What should clinicians tell patients about placebo and nocebo effects? Practical considerations based on expert consensus

INTRODUCTION: Clinical and laboratory studies demonstrate that placebo and nocebo effects influence various symptoms and conditions after the administration of both inert and active treatments. OBJECTIVE: There is an increasing need for up-to-date recommendations on how to inform patients about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice and train clinicians how to disclose this information. METHODS: Based on previous clinical recommendations concerning placebo and nocebo effects, a 3-step, invitation-only Delphi study was conducted among an interdisciplinary group of internationally recognized experts. The study consisted of open- and closed-ended survey questions followed by a final expert meeting. The surveys were subdivided into 3 parts: (1) informing patients about placebo effects, (2) informing patients about nocebo effects, and (3) training clinicians how to communicate this information to the patients. RESULTS: There was consensus that communicating general information about placebo and nocebo effects to patients (e.g., explaining their role in treatment) could be beneficial, but that such information needs to be adjusted to match the specific clinical context (e.g., condition and treatment). Experts also agreed that training clinicians to communicate about placebo and nocebo effects should be a regular and integrated part of medical education that makes use of multiple formats, including face-to-face and online modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The current 3-step Delphi study provides consensus-based recommendations and practical considerations for disclosures about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice. Future research is needed on how to optimally tailor information to specific clinical conditions and patients' needs, and on developing standardized disclosure training modules for clinicians

MR-guided breast biopsy at 3T: diagnostic yield of large core needle biopsy compared with vacuum-assisted biopsy.

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate two MR-guided biopsy techniques at 3 T, large core needle breast biopsy (LCNB) and vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VAB) and to compare the diagnostic yield and rate of complications to determine the optimal biopsy technique at 3 T. METHODS: 55 LCNB and 64 VAB were consecutively performed. Benign biopsy results were verified by retrospective correlation of histology, with pre-interventional, post-interventional MRI studies and follow-up and were classified as representative or non-representative. Time to follow-up was up to 2 years for the considered non-representative benign lesions. Statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-squared test. RESULTS: LCNB was technically successful in 100% of patients (55/55) and VAB in 98% of patients (63/64). Histopathological analysis resulted in 45 (82%) benign, 3 (5%) high-risk and 7 (13%) malignant lesions for LCNB and 43 (67%) benign, 3 (5%) high-risk and 18 (28%) malignant lesions. Distribution was significantly different (p < 0.001), favouring VAB over LCNB. CONCLUSION: Because of the substantially higher diagnostic yield and certainty of a benign diagnosis, VAB is the optimal biopsy technique at 3 T. LCNB should be considered when VAB is not feasible.1 februari 201