| 1. |
- van Hilst, Jony, et al.
(författare)
-
Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA)
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 269:1, s. 10-17
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).Background: Cohort studies have suggested superior short-term outcomes of MIDP vs. ODP. Recent international surveys, however, revealed that surgeons have concerns about the oncological outcomes of MIDP for PDAC.Methods: This is a pan-European propensity score matched study including patients who underwent MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP for PDAC between January 1, 2007 and July 1, 2015. MIDP patients were matched to ODP patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were radical (R0) resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival.Results: In total, 1212 patients were included from 34 centers in 11 countries. Of 356 (29%) MIDP patients, 340 could be matched. After matching, the MIDP conversion rate was 19% (n = 62). Median blood loss [200 mL (60–400) vs 300 mL (150–500), P = 0.001] and hospital stay [8 (6–12) vs 9 (7–14) days, P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (18% vs 21%, P = 0.431) and 90-day mortality (2% vs 3%, P > 0.99) were comparable for MIDP and ODP, respectively. R0 resection rate was higher (67% vs 58%, P = 0.019), whereas Gerota's fascia resection (31% vs 60%, P < 0.001) and lymph node retrieval [14 (8–22) vs 22 (14–31), P< 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Median overall survival was 28 [95% confidence interval (CI), 22–34] versus 31 (95% CI, 26–36) months (P = 0.929).Conclusions: Comparable survival was seen after MIDP and ODP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lymph node retrieval strengthen the need for a randomized trial to confirm the oncological safety of MIDP.
|
|
| 2. |
- Laugwitz, Lucia, et al.
(författare)
-
Newborn screening in metachromatic leukodystrophy – European consensus-based recommendations on clinical management
- 2024
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Paediatric Neurology. - 1090-3798. ; 49, s. 141-154
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD) is a rare autosomal recessive lysosomal storage disorder resulting from arylsulfatase A enzyme deficiency, leading to toxic sulfatide accumulation. As a result affected individuals exhibit progressive neurodegeneration. Treatments such as hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and gene therapy are effective when administered pre-symptomatically. Newborn screening (NBS) for MLD has recently been shown to be technically feasible and is indicated because of available treatment options. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to monitor and manage identified cases. This study aims to establish consensus among international experts in MLD and patient advocates on clinical management for NBS-identified MLD cases. Methods: A real-time Delphi procedure using eDELPHI software with 22 experts in MLD was performed. Questions, based on a literature review and workshops, were answered during a seven-week period. Three levels of consensus were defined: A) 100%, B) 75–99%, and C) 50–74% or >75% but >25% neutral votes. Recommendations were categorized by agreement level, from strongly recommended to suggested. Patient advocates participated in discussions and were involved in the final consensus. Results: The study presents 57 statements guiding clinical management of NBS-identified MLD patients. Key recommendations include timely communication by MLD experts with identified families, treating early-onset MLD with gene therapy and late-onset MLD with HSCT, as well as pre-treatment monitoring schemes. Specific knowledge gaps were identified, urging prioritized research for future evidence-based guidelines. Discussion: Consensus-based recommendations for NBS in MLD will enhance harmonized management and facilitate integration in national screening programs. Structured data collection and monitoring of screening programs are crucial for evidence generation and future guideline development. Involving patient representatives in the development of recommendations seems essential for NBS programs.
|
|
