<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Dinis-Ribeiro, M.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/48547/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Management of precancerous conditions and lesions in the stomach (MAPS): Guideline from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter Study Group (EHSG), European Society of Pathology (ESP), and the Sociedade Portuguesa de Endoscopia Digestiva (SPED) (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/37146/</link>
      <pubDate>2012-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Atrophic gastritis, intestinal metaplasia, and epithelial dysplasia of the stomach are common and are associated with an increased risk for gastric cancer. In the absence of guidelines, there is wide disparity in the management of patients with these premalignant conditions. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the European Helicobacter Study Group, the European Society of Pathology, and the Sociedade Portuguesa de Endoscopia Digestiva have therefore combined efforts to develop evidence-based guidelines on the management of patients with precancerous conditions and lesions of the stomach. A multidisciplinary group of 63 experts from 24 countries developed these recommendations by means of repeat online voting and a meeting in June 2011 in Porto, Portugal. The recommendations emphasize the increased cancer risk in patients with gastric atrophy and metaplasia and the need for adequate staging in the case of high-grade dysplasia, and they focus on treatment and surveillance indications and methods. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Endoscopic assessment and grading of Barrett's esophagus using magnification endoscopy and narrow-band imaging: Accuracy and interobserver agreement of different classification systems (with videos) (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/33574/</link>
      <pubDate>2011-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Background: Three different classification systems for the evaluation of Barrett's esophagus (BE) using magnification endoscopy (ME) and narrow-band imaging (NBI) have been proposed. Until now, no comparative and external evaluation of these systems in a clinical-like situation has been performed. Objective To compare and validate these 3 classification systems. Design Prospective validation study. Setting Tertiary-care referral center. Nine endoscopists with different levels of expertise from Europe and Japan participated as assessors. Patients Thirty-two patients with long-segment BE. Interventions From a group of 209 standardized prospective recordings collected on BE by using ME combined with NBI, 84 high-quality videos were randomly selected for evaluation. Histologically, 28 were classified as gastric type mucosa, 29 as specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM), and 27 as SIM with dysplasia/cancer. Assessors were blinded to underlying histology and scored each video according to the respective classification system. Before evaluation, an educational set concerning each classification system was carefully studied. At each assessment, the same 84 videos were displayed, but in different and random order. Main Outcome Measurements Accuracy for detection of nondysplastic and dysplastic SIM. Interobserver agreement related to each classification. Results The median time for video evaluation was 25 seconds (interquartile range 20-39 seconds) and was longer with the Amsterdam classification (P &lt; .001). In 65% to 69% of the videos, assessors described certainty about the histology prediction. The global accuracy was 46% and 47% using the Nottingham and Kansas classifications, respectively, and 51% with the Amsterdam classification. The accuracy for nondysplastic SIM identification ranged between 57% (Kansas and Nottingham) and 63% (Amsterdam). Accuracy for dysplastic tissue was 75%, irrespective of the classification system and assessor expertise level. Interobserver agreement ranged from fair (Nottingham, κ = 0.34) to moderate (Amsterdam and Kansas, κ = 0.47 and 0.44, respectively). Limitation No per-patient analysis. Conclusions All of the available classification systems could be used in a clinical-like environment, but with inadequate interobserver agreement. All classification systems based on combined ME and NBI, revealed substantial limitations in predicting nondysplastic and dysplastic BE when assessed externally. This technique cannot, as yet, replace random biopsies for histopathological analysis. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Erratum: Current practice with endoscopic submucosal dissection in Europe: Position statement from a panel of experts (Endoscopy (2010)) (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/32825/</link>
      <pubDate>2010-12-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description></description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Current practice with endoscopic submucosal dissection in Europe: Position statement from a panel of experts (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/32953/</link>
      <pubDate>2010-10-07T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the gold standard technique for performing en bloc resection of large superficial tumors in the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. Experience in Europe, however, is still limited and ESD is only performed in a few selected centers, with low volumes of cases, no description of training programs, and few published reports. In 2008, a panel of experts gathered in Rotterdam to discuss indications, training, and the wider use of ESD. The panel of experts and participants reached a consensus on five general statements: 1) ESD aims at treating mucosal cancer; 2) treatment aims for R0 resection; 3) ESD should meet quality standards; 4) ESD should be performed following national or European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines or under institutional review board approval; and 5) ESD cases should be registered. Due to the high level of expertise needed to perform the technique safely, ESD should be performed in a step-up approach, starting with lesions presenting in the rectum or in the distal stomach, then colon, proximal stomach, and finally in the esophagus. Registration is advised either at the local site or at a national or ESGE level, and should include information on indication (Paris classification of lesion, location, and histological results prior to treatment), technique used (e.g. type of knife), results (en bloc and R0 resection), complications, and follow-up. The panel also agreed on minimal institutional requirements: good quality imaging, experienced histopathologist following the Japanese criteria (2-mm sections, micrometric invasion, vessel and lymphatic infiltration, etc), and dedicated endoscopic follow-up. Moreover, minimum training requirements were also defined: knowledge in indications and instruments, exposure to experts (currently all in Japan), hands-on experience in a model of isolated pig stomach and in live pigs, and management of complications. The experts did not reach a consensus on a minimum case load, or whether the technique should be restricted to expert centers. </description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>