Frank G. J. Kallenberg
University of Amsterdam
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Frank G. J. Kallenberg.
European Journal of Human Genetics | 2016
Jorien Veldwijk; Mattijs S. Lambooij; Frank G. J. Kallenberg; Henk J van Kranen; Annelien L. Bredenoord; Evelien Dekker; Henriette A. Smit; G. Ardine de Wit
This study explored individuals’ preferences for genetic testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) in a screening situation and their willingness to participate in genetic testing for Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), and familial colorectal cancer (FCC). For that purpose, 532 respondents aged 55–65 years completed a Discrete Choice Experiment. Using panel latent class models, the preferences for two screening situation characteristics (the probability of being genetically predisposed and the probability of developing CRC) and screening test characteristics (the frequency of preventive colonoscopies and CRC survival) were estimated. Based on these preferences, respondents’ willingness to participate in the three screening initiatives was estimated. Lower-educated respondents and respondents who express serious anxiety and worries found colonoscopy frequency and the probability of developing CRC relatively more important and survival relatively less important compared with higher-educated respondents and respondents who express no anxiety and worries. These differences in preferences resulted in opposite preferences for participation in FCC and FAP screening. In conclusion, the general population is willing to participate in genetic screening for CRC. If individuals are suspected of genetic or familial CRC, they should at least be informed about their increased risk of being genetically predisposed and about the importance of participating in all preventive follow-up colonoscopies in order to maximize survival.
Endoscopy | 2016
Frank G. J. Kallenberg; Barbara A. Bastiaansen; Evelien Dekker
Background and study aims Guidelines recommend surveillance endoscopy with both forward- and side-viewing endoscopes to identify duodenal and ampullary adenomas in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). We hypothesized that both the duodenum and the ampulla of Vater can be completely visualized during cap-assisted forward-viewing endoscopy. Patients and methods A total of 40 patients with FAP underwent forward-viewing endoscopy with a short cap attached to the tip of the gastroscope, with the aim of visualizing both the duodenum and the ampulla of Vater. If unsuccessful, the procedure was followed by a side-viewing endoscopy. Adverse events were reported. Results The duodenum, including the ampulla of Vater, was completely visualized using the cap in 38/40 patients (95.0 %). The ampulla could not be visualized using the cap in two patients, both of whom underwent additional side-viewing endoscopy, which was successful. No adverse events occurred. Conclusions This study showed that cap-assisted endoscopy can be used effectively and safely to visualize both the duodenum and the ampulla of Vater in patients with FAP. This practice might reduce burden, time, and costs of an additional side-viewing endoscopy.
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics | 2016
Frank G. J. Kallenberg; Jasper L.A. Vleugels; T. R. de Wijkerslooth; Inge Stegeman; Esther M. Stoop; M E van Leerdam; E. J. Kuipers; Patrick M. Bossuyt; Evelien Dekker
Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has suboptimal sensitivity for detecting advanced neoplasia. To increase its performance, FIT could be combined with other risk factors.
Diseases of The Colon & Rectum | 2017
Frank G. J. Kallenberg; Barbara A. Bastiaansen; C. Yung Nio; Maarten R. Soeters; Marja A. Boermeester; Cora M. Aalfs; Patrick M. Bossuyt; Evelien Dekker
BACKGROUND: The reported proportion of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis who have adrenal lesions varies between 7% and 13% compared with 4% in the general population; the prevalence of adrenal lesions in patients with attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis and MUTYH-associated polyposis is unknown. Data on the clinical relevance and clinical course are limited. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to report on the frequency, characteristics, and progression of adrenal lesions in polyposis patients. DESIGN: This was a historical cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was performed at the Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam. PATIENTS: All of the patients with familial adenomatous polyposis, attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis, and MUTYH-associated polyposis were included. Medical charts and imaging reports were analyzed for data on adrenal lesions. A radiologist reassessed all of the images. Patients had not routinely been screened for adrenal lesions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The frequency, characteristics, and progression of adrenal lesions in patients with polyposis who underwent abdominal imaging were assessed. Findings were compared with a reference. RESULTS: A total of 39 adrenal lesions were identified in 23 (26%) of 90 patients with familial adenomatous polyposis, 2 (18%) of 11 with attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis, and 5 (24%) of 21 with MUTYH-associated polyposis. Mean age at time of detection was 50.7 years (range, 17.1–83.3 y). Median lesion size at baseline was 1.4 cm (range, 1.0–5.0 cm) versus 1.7 cm (range, 1.0–5.7 cm) after a median of 3.5 years (range, 1.0–11.4 y). Two patients were diagnosed with a hyperfunctioning lesion, and 4 underwent adrenalectomy: 3 lesions appeared benign, and 1 was oncocytic of uncertain malignant potential. The OR for detecting at least 1 lesion in a patient with polyposis versus reference was 6.2 (95% CI, 3.2–12.3), with no significant differences in ORs among the 3 syndromes. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: Adrenal lesions are frequent in patients with polyposis who undergo abdominal imaging. They appear to follow a benign and slowly progressive course and are mostly nonhyperfunctioning. See Abstract Video at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A323.
Familial Cancer | 2018
Frank G. J. Kallenberg; Cora M. Aalfs; C. A. Wientjes; A. C. Depla; M. W. Mundt; Patrick M. Bossuyt; Evelien Dekker
Identifying a hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndrome or familial CRC (FCC) in a CRC patient may enable the patient and relatives to enroll in surveillance protocols. As these individuals are insufficiently recognized, we evaluated an online family history tool, consisting of a patient-administered family history questionnaire and an automated genetic referral recommendation, to facilitate the identification of patients with hereditary CRC or FCC. Between 2015 and 2016, all newly diagnosed CRC patients in five Dutch outpatient clinics, were included in a trial with a stepped-wedge design, when first visiting the clinic. Each hospital continued standard procedures for identifying patients at risk (control strategy) and then, after a predetermined period, switched to offering the family history tool to included patients (intervention strategy). After considering the tool-based recommendation, the health care provider could decide on and arrange the referral. Primary outcome was the relative number of CRC patients who received screening or surveillance recommendations for themselves or relatives because of hereditary CRC or FCC, provided by genetic counseling. The intervention effect was evaluated using a logit-linear model. With the tool, 46/489 (9.4%) patients received a screening or surveillance recommendation, compared to 35/292 (12.0%) in the control group. In the intention-to-treat-analysis, accounting for time trends and hospital effects, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.58). A family history tool does not necessarily assist in increasing the number of CRC patients and relatives enrolled in screening or surveillance recommendations for hereditary CRC or FCC. Other interventions should be considered.
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology | 2016
Sarah-Jane Walton; Frank G. J. Kallenberg; Susan K. Clark; Evelien Dekker; Andrew Latchford
Familial Cancer | 2015
Frank G. J. Kallenberg; Joep E. G. IJspeert; Patrick M. Bossuyt; Cora M. Aalfs; Evelien Dekker
BMC Cancer | 2016
Lisanne S. Rigter; Frank G. J. Kallenberg; Barbara A. Bastiaansen; Theo A. van Os; Floor van Leeuwen; Monique E. van Leerdam; Evelien Dekker
International Choice Modelling Conference 2017 | 2017
J. Veldwijk; Karin Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Ulrik Kihlbom; Sophie Langenskiöld; Evelien Dekker; Frank G. J. Kallenberg; Ardine de Wit; Mattijs S. Lambooij
Diseases of The Colon & Rectum | 2017
Frank G. J. Kallenberg; Andrew Latchford; Nikki C. Lips; Cora M. Aalfs; Barbara A. Bastiaansen; Susan K. Clark; Evelien Dekker