Correction to: Pathology-supported genetic testing as a method for disability prevention in multiple sclerosis (MS). Part II. Insights from two MS cases

Metabolic Brain Disease - A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11011-021-00722-7     

No signs of subclinical atherosclerosis after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers

BackgroundBRCA1/2 mutation carriers are generally exposed to early menopause due to risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) around the age of 40 years. This risk-reducing intervention is based on a 10–40% life-time risk of ovarian cancer in this population. Although effective, premature and acute menopause induces non-cancer related morbidity in both the short and long term. Little is known about the impact of RRSO on the cardiovascular system.MethodsThis cross-sectional study explored the relationship between time since RRSO and signs of subclinical atherosclerosis, as measured by carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) and pulse wave velocity (PWV), in 165 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. All participants, aged 40 to 63 years, underwent RRSO before the age of 45 years, and at least 5 years ago. Cardiovascular risk factors were assessed by questionnaires and a single screening visit. Data were analyzed using linear regression models.ResultsMean CIMT was 692.7 μm (SD 87.0), and mean central PWV 6.40 m/s (SD 1.42). After adjustment for age and several relevant cardiovascular risk factors, time since RRSO was not associated with CIMT (β=0.68 μm; 95% CI –4.02, 5.38) and PWV (β=44 mm/s; 95% CI –32, 120). Compared to women of a reference group from the general population, lower systolic blood pressure [mean difference 12 mmHg; 95% confidence interval (CI) 10, 14] was found in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.ConclusionsWe found that, in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, at 5 to 24 years follow-up, time since RRSO is not related to development of subclinical atherosclerosis. However, the follow-up period in these relatively young women might have been too short.     

Effects of cancer screening restart strategies after COVID-19 disruption

Background Many breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programmes were disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to estimate the effects of five restart strategies after the disruption on required screening capacity and cancer burden.Methods Microsimulation models simulated five restart strategies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. The models estimated required screening capacity, cancer incidence, and cancer-specific mortality after a disruption of 6 months. The restart strategies varied in whether screens were caught up or not and, if so, immediately or delayed, and whether the upper age limit was increased.Results The disruption in screening programmes without catch-up of missed screens led to an increase of 2.0, 0.3, and 2.5 cancer deaths per 100 000 individuals in 10 years in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively. Immediately catching-up missed screens minimised the impact of the disruption but required a surge in screening capacity. Delaying screening, but still offering all screening rounds gave the best balance between required capacity, incidence, and mortality.Conclusions Strategies with the smallest loss in health effects were also the most burdensome for the screening organisations. Which strategy is preferred depends on the organisation and available capacity in a country.Subject terms: Health policy, Population screening, Cancer screening, Cancer screening     

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer—2020 Update. Part 1: Screening,Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent

ObjectiveTo present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa).Evidence acquisitionThe panel performed a literature review of new data, covering the time frame between 2016 and 2020. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence.Evidence synthesisA risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. Risk-adapted screening should be offered to men at increased risk from the age of 45 yr and to breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, who have been confirmed to be at risk of early and aggressive disease (mainly BRAC2), from around 40 yr of age. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is performed, a combination of targeted and systematic biopsies must be offered. There is currently no place for the routine use of tissue-based biomarkers. Whilst prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography is the most sensitive staging procedure, the lack of outcome benefit remains a major limitation. Active surveillance (AS) should always be discussed with low-risk patients, as well as with selected intermediate-risk patients with favourable International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the AS journey and the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A strong recommendation to consider moderate hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term hormonal treatment.ConclusionsThe evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for their use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management.Patient summaryUpdated prostate cancer guidelines are presented, addressing screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. These guidelines rely on the available scientific evidence, and new insights will need to be considered and included on a regular basis. In some cases, the supporting evidence for new treatment options is not yet strong enough to provide a recommendation, which is why continuous updating is important. Patients must be fully informed of all relevant options and, together with their treating physicians, decide on the most optimal management for them.     

Ceramic-on-ceramic vs ceramic-on-polyethylene,a comparative study with 10-year follow-up

BACKGROUNDIn press-fit total hip arthroplasty (THA) ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings are a potential for overcoming the wear that is seen in ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoPE) bearings, and can lead to wear-induced osteolysis, resulting in loosening of the implant. However, CoC bearings show disadvantages as well, such as squeaking sounds and being more fragile, which can cause ceramic head or liner fracture. Because comparative long-term studies are limited, the objective of this study was to determine the long-term difference in wear, identify potential predictive factors for wear, investigate radiological findings such as osteolysis, and evaluate clinical functioning and complications between these bearings.AIMTo determine 10-year differences in wear, predictive factors for wear, and investigate radiological findings and clinical functioning between CoC and CoPE.METHODSThis observational prospective single-center cohort study with a 10-year follow-up includes a documented series of elective THAs. Primary outcome was wear measured by anteroposterior (AP) radiographs. Secondary outcomes were potential predictive factors for wear, complications during follow-up, Harris hip score (HHS), and radiological findings such as presence of radiolucency, osteolysis, atrophy, and hypertrophy around the cup. Due to the absence of wear in the CoC group, stratified analysis to identify risk factors for wear was only performed in the CoPE group by use of univariate linear regression analysis. HHS was expressed as a change from baseline and the association with bearing type was assessed by use of multivariate linear regression analysis, adjusted for potential confounders.RESULTSA total of 17 CoPE (63.0%) and 25 CoC (73.5%) cases were available for follow-up and showed a linear wear of respectively 0.130 mm/year (range 0.010; 0.350) and 0.000 mm/year (range 0.000; 0.005), which was significant (P < 0.001) between both groups. Wear always occurred in the cranial direction. Cup inclination was the only predictive factor for polyethylene (PE) wear. No dislocations, ceramic head, or liner fractures were seen. The HHS showed a mean change from baseline of 37.1 points (SD 18.5) in the CoPE group and 43.9 (SD 17.0) in the CoC group. This crude difference of 6.8 (range -5.2; 18.7) in favor of the CoC group was not significant (P = 0.26) and was not significant when adjusted for age, gender, and diagnosis either (P = 0.99). No significant differences in complications and radiological findings were seen between groups. CONCLUSIONCoC bearing shows lower wear rates compared to CoPE at 10-year follow-up with cup inclination as a predictive factor for wear and no differences in complications, HHS, and radiological findings.