<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Putten, P. van</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/24487/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Inter-observer variation in the histological diagnosis of polyps in colorectal cancer screening (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/25905/</link>
      <pubDate>2011-05-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Aim: To determine the inter-observer variation in the histological diagnosis of colorectal polyps. Methods and results: Four hundred and forty polyps were randomly selected from a colorectal cancer screening programme. Polyps were first evaluated by a general (324 polyps) or expert (116 polyps) pathologist, and subsequently re-evaluated by an expert pathologist. Conditional agreement was reported, and inter-observer agreement was determined using kappa statistics. In 421/440 polyps (96%), agreement for their non-adenomatous or adenomatous nature was obtained, corresponding to a very good kappa value of 0.88. For differentiation of adenomas as non-advanced and advanced, consensus was obtained in 266/322 adenomas (83%), with a moderate kappa value of 0.58. For the non-adenomatous or adenomatous nature, both general and expert pathologists, and expert pathologists between each other, showed very good agreement {kappa values of 0.89 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-0.95] and 0.86 (95% CI 0.73-0.98), respectively}. For categorization of adenomas as non-advanced and advanced, moderate agreement was found between general and expert pathologists, and between expert pathologists [kappa values of 0.56 (95% CI 0.44-0.67) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.43-0.85), respectively]. Conclusions: General and expert pathologists demonstrate very good inter-observer agreement for differentiating non-adenomas from adenomas, but only moderate agreement for non-advanced and advanced adenomas. The considerable variation in differentiating non-advanced and advanced adenomas suggests that more objective criteria are required for risk stratification in screening and surveillance guidelines. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Inter-observer variation in the histological diagnosis of polyps in colorectal cancer screening (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/26389/</link>
      <pubDate>2011-05-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Aim: To determine the inter-observer variation in the histological diagnosis of colorectal polyps. Methods and results: Four hundred and forty polyps were randomly selected from a colorectal cancer screening programme. Polyps were first evaluated by a general (324 polyps) or expert (116 polyps) pathologist, and subsequently re-evaluated by an expert pathologist. Conditional agreement was reported, and inter-observer agreement was determined using kappa statistics. In 421/440 polyps (96%), agreement for their non-adenomatous or adenomatous nature was obtained, corresponding to a very good kappa value of 0.88. For differentiation of adenomas as non-advanced and advanced, consensus was obtained in 266/322 adenomas (83%), with a moderate kappa value of 0.58. For the non-adenomatous or adenomatous nature, both general and expert pathologists, and expert pathologists between each other, showed very good agreement {kappa values of 0.89 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-0.95] and 0.86 (95% CI 0.73-0.98), respectively}. For categorization of adenomas as non-advanced and advanced, moderate agreement was found between general and expert pathologists, and between expert pathologists [kappa values of 0.56 (95% CI 0.44-0.67) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.43-0.85), respectively]. Conclusions: General and expert pathologists demonstrate very good inter-observer agreement for differentiating non-adenomas from adenomas, but only moderate agreement for non-advanced and advanced adenomas. The considerable variation in differentiating non-advanced and advanced adenomas suggests that more objective criteria are required for risk stratification in screening and surveillance guidelines. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>A back-to-back comparison of white light video endoscopy with autofluorescence endoscopy for adenoma detection in high-risk subjects (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/20328/</link>
      <pubDate>2010-06-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Objective: To compare the sensitivity of autofluorescence endoscopy (AFE) and white light video endoscopy (WLE) for the detection of colorectal adenomas in high-risk patients belonging to Lynch syndrome (LS) or familial colorectal cancer (CRC) families. Methods: This was a prospective single-centre study carried out in a tertiary referral centre. The subjects were 75 asymptomatic patients originating from LS or familial CRC families. Patients were examined with either WLE followed by AFE or AFE followed by WLE. Back-to-back colonoscopy was performed by two blinded endoscopists. All lesions were removed during the second endoscopic procedure. Lesions missed during the second procedure were identified and removed on third pass. The sensitivity calculations for colorectal adenomas were based on histology results. The main outcome measures were the difference in sensitivity between WLE and AFE for the detection of adenomas in patients with LS or familial CRC. Results: At least one adenoma was detected in 41 (55%) patients. WLE identified adenomas in 28/41 patients and AFE in 37/41 patients, corresponding to a 32% increase. In total 95 adenomas were detected, 65 by WLE and 87 by AFE, resulting in a significantly higher sensitivity of AFE compared with WLE (92% vs 68%; p=0.001). The additionally detected adenomas with AFE were significantly smaller than the adenomas detected by WLE (mean 3.0 mm vs 4.9 mm, p&lt;0.01). Conclusions: AFE improves the detection of colorectal adenomas in patients with LS or familial CRC. The results of this study suggest that AFE may be preferable for surveillance of these high-risk patients.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>