Spatiotemporal dynamics of cortical representations during and after stimulus presentation

Visual perception is a spatiotemporally complex process. In this study, we investigated cortical dynamics during and after stimulus presentation. We observed that visual category information related to the difference between faces and objects became apparent in the occipital lobe after 63 ms. Within the next 110 ms, activation spread out to include the temporal lobe before returning to residing mainly in the occipital lobe again. After stimulus offset, a peak in information was observed, comparable to the peak after stimulus onset. Moreover, similar processes, albeit not identical, seemed to underlie both peaks. Information about the categorical identity of the stimulus remained present until 677 ms after stimulus offset, during which period the stimulus had to be retained in working memory. Activation patterns initially resembled those observed during stimulus presentation. After about 200 ms, however, this representation changed and class-specific activity became more equally distributed over the four lobes. These results show that, although there are common processes underlying stimulus representation both during and after stimulus presentation, these representations change depending on the specific stage of perception and maintenance. </p

Comparison of the sentinel node procedure between patients with multifocal and unifocal breast cancer in the EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS Trial:Identification rate and nodal outcome

<p>Introduction: Multifocal breast cancer is associated with a higher risk of nodal involvement compared to unifocal breast cancer and the drainage pattern from multifocal localisations may be different. For this reason, the value of the sentinel node biopsy ( SNB) procedure for this indication is debated. The aim of the current analysis was to evaluate the sentinel node identification rate and nodal involvement in patients with a multifocal tumour in the EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial.</p><p>Patients and Methods: From the first 4000 registered patients, 342 were identified with a multifocal tumour on histological examination and compared to a randomly selected control group of 684 patients with a unifocal tumour. The outcome of the SNB was assessed.</p><p>Results: The sentinel node was identified in 96% of the patients with a multifocal tumour and in 98% of those with unifocal disease. In the multifocal group, 51% had a metastasis in the sentinel node compared to 28% in the unifocal group; and further nodal involvement after a positive sentinel node was found in 40% (38/95) and 39% (39/101) respectively.</p><p>Conclusion: In this prospective international multicentre study, the 96% detection rate indicates that the SNB procedure can be highly effective in patients with a multifocal tumour. Though the tumour-positive rate of the sentinel node was twice as high in the multifocal group compared to the unifocal group, further nodal involvement after a positive sentinel node was similar in both groups. This suggests that the SNB procedure is safe in patients with multifocal breast cancer. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</p>

Implementation of an innovative web-based conference table for community-dwelling frail older people, their informal caregivers and professionals: a process evaluation

Contains fulltext : 108253.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Due to fragmentation of care, continuity of care is often limited in the care provided to frail older people. Further, frail older people are not always enabled to become involved in their own care. Therefore, we developed the Health and Welfare Information Portal (ZWIP), a shared Electronic Health Record combined with a communication tool for community-dwelling frail older people and primary care professionals. This article describes the process evaluation of its implementation, and aims to establish (1) the outcomes of the implementation process, (2) which implementation strategies and barriers and facilitators contributed to these outcomes, and (3) how its future implementation could be improved. METHODS: Mixed methods study, consisting of (1) a survey among professionals (n = 118) and monitoring the use of the ZWIP by frail older people and professionals, followed by (2) semi-structured interviews with purposively selected professionals (n = 12). RESULTS: 290 frail older people and 169 professionals participated in the ZWIP. At the end of the implementation period, 55% of frail older people and informal caregivers, and 84% of professionals had logged on to their ZWIP at least once. For professionals, the exposure to the implementation strategies was generally as planned, they considered the interprofessional educational program and the helpdesk very important strategies. However, frail older people's exposure to the implementation strategies was less than intended. Facilitators for the ZWIP were the perceived need to enhance interprofessional collaboration and the ZWIP application being user-friendly. Barriers included the low computer-literacy of frail older people, a preference for personal communication and limited use of the ZWIP by other professionals and frail older people. Interviewees recommended using the ZWIP for other target populations as well and adding further strategies that may help frail older people to feel more comfortable with computers and the ZWIP. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the implementation process of an innovative e-health intervention for community-dwelling frail older people, informal caregivers and primary care professionals. As e-health is an important medium for overcoming fragmentation of healthcare and facilitating patient involvement, but its adoption in everyday practice remains a challenge, the positive results of this implementation are promising

European clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer (OMEC-4)

Introduction: The OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project aims to provide clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of esophagogastric oligometastatic disease (OMD). Methods: Guidelines were developed according to AGREE II and GRADE principles. Guidelines were based on a systematic review (OMEC-1), clinical case discussions (OMEC-2), and a Delphi consensus study (OMEC-3) by 49 European expert centers for esophagogastric cancer. OMEC identified patients for whom the term OMD is considered or could be considered. Disease-free interval (DFI) was defined as the time between primary tumor treatment and detection of OMD. Results: Moderate to high quality of evidence was found (i.e. 1 randomized and 4 non-randomized phase II trials) resulting in moderate recommendations. OMD is considered in esophagogastric cancer patients with 1 organ with ≤ 3 metastases or 1 involved extra-regional lymph node station. In addition, OMD continues to be considered in patients with OMD without progression in number of metastases after systemic therapy. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is recommended for baseline staging and for restaging after systemic therapy when local treatment is considered. For patients with synchronous OMD or metachronous OMD and a DFI ≤ 2 years, recommended treatment consists of systemic therapy followed by restaging to assess suitability for local treatment. For patients with metachronous OMD and DFI &gt; 2 years, upfront local treatment is additionally recommended. Discussion: These multidisciplinary European clinical practice guidelines for the uniform definition, diagnosis and treatment of esophagogastric OMD can be used to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials and to reduce variation in treatment.</p

Radiotherapy or Surgery of the Axilla After a Positive Sentinel Node in Breast Cancer: 10-Year Results of the Randomized Controlled EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS Trial

PURPOSE: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10981-22023 AMAROS trial evaluated axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus axillary radiotherapy (ART) in patients with cT1-2, node-negative breast cancer and a positive sentinel node (SN) biopsy. At 5 years, both modalities showed excellent and comparable axillary control, with significantly less morbidity after ART. We now report the preplanned 10-year analysis of the axillary recurrence rate (ARR), overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS), and an updated 5-year analysis of morbidity and quality of life. METHODS: In this open-label multicenter phase III noninferiority trial, 4,806 patients underwent SN biopsy; 1,425 were node-positive and randomly assigned to either ALND (n = 744) or ART (n = 681). RESULTS: Per intention-to-treat analysis, 10-year ARR cumulative incidence was 0.93% (95% CI, 0.18 to 1.68; seven events) after ALND and 1.82% (95% CI, 0.74 to 2.94; 11 events) after ART (hazard ratio [HR], 1.71; 95% CI, 0.67 to 4.39). There were no differences in OS (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.52) or DFS (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.46). ALND was associated with a higher lymphedema rate in updated 5-year analyses (24.5% v 11.9%; P < .001). Quality-of-life scales did not differ by treatment through 5 years. Exploratory analysis showed a 10-year cumulative incidence of second primary cancers of 12.1% (95% CI, 9.6 to 14.9) after ART and 8.3% (95% CI, 6.3 to 10.7) after ALND. CONCLUSION: This 10-year analysis confirms a low ARR after both ART and ALND with no difference in OS, DFS, and locoregional control. Considering less arm morbidity, ART is preferred over ALND for patients with SN-positive cT1-2 breast cancer

Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND: If treatment of the axilla is indicated in patients with breast cancer who have a positive sentinel node, axillary lymph node dissection is the present standard. Although axillary lymph node dissection provides excellent regional control, it is associated with harmful side-effects. We aimed to assess whether axillary radiotherapy provides comparable regional control with fewer side-effects. METHODS: Patients with T1–2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy were enrolled in the randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive either axillary lymph node dissection or axillary radiotherapy in case of a positive sentinel node, stratified by institution. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of 5-year axillary recurrence, considered to be not more than 4% for the axillary radiotherapy group compared with an expected 2% in the axillary lymph node dissection group. Analyses were by intention to treat and per protocol. The AMAROS trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00014612. FINDINGS: Between Feb 19, 2001, and April 29, 2010, 4823 patients were enrolled at 34 centres from nine European countries, of whom 4806 were eligible for randomisation. 2402 patients were randomly assigned to receive axillary lymph node dissection and 2404 to receive axillary radiotherapy. Of the 1425 patients with a positive sentinel node, 744 had been randomly assigned to axillary lymph node dissection and 681 to axillary radiotherapy; these patients constituted the intention-to-treat population. Median follow-up was 6·1 years (IQR 4·1–8·0) for the patients with positive sentinel lymph nodes. In the axillary lymph node dissection group, 220 (33%) of 672 patients who underwent axillary lymph node dissection had additional positive nodes. Axillary recurrence occurred in four of 744 patients in the axillary lymph node dissection group and seven of 681 in the axillary radiotherapy group. 5-year axillary recurrence was 0·43% (95% CI 0·00–0·92) after axillary lymph node dissection versus 1·19% (0·31–2·08) after axillary radiotherapy. The planned non-inferiority test was underpowered because of the low number of events. The one-sided 95% CI for the underpowered non-inferiority test on the hazard ratio was 0·00–5·27, with a non-inferiority margin of 2. Lymphoedema in the ipsilateral arm was noted significantly more often after axillary lymph node dissection than after axillary radiotherapy at 1 year, 3 years, and 5 years. INTERPRETATION: Axillary lymph node dissection and axillary radiotherapy after a positive sentinel node provide excellent and comparable axillary control for patients with T1–2 primary breast cancer and no palpable lymphadenopathy. Axillary radiotherapy results in significantly less morbidity. FUNDING: EORTC Charitable Trust

Collaboration around rare bone diseases leads to the unique organizational incentive of the Amsterdam Bone Center

In the field of rare bone diseases in particular, a broad care team of specialists embedded in multidisciplinary clinical and research environment is essential to generate new therapeutic solutions and approaches to care. Collaboration among clinical and research departments within a University Medical Center is often difficult to establish, and may be hindered by competition and non-equivalent cooperation inherent in a hierarchical structure. Here we describe the “collaborative organizational model” of the Amsterdam Bone Center (ABC), which emerged from and benefited the rare bone disease team. This team is often confronted with pathologically complex and under-investigated diseases. We describe the benefits of this model that still guarantees the autonomy of each team member, but combines and focuses our collective expertise on a clear shared goal, enabling us to capture synergistic and innovative opportunities for the patient, while avoiding self-interest and possible harmful competition

Definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer: A Delphi consensus study in Europe

Background: Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. Methods: In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). Conclusion: The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials