening, Outside the Population-Screening Program, of Women from Breast Cancer Families without Proven BRCA1/BRCA2 Mutations: a Simulation Study

Purpose: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of mammography screening for women under the age of 50, from breast cancer families without proven BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations, because current criteria for screening healthy women from breast cancer families are not evidence-based. Methods: We did simulation studies with mathematical models on the cost-effectiveness of mammography screening of women under the age of 50 with breast cancer family histories. Breast cancer screening was simulated with varying screening intervals (6, 12, 18, and 24 months) and screening cohorts (starting at ages 30, 35, 40, and 45, and continuing to age 50). Incremental costs of screening were compared with those of women ages 50 to 52 years, the youngest age group currently routinely screened in the nationwide screening program of the Netherlands, to determine cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were done to explore the effects of model assumptions. The cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening for women over the age of 50 was not debated. Results: The most effective screening interval was found to be 12 months, which, however, seems only to be cost-effective in a small group of women under the age of 50 with at least two affected relatives, including at least one affected in the first degree diagnosed under the age of 50. Significantly, early breast cancer screening never seemed to be cost-effective in women with only one affected first-degree or second-degree relative. Conclusion: Annual breast cancer screening with mammography for women under the age of 50 seems to be cost-effective in women with strong family histories of breast cancer, even when no BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation was found in affected family members. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(3):429–36)

Breast cancer screening, outside the population-screening program, of women from breast cancer families without proven BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations: a simulation study

Purpose: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of mammography screening for women under the age of 50, from breast cancer families without proven BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations, because current criteria for screening healthy women from breast cancer families are not evidence-based. Methods: We did simulation studies with mathematical models on the cost-effectiveness of mammography screening of women under the age of 50 with breast cancer family histories. Breast cancer screening was simulated with varying screening intervals (6, 12, 18, and 24 months) and screening cohorts (starting at ages 30, 35, 40, and 45, and continuing to age 50). Incremental costs of screening were compared with those of women ages 50 to 52 years, the youngest age group currently routinely screened in the nationwide screening program of the Netherlands, to determine cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were done to explore the effects of model assumptions. The cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening for women over the age of 50 was not debated. Results: The most effective screening interval was found to be 12 months, which, however, seems only to be cost-effective in a small group of women under the age of 50 with at least two affected relatives, including at least one affected in the first degree diagnosed under the age of 50. Significantly, early breast cancer screening never seemed to be cost-effective in women with only one affected first-degree or second-degree relative. Conclusion: Annual breast cancer screening with mammography for women under the age of 50 seems to be cost-effective in women with strong family histories of breast cancer, even when no BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation was found in affected family members. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(3):429–36)

Breast cancer screening, outside the population-screening program, of women from breast cancer families without proven BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations

Purpose: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of mammography screening for women under the age of 50, from breast cancer families without proven BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations, because current criteria for screening healthy women from breast cancer families are not evidence-based. Methods: We did simulation studies with mathematical models on the cost-effectiveness of mammography screening of women under the age of 50 with breast cancer family histories. Breast cancer screening was simulated with varying screening intervals (6, 12, 18, and 24 months) and screening cohorts (starting at ages 30, 35, 40, and 45, and continuing to age 50). Incremental costs of screening were compared with those of women ages 50 to 52 years, the youngest age group currently routinely screened in the nationwide screening program of the Netherlands, to determine cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were done to explore the effects of model assumptions. The cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening for women over the age of 50 was not debated. Results: The most effective screening interval was found to be 12 months, which, however, seems only to be cost-effective in a small group of women under the age of 50 with at least two affected relatives, including at least one affected in the first degree diagnosed under the age of 50. Significantly, early breast cancer screening never seemed to be cost-effective in women with only one affected first-degree or second-degree relative. Conclusion: Annual breast cancer screening with mammography for women under the age of 50 seems to be cost-effective in women with strong family histories of breast cancer, even when no BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation was found in affected family members. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(3):429–36)