Early detection of progressive adolescent idiopathic scoliosis : a severity index

Study Design. Early detection of progressive adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) was assessed based on 3D quantification of the deformity. Objective. Based on 3D quantitative description of scoliosis curves, the aim is to assess a specific deformation pattern that could be an early detectable severity index for progressive AIS. Summary of Background Data. Early detection of progressive scoliosis is important for adapted treatment to limit progression. However, progression risk assessment is mainly based on the follow up, waiting for signs of rapid progression that generally occur during the growth peak. Methods. 65 mild scoliosis (16 boys, 49 girls, Cobb Angle between 10 and 20°) with a Risser between 0 and 2 were followed from their first exam until a decision was made by the clinician, either considering the spine as stable at the end of growth (26 patients) or planning to brace because of progression (39 patients). Calibrated biplanar X-rays were performed and 3D reconstructions of the spine allowed to calculate six local parameters related to main curve deformity. For progressive curve 3D phenotype assessment, data were compared to those previously assessed for 30 severe scoliosis (Cobb Angle > 35°), 17 scoliosis before brace (Cobb Angle > 29°) and 53 spines of non-scoliosis subjects. A predictive discriminant analysis was performed to assess similarity of mild scoliosis curves either to those of scoliosis or non-scoliosis spines, yielding a severity index (S-index). S-index value at first exam was compared to clinical outcome. Results. At the first exam, 53 out of 65 predictions (82%) were in agreement with actual clinical outcome. 89 % of the curves that were predicted as progressive proved accurate Conclusion. Although still requiring large scale validation, results are promising for early detection of progressive curves

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer - Update 2023∗

In 2018, the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Given the large body of new evidence addressing the management of cervical cancer, the three sister societies jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines. The update includes new topics to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in cervical cancer.To serve on the expert panel (27 experts across Europe) ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in managing patients with cervical cancer and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, national and international engagement, profile, and dedication to the topics addressed. To ensure the statements were evidence based, new data identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 155 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives.These updated guidelines are comprehensive and cover staging, management, follow-up, long-term survivorship, quality of life and palliative care. Management includes fertility sparing treatment, early and locally advanced cervical cancer, invasive cervical cancer diagnosed on a simple hysterectomy specimen, cervical cancer in pregnancy, rare tumors, recurrent and metastatic diseases. The management algorithms and the principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer – Update 2023*

Funding Information: Open access publishing supported by the National Technical Library in Prague. Funding Information: The authors thank ESGO, ESTRO, and ESP for their support. The authors also thank the 155 international reviewers (physicians and patient representatives, see Appendix 2 ) for their valuable comments and suggestions. The authors thank the ESGO office, especially Kamila Macku, Tereza Cicakova, and Kateřina Šibravová, provided invaluable logistical and administrative support throughout the process. Publisher Copyright: © 2023, ESGO, ESTRO, ESP.In 2018, the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Given the large body of new evidence addressing the management of cervical cancer, the three sister societies jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines. The update includes new topics to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in cervical cancer. To serve on the expert panel (27 experts across Europe) ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in managing patients with cervical cancer and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, national and international engagement, profile, and dedication to the topics addressed. To ensure the statements were evidence based, new data identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 155 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. These updated guidelines are comprehensive and cover staging, management, follow-up, long-term survivorship, quality of life and palliative care. Management includes fertility sparing treatment, early and locally advanced cervical cancer, invasive cervical cancer diagnosed on a simple hysterectomy specimen, cervical cancer in pregnancy, rare tumors, recurrent and metastatic diseases. The management algorithms and the principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.publishersversionpublishe

ESGO/ESTRO/ESP Guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer – Update 2023

Funding Information: The authors thank ESGO, ESTRO, and ESP for their support. The authors also thank the 155 international reviewers (physicians and patient representatives, see Appendix 2 in Online Supplemental File 2) for their valuable comments and suggestions. The authors thank the ESGO office, especially Kamila Macku, Tereza Cicakova, and Kateřina Šibravová, provided invaluable logistical and administrative support throughout the process. The development group (including all authors) is collectively responsible for the decision to submit for publication. DC (chair), JL (chair), MRR (chair) and FP (methodologist) wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All other contributors have actively given personal input, reviewed the manuscript, and have given final approval before submission. DC is responsible for the overall content as the guarantor. Initiated through the ESGO the decision to develop multidisciplinary guidelines was made jointly by the ESGO, ESTRO, and ESP. The ESGO provided administrative support. The ESGO, ESTRO and ESP are nonprofit knowledgeable societies. *These guidelines were developed by ESGO, ESTRO and ESP and are published in the Int J Gynecol Cancer, Radiother Oncol and Virchows Archiv. CCh has reported advisory boards for GSK, MSD and EISAI; SFL has reported advisory boards for MSD, GSK, AstraZeneca and Novartis; DL has reported consultant honoria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Immunogen, Genmab, Amgen, Seagen and PharmaMar, advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Seagen, Immunogen, Genmab, Oncoinvest, Corcept and Sutro, research institutional funding from Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar, research sponsored by AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Roche, Seagen and Novartis, and speakers’ bureau activities for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar; UM has reported advisory boards for AstraZeneca (Steering committee member for CALLA Study); RN has reported research grants from Elekta, Varian, Accuray, Dutch Research Council, and Dutch Cancer Society; AO has reported personal fees for advisory board membersip from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab/Seagen, GSK, ImmunoGen, Itheos, Merck Sharp & Dohme de Espana, SA, Mersana Thereapeutics, Novocure, PharmaMar, piIME Oncology, Roche, Sattucklabs, Sutro Biopharma and Tesaro, and personal fees for travel/accomodation from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar and Roche; DQ has reported advisory boards for Mimark inc; MPS has reported research grants and personal fees for workshops from Elekta AB; DC, MRR, FP, CC, AF, DF, DJK, FJ, CK, PM, RN, FPec, JP, SR, AS, VS, KT, IZ and JCL have reported no conflicts of interest. Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed. Not applicable. Not applicable. David Cibula, Maria Rosaria Raspollini, François Planchamp, Carlos Centeno, Cyrus Chargari, Ana Felix, Daniela Fischerova, Daniela Jahn-Kuch, Florence Joly, Christhardt Kohler, Sigurd F. Lax, Domenica Lorusso, Umesh Mahantshetty, Patrice Mathevet, Raj Naik, Remi Nout, Ana Oaknin, Fedro Peccatori, Jan Persson, Denis Querleu, Sandra Rubio, Maximilian Paul Schmid, Artem Stepanyan, Valentyn Svintsitskyi, Karl Tamussino, Ignacio Zapardiel, Jacob Christian Lindegaard. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Funding Information: CCh has reported advisory boards for GSK, MSD and EISAI; SFL has reported advisory boards for MSD, GSK, AstraZeneca and Novartis; DL has reported consultant honoria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Immunogen, Genmab, Amgen, Seagen and PharmaMar, advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Seagen, Immunogen, Genmab, Oncoinvest, Corcept and Sutro, research institutional funding from Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar, research sponsored by AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Roche, Seagen and Novartis, and speakers’ bureau activities for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar; UM has reported advisory boards for AstraZeneca (Steering committee member for CALLA Study); RN has reported research grants from Elekta, Varian, Accuray, Dutch Research Council, and Dutch Cancer Society; AO has reported personal fees for advisory board membersip from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab/Seagen, GSK, ImmunoGen, Itheos, Merck Sharp & Dohme de Espana, SA, Mersana Thereapeutics, Novocure, PharmaMar, piIME Oncology, Roche, Sattucklabs, Sutro Biopharma and Tesaro, and personal fees for travel/accomodation from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar and Roche; DQ has reported advisory boards for Mimark inc; MPS has reported research grants and personal fees for workshops from Elekta AB; DC, MRR, FP, CC, AF, DF, DJK, FJ, CK, PM, RN, FPec, JP, SR, AS, VS, KT, IZ and JCL have reported no conflicts of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 ESGO, ESTRO, ESPIn 2018, the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) jointly with the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with cervical cancer. Given the large body of new evidence addressing the management of cervical cancer, the three sister societies jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines. The update includes new topics to provide comprehensive guidelines on all relevant issues of diagnosis and treatment in cervical cancer. To serve on the expert panel (27 experts across Europe) ESGO/ESTRO/ESP nominated practicing clinicians who are involved in managing patients with cervical cancer and have demonstrated leadership through their expertise in clinical care and research, national and international engagement, profile, and dedication to the topics addressed. To ensure the statements were evidence based, new data identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, judgment was based on the professional experience and consensus of the international development group. Before publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 155 independent international practitioners in cancer care delivery and patient representatives. These updated guidelines are comprehensive and cover staging, management, follow-up, long-term survivorship, quality of life and palliative care. Management includes fertility sparing treatment, early and locally advanced cervical cancer, invasive cervical cancer diagnosed on a simple hysterectomy specimen, cervical cancer in pregnancy, rare tumors, recurrent and metastatic diseases. The management algorithms and the principles of radiotherapy and pathological evaluation are also defined.publishersversionpublishe

Eponymie et orthopédie : un délicat problème pour le traducteur pp. 5-7

International audienc

Orthopaedics or Orthopedics? Does the difference go beyond spelling?

International audienc

The change on vertebral axial rotation after posterior instrumentation of idiopathic scoliosis

International audienceAgreement between the correction objectives and the instrumentation strategies remains controversial in idiopathic scoliosis. Most studies have focus on the frontal and sagittal plane. The goal of this study was to evaluate the change on vertebral axial rotation after posterior instrumentation in fused and unfused segments

Predicting intraoperative feasibility of combined TES-mMEP and cSSEP monitoring during scoliosis surgery based on preoperative neurophysiological assessment.

International audienceBACKGROUND CONTEXT: Combined monitoring of muscle motor evoked potentials elicited by transcranial electric stimulation (TES-mMEP) and cortical somatosensory evoked potentials (cSSEPs) is safe and effective for spinal cord monitoring during scoliosis surgery. However, TES-mMEP/cSSEP is not always feasible. Predictors of feasibility would help to plan the monitoring strategy. PURPOSE: To identify predictors of the feasibility of TES-mMEP/cSSEP during scoliosis surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective cohort study in a clinical neurophysiology unit and pediatric orthopedic department of a French university hospital. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 103 children aged 2 to 19 years scheduled for scoliosis surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility rate of intraoperative TES-mMEP/cSSEP monitoring. METHODS: All patients underwent a preoperative neurological evaluation and preoperative mMEP and cSSEP recordings at both legs. For each factor associated with feasibility, we computed sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value. A decision tree was designed. RESULTS: Presence of any of the following factors was associated with 100% feasibility, 100% specificity, and 100% PPV: idiopathic scoliosis, normal preoperative neurological findings, and normal preoperative mMEP and cSSEP recordings. Feasibility was 0% in the eight patients with no recordable mMEPs or cSSEPs during preoperative testing. A decision tree involving three screening steps can be used to identify patients in whom intraoperative TES-mMEP/cSSEP is feasible. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative neurological and neurophysiological assessments are helpful for identifying patients who can be successfully monitored by TES-mMEP/cSSEP during scoliosis surgery