How to perform Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS)

"How to perform contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)" provides general advice on the use of ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) for clinical decision-making and reviews technical parameters for optimal CEUS performance. CEUS techniques vary between centers, therefore, experts from EFSUMB, WFUMB and from the CEUS LI-RADS working group created a discussion forum to standardize the CEUS examination technique according to published evidence and best personal experience. The goal is to standardise the use and administration of UCAs to facilitate correct diagnoses and ultimately to improve the management and outcomes of patients

Cloning and chromosomal location of human genes inducible by type I interferon.

When cells are treated with interferon several new proteins are induced. We have isolated by differential screening two cDNA clones corresponding to human genes inducible by IFN-alpha, termed IFI-4 and IFI-54K. The accumulation of the corresponding mRNA was followed as a function of either IFN dose or of time. The IFI-4 and IFI-54K genes, as well as two previously isolated IFN-inducible genes, namely the IFI-56K and low-molecular-weight 2-5A synthetase, were localized on the human chromosomes. Using cloned probes on Southern blots of DNA from a panel of rodent-human somatic cell hybrids, we have assigned the IFI-4 gene to chromosome 1 and the gene coding for the low-molecular-weight 2-5A synthetase to chromosome 12. We also showed that the IFI-54K and IFI-56K genes, unlike most of the IFN-inducible genes, are syntenic. They are both located on chromosome 10. In addition, evidence is given for the presence of a pseudogene homologous to IFI-56K on chromosome 13.Journal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

A BELGIAN SURVEY ON GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT IN ONCOLOGY FOCUSING ON LARGE-SCALE IMPLEMENTATION AND RELATED BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe a large-scale, Belgian implementation project about geriatric assessment (=GA) in daily oncology practice and to identify barriers and facilitators for implementing GA in this setting. Design / setting / participants: The principal investigator of every participating hospital (n=22) was invited to complete a newly developed questionnaire with closed- and open-ended questions. The closed-ended questions surveyed how GA was implemented. The open-ended questions identified barriers and facilitators for the implementation of GA in daily oncology practice. Descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis were performed as appropriate. RESULTS: Qualifying criteria (e.g. disease status and cancer type) for GA varied substantially between hospitals. Thirteen hospitals (59.1%) succeeded to screen more than half of eligible patients. Most hospitals reported that GA data and follow-up data had been collected in almost all screened patients. Implementing geriatric recommendations and formulating new geriatric recommendations at the time of follow-up are important opportunities for improvement. The majority of identified barriers were organizational, with high workload, lack of time or financial/staffing problems as most cited. The most cited facilitators were all related to collaboration. CONCLUSION: Interventions to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer need to address a wide range of factors, with organization and collaboration as key elements. All stakeholders, seeking to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer, should consider and address the identified barriers and facilitators.status: publishe

A Belgian Survey on Geriatric Assessment in Oncology Focusing on Large-Scale Implementation and Related Barriers and Facilitators

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe a large-scale, Belgian implementation project about geriatric assessment (=GA) in daily oncology practice and to identify barriers and facilitators for implementing GA in this setting. Design / setting / participants: The principal investigator of every participating hospital (n=22) was invited to complete a newly developed questionnaire with closed- and open-ended questions. The closed-ended questions surveyed how GA was implemented. The open-ended questions identified barriers and facilitators for the implementation of GA in daily oncology practice. Descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis were performed as appropriate. RESULTS: Qualifying criteria (e.g. disease status and cancer type) for GA varied substantially between hospitals. Thirteen hospitals (59.1%) succeeded to screen more than half of eligible patients. Most hospitals reported that GA data and follow-up data had been collected in almost all screened patients. Implementing geriatric recommendations and formulating new geriatric recommendations at the time of follow-up are important opportunities for improvement. The majority of identified barriers were organizational, with high workload, lack of time or financial/staffing problems as most cited. The most cited facilitators were all related to collaboration. CONCLUSION: Interventions to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer need to address a wide range of factors, with organization and collaboration as key elements. All stakeholders, seeking to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer, should consider and address the identified barriers and facilitators