Lucien E. M. Duijm

Emergency treatment of symptomatic or ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: the role of endovascular repair.

Purpose: To report the initial experience with endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in patients with ruptured or symptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) and to compare the results with conventional open surgery. Methods: Between May 1999 and December 2001, 24 patients (21 men; mean age 75 years, range 56–89) with ruptured or symptomatic AAA underwent EVAR using a specially designed aortomonoiliac endograft. Six patients were selected based on device and operator availability; the subsequent 18 patients were treated under a modified management protocol that offered stent-graft repair to all symptomatic AAA patients. The results of this new treatment protocol were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis for the last 8 months of the study. The 30-day outcomes in all patients treated with emergency EVAR were compared with 40 consecutive, contemporaneous patients undergoing open surgery for symptomatic or ruptured AAA. Results: No early conversions to open surgery were performed. Significantly decreased operative blood loss and intensive care stay (p<0.05 for both) were observed in EVAR patients. The mortality rate for EVAR patients was 17% compared to 32% in conventionally treated patients (NS). Among patients with ruptured AAA, the 30-day mortality rates were 24% (4/17) and 41% (12/29) for EVAR and open surgery, respectively (NS). Of 26 unselected patients who were treated prospectively under the modified protocol, the majority (81%, 21/26) had anatomy suitable for endovascular repair; however, only 18 (69%) underwent EVAR owing to a short infrarenal neck (n=2) or device/operator unavailability (n=6). Conclusions: EVAR is a feasible treatment in the majority of patients with ruptured or symptomatic AAA. The 30-day mortality appears to be similar between conventionally treated patients and those undergoing endovascular repair.

Impact of transition from analog screening mammography to digital screening mammography on screening outcome in The Netherlands: a population-based study

BACKGROUND Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) in most breast screening programs. We analyzed the impact of this replacement on the screening outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS The study population consisted of a consecutive series of 60 770 analog and 63 182 digital screens. During a 1-year follow-up, we collected breast imaging reports, biopsy results and surgical reports of all the referred women. RESULTS The referral rate and the cancer detection rate at FFDM were, respectively, 3.0% and 6,6‰, compared with 1.5% (P < 0.001) and 4.9‰ (P < 0.001) at SFM. Positive predictive values of referral and percutaneous biopsies were lower at FFDM, respectively, 21.9% versus 31.6% (P < 0.001) and 42.9% versus 62.8% (P < 0.001). Per 1000 screened women, there was a significant increase with FFDM versus SFM in the detection rate of low- and intermediate-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (+0.7), invasive T1a-c cancers (+0.9), invasive ductal cancers (+0.9), low-grade (+1.1), node-negative invasive cancers (+1.2), estrogen-receptor or progesterone-receptor-positive invasive cancers (respectively, +0.9 and +1.1) and Her2/Neu-negative (+0.8) invasive cancers. Mastectomy rates were stable at 1.1 per 1,000 screens. CONCLUSIONS FFDM significantly increased the referral rate and cancer detection rate, at the expense of a lower positive predictive value of referral and biopsy. Extra tumors detected at FFDM were mostly low-intermediate grade DCIS and smaller invasive tumors, of more favorable tumor characteristics. Mastectomy rates were not increased in the FFDM population, while increased over-diagnosis cannot be excluded.

Trends in incidence and detection of advanced breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in The Netherlands: a population based study

IntroductionThe aims of this study were to determine trends in the incidence of advanced breast cancer at screening mammography and the potential of screening to reduce it.MethodsWe included a consecutive series of 351,009 screening mammograms of 85,274 women aged 50-75 years, who underwent biennial screening at a Dutch breast screening region in the period 1997-2008. Two screening radiologists reviewed the screening mammograms of all advanced screen detected and advanced interval cancers and determined whether the advanced cancer (tumor > 20 mm and/or lymph node positive tumor) had been visible at a previous screen. Interval cancers were breast cancers diagnosed in women after a negative screening examination (defined as no recommendation for referral) and before any subsequent screen. Patient and tumor characteristics were compared between women with advanced cancer and women with non-advanced cancer, including ductal carcinoma in situ.ResultsA total of 1,771 screen detected cancers and 669 interval cancers were diagnosed in 2,440 women. Rates of advanced cancer remained stable over the 12-year period; the incidence of advanced screen-detected cancers fluctuated between 1.5 - 1.9 per 1,000 screened women (mean 1.6 per 1,000) and of advanced interval cancers between 0.8 - 1.6 per 1,000 screened women (mean 1.2 per 1,000). Of the 570 advanced screen-detected cancers, 106 (18.6%) were detected at initial screening; 265 (46.5%) cancers detected at subsequent screening had been radiologically occult at the previous screening mammogram, 88 (15.4%) had shown a minimal sign, and 111 (19.5%) had been missed. Corresponding figures for advanced interval cancers were 50.9% (216/424), 24.3% (103/424) and 25.1% (105/424), respectively. At multivariate analysis, women with a ≥ 30 months interval between the latest two screens had an increased risk of screen-detected advanced breast cancer (OR 1.63, 95%CI: 1.07-2.48) and hormone replacement therapy increased the risk of advanced disease among interval cancers (OR 3.04, 95%CI: 1.22-7.53).ConclusionWe observed no decline in the risk of advanced breast cancer during 12 years of biennial screening mammography. The majority of these cancers could not have been prevented through earlier detection at screening.

Mammography screening in the Netherlands: delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer after breast cancer screening

In a prospective study we determined the frequency and causes of delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer after suspicious screening mammography. We included all women aged 50–75 years who underwent biennial screening mammography in the southern breast cancer screening region of the Netherlands between 1 January 1996 and 1 January 2002. Clinical data, breast imaging reports, biopsy results and breast surgery reports were collected of all women with a positive screening result with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Of 153 969 mammographic screening examinations, 1615 (1.05%) were positive screens. Breast cancer was diagnosed in 770 (47.9%) of 1607 women for whom follow-up information was available, yielding a cancer detection rate of 5.0 per 1000 women screened. Breast cancer was diagnosed within 3 months following a positive screen in 722 cases (93.8%). The diagnostic delay was 4–6, 7–12 and 13–24 months, respectively, in 11 (1.4%), 24 (3.1%) and nine (1.2%) patients. In four other patients (0.5%), breast cancer was diagnosed after a repeat positive screen, resulting in a diagnostic delay of 25–27 months. Reasons for a diagnostic delay >3 months were erroneous mammographic interpretation of suspicious lesions as benign or probably benign lesions (33 cases), benign biopsies from a malignant lesion (10), and omission to biopsy or remove a lesion that was suspicious at breast imaging (4) or core biopsy (1). We conclude that there is room for improvement in the workup of patients with a positive screening mammography, as seen from data in this screening region. To improve the workup, we suggest that other breast cancer screening programmes also identify delay in breast cancer diagnosis after a positive screen.

Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography

PURPOSE To determine the frequency, pathology and causes of a delay in cancer diagnosis in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography. METHODS We included all 290,943 screening mammograms of women aged 50-75 years, who underwent biennial screening mammography between 1st January 1995 and 1st January 2006. During a follow-up period of at least 2 years, clinical data, breast imaging reports, biopsy results and breast surgery reports were collected of all 3513 women with a positive screening result. Tumour stages of breast cancers with a diagnostic delay (defined as breast cancer confirmation more than 3 months following a positive mammography screen) were compared with those of cancers diagnosed within 3 months following referral and with interval cancers. RESULTS A diagnostic delay occurred in 97 (6.5%) of 1503 screen-detected cancers. These 97 false-negative assessments comprised significantly more ductal cancers in situ (26.8%) than did cancers with an adequate assessment after recall (15.5%, p=0.004) or interval cancers (3.7%, p<0.001). Compared with interval cancers, cancers with a false-negative assessment had a more favourable tumour size (T1a-c, 87.3% versus T1a-c, 46.4%; p<0.001) and showed significantly fewer cases with axillary lymph node metastases (22.5% versus 48.2%; p<0.001). Between hospitals having performed the workup of at least 500 referred women each, the percentage of women with a false-negative assessment varied from 5.0% to 9.1% (p=0.03). In these hospitals, improper classification of lesions at diagnostic mammography comprised 64.4% of false-negative assessments. CONCLUSION We found that 6.5% of recalled women experienced a delay in breast cancer diagnosis, with significant performance variations between hospitals.

Impact of the transition from screen-film to digital screening mammography on interval cancer characteristics and treatment : A population based study from the Netherlands

INTRODUCTION In most breast screening programmes screen-film mammography (SFM) has been replaced by full-field digital mammography (FFDM). We compared interval cancer characteristics at SFM and FFDM screening mammography. PATIENTS AND METHODS We included all 297 screen-detected and 104 interval cancers in 60,770 SFM examinations and 427 screen-detected and 124 interval cancers in 63,182 FFDM examinations, in women screened in the period 2008-2010. Breast imaging reports, biopsy results and surgical reports of all cancers were collected. Two radiologists reviewed prior and diagnostic mammograms of all interval cancers. They determined breast density, described mammographic abnormalities and classified interval cancers as missed, showing a minimal sign abnormality or true negative. RESULTS The referral rate and cancer detection at SFM were 1.5% and 4.9‰ respectively, compared to 3.0% (p<0.001) and 6.6‰ (p<0.001) at FFDM. Screening sensitivity was 74.1% at SFM (297/401, 95% confidence interval (CI)=69.8-78.4%) and 77.5% at FFDM (427/551, 95% CI=74.0-81.0%). Significantly more interval cancers were true negative at prior FFDM than at prior SFM screening mammography (65.3% (81/124) versus 47.1% (49/104), p=0.02). For interval cancers following SFM or FFDM screening mammography, no significant differences were observed in breast density or mammographic abnormalities at the prior screen, tumour size, lymph node status, receptor status, Nottingham tumour grade or surgical treatment (mastectomy versus breast conserving therapy). CONCLUSION FFDM resulted in a significantly higher cancer detection rate, but sensitivity was similar for SFM and FFDM. Interval cancers are more likely to be true negative at prior FFDM than at prior SFM screening mammography, whereas their tumour characteristics and type of surgical treatment are comparable.

Outpatient treatment of arterial inflow stenoses of dysfunctional hemodialysis access fistulas by retrograde venous access puncture and catheterization

OBJECTIVE To determine the feasibility of endovascular treatment of inflow stenoses in arteriovenous fistulae (AVFs) through retrograde venous access catheterization. METHODS We included all 22 dysfunctional AVFs with arterial inflow stenoses at access imaging between January 2002 and September 2006. Following retrograde venous access puncture, an interventional radiologist intended to cross the arteriovenous anastomosis and advance a catheter into the aortic arch. After depiction of the complete vascular access tree, angioplasty and/or stent placement was aimed for stenoses with a >50% luminal diameter reduction at digital subtraction angiography (DSA). RESULTS In one radiocephalic AVF, a catheter could not be positioned into the aortic arch after retrograde venous access puncture. DSA depicted 28 inflow stenoses in the remaining 21 patients (11 radiocephalic AVFs and 10 brachiocephalic AVFs). Clinical improvement was obtained in 18 out of 19 patients with a technically successful intervention (<30% residual stenosis after angioplasty or stent placement). Following endovascular therapy, access flow of 12 patients with a low flow access improved from 431 +/- 150 ml/min to 818 +/- 233 ml/min, and four patients with steal symptoms became symptom free. One nonmaturing fistula could be salvaged by angioplasty, and access cannulation problems were solved in another patient following angioplasty. Brachial artery stent placement did not reduce steal symptoms in one case, whereas two patients, in whom stent placement was not thought desirable, showed a >30% residual arterial stenosis after angioplasty. No complications were observed at DSA and endovascular intervention. CONCLUSION Retrograde venous access puncture and catheterization, as an alternative to a potentially more hazardous brachial artery or more invasive femoral artery approach, should be considered for the visualization of the arterial inflow and endovascular treatment of inflow stenoses.

Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: A prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands

PURPOSE To prospectively determine the screening mammography outcome at blinded and non-blinded double reading in a biennial population based screening programme in the south of the Netherlands. METHODS We included a consecutive series of 87,487 digital screening mammograms, obtained between July 2009 and July 2011. Screening mammograms were double read in either a blinded (2nd reader was not informed about the 1st readers decision) or non-blinded fashion (2nd reader was informed about the 1st readers decision). This reading strategy was alternated on a monthly basis. Women with discrepant readings between the two radiologists were always referred for further analysis. During 2 years follow-up, we collected the radiology reports, surgical correspondence and pathology reports of all referred women and interval breast cancers. RESULTS Respectively 44,491 and 42,996 screens had been read either in a blinded or non-blinded fashion. Referral rate (3.3% versus 2.8%, p<0.001) and false positive rate (2.6% versus 2.2%, p=0.002) were significantly higher at blinded double reading whereas the cancer detection rate per 1000 screens (7.4 versus 6.5, p=0.14) and positive predictive value of referral (22% versus 23%, p=0.51) were comparable. Blinded double reading resulted in a significantly higher programme sensitivity (83% versus 76%, p=0.01). Per 1000 screened women, blinded double reading would yield 0.9 more screen detected cancers and 0.6 less interval cancers than non-blinded double reading, at the expense of 4.4 more recalls. CONCLUSION We advocate the use of blinded double reading in order to achieve a better programme sensitivity, at the expense of an increased referral rate and false positive referral rate.

Current techniques for assessment of upper extremity vasculature prior to hemodialysis vascular access creation

Vascular access problems lead to increased patient morbidity and mortality and place a large burden on care facilities, manpower and costs. Autogenous arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) are preferred over arteriovenous grafts (AVG) because of a lower incidence of vascular access related complications. An aggressive increase in the utilization of AVF, however, results in an increased incidence of AVF early failure and non-maturation. Increasing evidence suggests that routine preoperative assessment results in an increased utilization of functioning AVF by better selection of adequate vessels. To date, the reproducibility and standardization of assessment protocols are lacking and assessment of a single morphological parameter has not enabled adequate prediction of postoperative AVF function for individual patients. In this paper, we provide an overview of available diagnostic modalities and parameters that potentially enable better selection of adequate vessels for successful AVF creation.

Detection of Bilateral Breast Cancer at Biennial Screening Mammography in the Netherlands: A Population-based Study

PURPOSE To determine the incidence of bilateral breast cancer at biennial screening mammography and to assess the sensitivity of screening in the detection of bilateral breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS All women gave written informed consent, and the requirement to obtain review board approval was waived. The authors included all 302,196 screening mammograms obtained in 80,466 women aged 50-75 years in a southern breast screening region of the Netherlands between May 1998 and July 2008. During 2-year follow-up, the authors collected clinical data, breast imaging reports, biopsy results, and breast surgery reports from all patients with screening-detected and interval cancers. Two screening radiologists reviewed the screening and clinical mammograms of all bilateral screening-detected and interval cancers for mammographic abnormalities. The radiologists were initially blinded to each others referral opinion, and discrepant assessments were followed by consensus reading. RESULTS Of all women with screening-detected cancer (n = 1555) or interval cancer (n = 585), 52 (2.4%) had bilateral breast cancer. The sensitivity of screening mammography in the detection of bilateral breast cancer was 19% (10 of 52 women; 95% confidence interval: 8.5%, 29.9%). At blinded review, 18 of the 53 tumors not detected at screening (34%) were considered to be missed, 11 (21%) showed nonspecific minimal signs, and 24 (45%) had been mammographically occult at screening. Five women referred for further analysis experienced a 6-17-month delay in the diagnosis of the second breast cancer; in four of those women, the delay resulted from an incorrect Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System classification at clinical mammography. CONCLUSION The sensitivity of screening mammography in the detection of bilateral breast cancer is disappointingly low. Both screening radiologists and clinical radiologists should pay vigorous attention to the contralateral breast to detect bilateral malignancies without diagnostic delay.