Association of Psychiatric History and Type D Personality with Symptoms of Anxiety, Depression, and Health Status Prior to ICD Implantation

BACKGROUND: Personality factors and psychiatric history may help explain individual differences in risk of psychological morbidity and poor health outcomes in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). PURPOSE: We examined associations between previous anxiety and depressive disorder, type D personality, anxiety or depressive symptoms, and health status in ICD patients prior to ICD implantation. METHOD: Patients (N = 278; 83 % men; mean age = 62.2 years ±11) receiving a first ICD from September 2007 through April 2010 at the Medisch Spectrum Twente, The Netherlands completed validated questionnaires before implantation assessing type D personality (14-item Type D Scale), anxiety and depressive symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and health status (36-item Short Form Health Survey). History of anxiety or depressive disorder was assessed with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview structural interview. RESULTS: Previous anxiety or depressive disorder was prevalent in 8 and 19 % of patients, respectively. Type D personality was present in 21 %, depressive symptoms in 15 %, and anxiety in 24 %. In adjusted analyses, type D personality was a dominant correlate of previous depressive disorder (odds ratio (OR) 6.2, p < 0.001) and previous anxiety disorder (OR 3.9, p = 0.004). Type D personality (OR 4.0, p < 0.001), age (OR 1.03, p = 0.043), and gender (OR 2.5, p = 0.013) were associated with anxiety symptoms at baseline. Type D personality (OR 5.9. p < 0.001) was also associated with increased depressive symptoms at baseline. Heart failure and type D personality were related to poorer health status. CONCLUSION: In ICD patients, prior to ICD implantation, a previous anxiety or depressive disorder, type D personality, and anxiety and depressive symptoms were associated with poorer health status. Type D personality was also independently associated with increased anxiety and depression symptoms

BRCA1/2 testing rates in epithelial ovarian cancer:A focus on the untested patients

Background: Since 2015, Dutch guidelines have recommended BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant testing for all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Recently, recommendations shifted from germline testing to the tumor-first approach, in which tumor tissue is tested first, and subsequent germline testing is performed only in those with BRCA1/2 tumor pathogenic variants or a positive family history. Data on testing rates and on characteristics of patients missing out on testing remain scarce.Objective: To evaluate BRCA1/2 testing rates in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and compare testing rates of germline testing (performed from 2015 until mid-2018) versus tumor-first testing (implemented mid-2018).Methods: A consecutive series of 250 patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 2016 and 2019 was included from the OncoLifeS data-biobank of the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. Testing rates were analyzed for the overall study population and for germline testing (period I) and tumor-first testing (period II) separately. Characteristics of tested and untested patients were compared and predictors for receiving testing were assessed with multivariable logistic regression.Results: Median age was 67.0 years (IQR 59.0-73.0) and 173 (69.2%) patients were diagnosed with high-grade serous carcinoma. Overall, 201 (80.4%) patients were tested. In period I, 137/171 (80.1%) patients were tested and in period II this was 64/79 (81.0%). Patients with non-high-grade serous carcinoma were significantly less likely to receive BRCA1/2 testing than patients with high-grade serous carcinoma (OR=0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46, p&lt;0.001).Conclusions: The results show that BRCA1/2 testing rates are suboptimal and suggest that clinicians may not be choosing to test patients with epithelial ovarian cancer with non-high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma, although guidelines recommend BRCA1/2 testing in all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Suboptimal testing rates limit optimization of care for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and counseling of potentially affected relatives.</p

BRCA1/2 testing rates in epithelial ovarian cancer:A focus on the untested patients

Background: Since 2015, Dutch guidelines have recommended BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant testing for all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Recently, recommendations shifted from germline testing to the tumor-first approach, in which tumor tissue is tested first, and subsequent germline testing is performed only in those with BRCA1/2 tumor pathogenic variants or a positive family history. Data on testing rates and on characteristics of patients missing out on testing remain scarce.Objective: To evaluate BRCA1/2 testing rates in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and compare testing rates of germline testing (performed from 2015 until mid-2018) versus tumor-first testing (implemented mid-2018).Methods: A consecutive series of 250 patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 2016 and 2019 was included from the OncoLifeS data-biobank of the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. Testing rates were analyzed for the overall study population and for germline testing (period I) and tumor-first testing (period II) separately. Characteristics of tested and untested patients were compared and predictors for receiving testing were assessed with multivariable logistic regression.Results: Median age was 67.0 years (IQR 59.0-73.0) and 173 (69.2%) patients were diagnosed with high-grade serous carcinoma. Overall, 201 (80.4%) patients were tested. In period I, 137/171 (80.1%) patients were tested and in period II this was 64/79 (81.0%). Patients with non-high-grade serous carcinoma were significantly less likely to receive BRCA1/2 testing than patients with high-grade serous carcinoma (OR=0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46, p&lt;0.001).Conclusions: The results show that BRCA1/2 testing rates are suboptimal and suggest that clinicians may not be choosing to test patients with epithelial ovarian cancer with non-high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma, although guidelines recommend BRCA1/2 testing in all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Suboptimal testing rates limit optimization of care for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and counseling of potentially affected relatives.</p

BRCA1/2 testing rates in epithelial ovarian cancer:A focus on the untested patients

Background: Since 2015, Dutch guidelines have recommended BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant testing for all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Recently, recommendations shifted from germline testing to the tumor-first approach, in which tumor tissue is tested first, and subsequent germline testing is performed only in those with BRCA1/2 tumor pathogenic variants or a positive family history. Data on testing rates and on characteristics of patients missing out on testing remain scarce.Objective: To evaluate BRCA1/2 testing rates in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and compare testing rates of germline testing (performed from 2015 until mid-2018) versus tumor-first testing (implemented mid-2018).Methods: A consecutive series of 250 patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 2016 and 2019 was included from the OncoLifeS data-biobank of the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. Testing rates were analyzed for the overall study population and for germline testing (period I) and tumor-first testing (period II) separately. Characteristics of tested and untested patients were compared and predictors for receiving testing were assessed with multivariable logistic regression.Results: Median age was 67.0 years (IQR 59.0-73.0) and 173 (69.2%) patients were diagnosed with high-grade serous carcinoma. Overall, 201 (80.4%) patients were tested. In period I, 137/171 (80.1%) patients were tested and in period II this was 64/79 (81.0%). Patients with non-high-grade serous carcinoma were significantly less likely to receive BRCA1/2 testing than patients with high-grade serous carcinoma (OR=0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46, p&lt;0.001).Conclusions: The results show that BRCA1/2 testing rates are suboptimal and suggest that clinicians may not be choosing to test patients with epithelial ovarian cancer with non-high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma, although guidelines recommend BRCA1/2 testing in all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Suboptimal testing rates limit optimization of care for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and counseling of potentially affected relatives.</p

BRCA1/2 testing rates in epithelial ovarian cancer:A focus on the untested patients

Background: Since 2015, Dutch guidelines have recommended BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant testing for all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Recently, recommendations shifted from germline testing to the tumor-first approach, in which tumor tissue is tested first, and subsequent germline testing is performed only in those with BRCA1/2 tumor pathogenic variants or a positive family history. Data on testing rates and on characteristics of patients missing out on testing remain scarce.Objective: To evaluate BRCA1/2 testing rates in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and compare testing rates of germline testing (performed from 2015 until mid-2018) versus tumor-first testing (implemented mid-2018).Methods: A consecutive series of 250 patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 2016 and 2019 was included from the OncoLifeS data-biobank of the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. Testing rates were analyzed for the overall study population and for germline testing (period I) and tumor-first testing (period II) separately. Characteristics of tested and untested patients were compared and predictors for receiving testing were assessed with multivariable logistic regression.Results: Median age was 67.0 years (IQR 59.0-73.0) and 173 (69.2%) patients were diagnosed with high-grade serous carcinoma. Overall, 201 (80.4%) patients were tested. In period I, 137/171 (80.1%) patients were tested and in period II this was 64/79 (81.0%). Patients with non-high-grade serous carcinoma were significantly less likely to receive BRCA1/2 testing than patients with high-grade serous carcinoma (OR=0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46, p&lt;0.001).Conclusions: The results show that BRCA1/2 testing rates are suboptimal and suggest that clinicians may not be choosing to test patients with epithelial ovarian cancer with non-high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma, although guidelines recommend BRCA1/2 testing in all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Suboptimal testing rates limit optimization of care for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and counseling of potentially affected relatives.</p

BRCA1/2 testing rates in epithelial ovarian cancer:A focus on the untested patients

Background: Since 2015, Dutch guidelines have recommended BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant testing for all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Recently, recommendations shifted from germline testing to the tumor-first approach, in which tumor tissue is tested first, and subsequent germline testing is performed only in those with BRCA1/2 tumor pathogenic variants or a positive family history. Data on testing rates and on characteristics of patients missing out on testing remain scarce.Objective: To evaluate BRCA1/2 testing rates in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and compare testing rates of germline testing (performed from 2015 until mid-2018) versus tumor-first testing (implemented mid-2018).Methods: A consecutive series of 250 patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 2016 and 2019 was included from the OncoLifeS data-biobank of the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. Testing rates were analyzed for the overall study population and for germline testing (period I) and tumor-first testing (period II) separately. Characteristics of tested and untested patients were compared and predictors for receiving testing were assessed with multivariable logistic regression.Results: Median age was 67.0 years (IQR 59.0-73.0) and 173 (69.2%) patients were diagnosed with high-grade serous carcinoma. Overall, 201 (80.4%) patients were tested. In period I, 137/171 (80.1%) patients were tested and in period II this was 64/79 (81.0%). Patients with non-high-grade serous carcinoma were significantly less likely to receive BRCA1/2 testing than patients with high-grade serous carcinoma (OR=0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46, p&lt;0.001).Conclusions: The results show that BRCA1/2 testing rates are suboptimal and suggest that clinicians may not be choosing to test patients with epithelial ovarian cancer with non-high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma, although guidelines recommend BRCA1/2 testing in all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Suboptimal testing rates limit optimization of care for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and counseling of potentially affected relatives.</p

BRCA1/2 testing rates in epithelial ovarian cancer:A focus on the untested patients

Background: Since 2015, Dutch guidelines have recommended BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant testing for all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Recently, recommendations shifted from germline testing to the tumor-first approach, in which tumor tissue is tested first, and subsequent germline testing is performed only in those with BRCA1/2 tumor pathogenic variants or a positive family history. Data on testing rates and on characteristics of patients missing out on testing remain scarce.Objective: To evaluate BRCA1/2 testing rates in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and compare testing rates of germline testing (performed from 2015 until mid-2018) versus tumor-first testing (implemented mid-2018).Methods: A consecutive series of 250 patients diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer between 2016 and 2019 was included from the OncoLifeS data-biobank of the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. Testing rates were analyzed for the overall study population and for germline testing (period I) and tumor-first testing (period II) separately. Characteristics of tested and untested patients were compared and predictors for receiving testing were assessed with multivariable logistic regression.Results: Median age was 67.0 years (IQR 59.0-73.0) and 173 (69.2%) patients were diagnosed with high-grade serous carcinoma. Overall, 201 (80.4%) patients were tested. In period I, 137/171 (80.1%) patients were tested and in period II this was 64/79 (81.0%). Patients with non-high-grade serous carcinoma were significantly less likely to receive BRCA1/2 testing than patients with high-grade serous carcinoma (OR=0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46, p&lt;0.001).Conclusions: The results show that BRCA1/2 testing rates are suboptimal and suggest that clinicians may not be choosing to test patients with epithelial ovarian cancer with non-high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma, although guidelines recommend BRCA1/2 testing in all patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Suboptimal testing rates limit optimization of care for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and counseling of potentially affected relatives.</p

Phenotypic characterization of patients with deletions in the 3’-flanking SHOX region

Context. Leri–Weill dyschondrosteosis is a clinically variable skeletal dysplasia, caused by SHOX deletion or mutations, or a deletion of enhancer sequences in the 3’-flanking region. Recently, a 47.5 kb recurrent PAR1 deletion downstream of SHOX was reported, but its frequency and clinical importance are still unknown.Objective. This study aims to compare the clinical features of different sizes of deletions in the 3’-flanking SHOX region in order to determine the relevance of the regulatory sequences in this region.Design. We collected DNA from 28 families with deletions in the 3’-PAR1 region. Clinical data were available from 23 index patients and 21 relatives.Results. In 9 families (20 individuals) a large deletion ( ∼ 200–900 kb) was found and in 19 families (35 individuals) a small deletion was demonstrated, equal to the recently described 47.5 kb PAR1 deletion. Median height SDS, sitting height/height ratio SDS and the presence of Madelung deformity in patients with the 47.5 kb deletion were not significantly different from patients with larger deletions. The index patients had a median height SDS which was slightly lower than in their affected family members (p = 0.08). No significant differences were observed between male and female patients.Conclusions. The phenotype of patients with deletions in the 3’-PAR1 region is remarkably variable. Height, sitting height/height ratio and the presence of Madelung deformity were not significantly different between patients with the 47.5 kb recurrent PAR1 deletion and those with larger deletions, suggesting that this enhancer plays an important role in SHOX expression

National external quality assessment for next-generation sequencing-based diagnostics of primary immunodeficiencies

Dutch genome diagnostic centers (GDC) use next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based diagnostic applications for the diagnosis of primary immunodeficiencies (PIDs). The interpretation of genetic variants in many PIDs is complicated because of the phenotypic and genetic heterogeneity. To analyze uniformity of variant filtering, interpretation, and reporting in NGS-based diagnostics for PID, an external quality assessment was performed. Four main Dutch GDCs participated in the quality assessment. Unannotated variant call format (VCF) files of two PID patient analyses per laboratory were distributed among the four GDCs, analyzed, and interpreted (eight analyses in total). Variants that would be reported to the clinician and/or advised for further investigation were compared between the centers. A survey measuring the experiences of clinical laboratory geneticists was part of the study. Analysis of samples with confirmed diagnoses showed that all centers reported at least the variants classified as likely pathogenic (LP) or pathogenic (P) variants in all samples, except for variants in two genes (PSTPIP1 and BTK). The absence of clinical information complicated correct classification of variants. In this external quality assessment, the final interpretation and conclusions of the genetic analyses were uniform among the four participating genetic centers. Clinical and immunological data provided by a medical specialist are required to be able to draw proper conclusions from genetic data