Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- AOSpine (1)
- AOSpine injury score (1)
- BRCA1 (1)
- BRCA2 (1)
- Chemoradiotherapy (1)
- Consensus (1)
- Hereditary breast cancer (1)
- Hereditary ovarian cancer (1)
- Organ preservation (1)
- Panel testing (1)
Institute
- Medizin (4) (remove)
Neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy with subsequent total mesorectal excision is the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. While this multimodal strategy has decreased local recurrences rates below 5%, long-term morbidities are considerable in terms of urinary, sexual or bowel functioning. At the same time approximately 10–20% of patients have no evidence of residual tumour in their surgical specimen. Pioneering studies from Brazil have suggested that surgery can safely be omitted in carefully selected patients with a clinical complete response after radiochemotherapy. Although confirmatory studies showed similar results, challenges in terms of optimizing radiochemotherapy for organ-preservation, appropriate selection of patients for non-operative management and the safety of this approach remain. The present review will summarize the current data on organ-preservation in rectal cancer and discuss the challenges that need to be addressed in future trials.
Background: The German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (GC-HBOC) has established a multigene panel (TruRisk®) for the analysis of risk genes for familial breast and ovarian cancer. Summary: An interdisciplinary team of experts from the GC-HBOC has evaluated the available data on risk modification in the presence of pathogenic mutations in these genes based on a structured literature search and through a formal consensus process. Key Messages: The goal of this work is to better assess individual disease risk and, on this basis, to derive clinical recommendations for patient counseling and care at the centers of the GC-HBOC from the initial consultation prior to genetic testing to the use of individual risk-adapted preventive/therapeutic measures.
Study Design: Survey of 100 worldwide spine surgeons.
Objective: To develop a spine injury score for the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System.
Methods: Each respondent was asked to numerically grade the severity of each variable of the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System. Using the results, as well as limited input from the AOSpine Trauma Knowledge Forum, the Thoracolumbar AOSpine Injury Score was developed.
Results: Beginning with 1 point for A1, groups A, B, and C were consecutively awarded an additional point (A1, 1 point; A2, 2 points; A3, 3 points); however, because of a significant increase in the severity between A3 and A4 and because the severity of A4 and B1 was similar, both A4 and B1 were awarded 5 points. An uneven stepwise increase in severity moving from N0 to N4, with a substantial increase in severity between N2 (nerve root injury with radicular symptoms) and N3 (incomplete spinal cord injury) injuries, was identified. Hence, each grade of neurologic injury was progressively given an additional point starting with 0 points for N0, and the substantial difference in severity between N2 and N3 injuries was recognized by elevating N3 to 4 points. Finally, 1 point was awarded to the M1 modifier (indeterminate posterolateral ligamentous complex injury).
Conclusion: The Thoracolumbar AOSpine Injury Score is an easy-to-use, data-driven metric that will allow for the development of a surgical algorithm to accompany the AOSpine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System.
Study Design: Cross-sectional survey
Objective: To determine the influence of surgeons’ level of experience and subspeciality training on the reliability, reproducibility, and accuracy of sacral fracture classification using the AO Spine Sacral Injury Classification System.
Summary of Background Data: An ideal classification system is easily comprehensible and reliable amongst the diverse group of surgeons. A surgeons’ level of experience may have a significant effect on the reliability and accuracy of a classification system. Moreover, surgeons of different subspecialities may have various levels of comfort with imaging assessment of sacral injuries required for accurate diagnosis and classification.
Methods: High-resolution computerized tomography (CT) images from 26 cases were assessed by 172 investigators from a diverse array of surgical subspecialities (general orthopaedics, neurosurgery, orthopaedic spine, orthopaedic trauma) and experience (<5, 5-10, 11-20, >20 years). Validation assessments were performed via web conference using high-resolution images, as well as axial/sagittal/coronal CT scan sequences. Two assessments were performed by each investigator independently three weeks apart in randomized order. Reliability and reproducibility were calculated with cohen’s kappa coefficient (k) and gold standard classification agreement was determined for each fracture morphology and subtype and stratified by experience and subspeciality.
Results: Respondents achieved an overall k = 0.87 for morphology and k = 0.77 for subtype classification, representing excellent and substantial intraobserver reproducibility, respectively. Respondents from all four practice experience groups demonstrated excellent interobserver reliability when classifying overall morphology (k=0.842/0.850, Assessment 1/Assessment 2) and substantial interobserver reliability in overall subtype (k=0.719/0.751) in both assessments. General orthopaedists, neurosurgeons, and orthopaedic spine surgeons exhibited excellent interobserver reliability in overall morphology classification and substantial interobserver reliability in overall subtype classification. Surgeons in each experience category and subspecialty correctly classified fracture morphology in over 90% of cases and fracture subtype in over 80% of cases according to the gold standard. Correct overall classification of fracture morphology (Assessment 1: p= 0.024, Assessment 2: p=0.006) and subtype (p2<0.001) differed significantly with surgeons with >20 years of experience demonstrating increased difficulty correctly classifying all fracture subtypes overall in comparison to the other experience groups. Correct overall classification did not significantly differ by subspecialty.
Conclusions: Overall, the AO Spine Sacral Injury Classification System appears to be universally applicable among surgeons of various subspecialties and levels of experience with acceptable reliability, reproducibility, and accuracy.
Disclosures: author 1: none; author 2: consultant=Medtronic, Nuvasive, ISD, Asutra, Stryker, Bioventus, Zimmer, teledocs, Clinical Spine Surgery, AOSpine ; author 3: none; author 4: grants/research support=AOSpine, consultant=DPS, icotec; author 5: none; author 6: none; author 7: grants/research support=DPS; author 8: none; author 9: grants/research support=NIH, RTI, CSRS, royalties=Inion ; author 10: stock/shareholder=Advanced Spinal Intellectual Properties; Atlas Spine; Avaz Surgical; Bonovo Orthopaedics; Computational Biodynamics; Cytonics; Deep Health; Dimension Orthotics LLC; Electrocore; Flagship Surgical; FlowPharma; Globus; Innovative Surgical Design; Insight Therapeutics; Jushi; Nuvasive; Orthobullets; Paradigm Spine; Parvizi Surgical Innovation; Progressive Spinal Technologies; Replication Medica; Spine Medica; Spineology; Stout Medical; Vertiflex; ViewFi Health, royalties=Aesculap; Atlas Spine; Globus; Medtronics; SpineWave; Stryker Spine,other financial report=AO Spine