<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Boetes, C.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/8694/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>Has the liver and other visceral organs migrated to its normal position in children with giant omphalocele? A follow-up study with ultrasonography (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/27941/</link>
      <pubDate>2010-05-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>This study evaluates whether, on the long run, in patients born with a giant omphalocele, the liver and other solid organs reach their normal position, shape, and size. Seventeen former patients with a giant omphalocele, treated between 1970 and 2004, were included. Physical examination was supplemented with ultrasonography for ventral hernia and precise description of the liver, spleen, and kidneys. The findings were compared with 17 controls matched for age, gender, and body mass index. We found an abnormal position of the liver, spleen, left kidney, and right kidney in eight, six, five, and four patients, respectively. An unprotected liver was present in all 17 patients and in 11 controls, the difference being statistically significant (p∈=∈0.04). In ten of the 11 patients with an incisional hernia, the liver was located underneath the abdominal defect. Conclusion: In all former patients with a giant omphalocele, an abnormal position of the liver and in the majority of them, an incisional hernia was also found. The liver and sometimes also the spleen and the kidneys do not migrate to their normal position. Exact documentation and good information are important for both the patient and their caretakers in order to avoid liver trauma. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Assessment of false-negative cases of breast MR imaging in women with a familial or genetic predisposition (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/27708/</link>
      <pubDate>2010-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>In order to assess the characteristics of malignant breast lesions those were not detected during screening by MR imaging. In the Dutch MRI screening study (MRISC), a non-randomized prospective multicenter study, women with high familial risk or a genetic predisposition for breast cancer were screened once a year by mammography and MRI and every 6 months with a clinical breast examination (CBE). The false-negative MR examinations were subject of this study and were retrospectively reviewed by two experienced radiologists. From November 1999 until March 2006, 2,157 women were eligible for study analyses. Ninety-seven malignant breast tumors were detected, including 19 DCIS (20%). In 22 patients with a malignant lesion, the MRI was assessed as BI-RADS 1 or 2. One patient was excluded because the examinations were not available for review. Forty-three percent (9/21) of the false-negative MR cases concerned pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or DCIS with invasive foci, in eight of them no enhancement was seen at the review. In six patients the features of malignancy were missed or misinterpreted. Small lesion size (n = 3), extensive diffuse contrast enhancement of the breast parenchyma (n = 2), and a technically inadequate examination (n = 1) were other causes of the missed diagnosis. A major part of the false-negative MR diagnoses concerned non-enhancing DCIS, underlining the necessity of screening not only with MRI but also with mammography. Improvement of MRI scanning protocols may increase the detection rate of DCIS. The missed and misinterpreted cases are reflecting the learning curve of a multicenter study. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Breast tumor characteristics of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers on MRI (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/29976/</link>
      <pubDate>2008-05-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>The appearance of malignant lesions in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers (BRCA-MCs) on mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was evaluated. Thus, 29 BRCA-MCs with breast cancer were retrospectively evaluated and the results compared with an age, tumor size and tumor type matched control group of 29 sporadic breast cancer cases. Detection rates on both modalities were evaluated. Tumors were analyzed on morphology, density (mammography), enhancement pattern and kinetics (MRI). Overall detection was significantly better with MRI than with mammography (55/58 vs 44/57, P = 0.021). On mammography, lesions in the BRCA-MC group were significantly more described as rounded (12//19 vs 3/13, P = 0.036) and with sharp margins (9/19 vs 1/13, P = 0.024). On MRI lesions in the BRCA-MC group were significantly more described as rounded (16/27 vs 7/28, P = 0.010), with sharp margins (20/27 vs 7/28, P &lt; 0.001) and with rim enhancement (7/27 vs 1/28, P = 0.025). No significant difference was found for enhancement kinetics (P = 0.667). Malignant lesions in BRCA-MC frequently have morphological characteristics commonly seen in benign lesions, like a rounded shape or sharp margins. This applies for both mammography and MRI. However the possibility of MRI to evaluate the enhancement pattern and kinetics enables the detection of characteristics suggestive for a malignancy.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Tumor characteristics and detection method in the MRISC screening program for the early detection of hereditary breast cancer (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/35809/</link>
      <pubDate>2007-05-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>In the MRISC study, women with an inherited risk for breast cancer were screened by a 6-month clinical breast examination (CBE) and yearly MRI and mammography. We found that the MRISC screening scheme could facilitate early breast cancer diagnosis and that MRI was a more sensitive screening method than mammography, but less specific. In the current study we investigated the contribution of MRI in the early detection of breast cancer in relation to tumor characteristics. From November 1999 to October 2003, 1909 women were included and 50 breast cancers were detected, of which 45 were evaluable and included in the current study. We compared the characteristics of tumors detected by MRI-only with those of all other (non-palpable) screen-detected tumors. Further, we compared the sensitivity of mammography and MRI within subgroups according to different tumor characteristics. Twenty-two (49%) of the 45 breast cancers were detected by MRI and not visible at mammography, of which 20 (44%) were also not palpable (MRI-only detected tumors). MRI-only detected tumors were more often node-negative than other screen-detected cancers (94 vs. 59%; P = 0.02) and tended to be more often ≤1 cm (58 vs. 31%; P = 0.11). MRI was more sensitive than mammography for a wide spectrum of invasive tumor characteristics i.e., size, nodal status, histology, grade and ER status. Half of the breast cancers detected in this study were visible by MRI only and these tumors were smaller and significantly more often node-negative than other screen-detected tumors, suggesting that MRI makes an important contribution to the early detection of hereditary breast cancer. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/8450/</link>
      <pubDate>2004-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>BACKGROUND: The value of regular surveillance for breast cancer in women
      with a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer is currently
      unproven. We compared the efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
      with that of mammography for screening in this group of high-risk women.
      METHODS: Women who had a cumulative lifetime risk of breast cancer of 15
      percent or more were screened every six months with a clinical breast
      examination and once a year by mammography and MRI, with independent
      readings. The characteristics of the cancers that were detected were
      compared with the characteristics of those in two different age-matched
      control groups. RESULTS: We screened 1909 eligible women, including 358
      carriers of germ-line mutations. Within a median follow-up period of 2.9
      years, 51 tumors (44 invasive cancers, 6 ductal carcinomas in situ, and 1
      lymphoma) and 1 lobular carcinoma in situ were detected. The sensitivity
      of clinical breast examination, mammography, and MRI for detecting
      invasive breast cancer was 17.9 percent, 33.3 percent, and 79.5 percent,
      respectively, and the specificity was 98.1 percent, 95.0 percent, and 89.8
      percent, respectively. The overall discriminating capacity of MRI was
      significantly better than that of mammography (P&lt;0.05). The proportion of
      invasive tumors that were 10 mm or less in diameter was significantly
      greater in our surveillance group (43.2 percent) than in either control
      group (14.0 percent [P&lt;0.001] and 12.5 percent [P=0.04], respectively).
      The combined incidence of positive axillary nodes and micrometastases in
      invasive cancers in our study was 21.4 percent, as compared with 52.4
      percent (P&lt;0.001) and 56.4 percent (P=0.001) in the two control groups.
      CONCLUSIONS: MRI appears to be more sensitive than mammography in
      detecting tumors in women with an inherited susceptibility to breast
      cancer.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>