The Experts below are selected from a list of 327 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Oyvind Holme - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
implications of different guidelines for surveillance after serrated Polyp resection in united states of america and europe
Endoscopy, 2019Co-Authors: Arne Bleijenberg, Dagmar Klotz, Magnus Loberg, Evelien Dekker, Hansolov Adami, Ernst J Kuipers, Oyvind HolmeAbstract:Introduction Because individuals with serrated Polyps and adenomas are at increased risk of developing new Polyps and colorectal cancer (CRC), surveillance after resection is justified. After adenoma resection, most international guidelines are consistent, but recommendations for surveillance after serrated Polyp resection vary. The United States Multi-Society Taskforce on CRC (US-MSTF) base surveillance intervals on serrated Polyp subtype (traditional serrated adenoma, sessile serrated Polyp, hyperplastic Polyps), while the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines do not take serrated Polyp subtype into account. We evaluated the implications of this difference in a primary colonoscopy screening cohort. Methods We included participants from a large colonoscopy screening trial. In a post-hoc simulation, assuming full protocol adherence, we determined the surveillance interval for each subject based on their Polyp burden, using the most recent US-MSTF and ESGE guidelines. Results We included 5323 participants, of whom 1228 had one or more serrated Polyps. In 5201 of all participants (98 %; Cohen’s kappa 0.90) and in 1106 of those with serrated Polyps (90 %; Cohen’s kappa 0.80), both guidelines recommended identical surveillance intervals. Recommendations for a 3-year surveillance interval were identical between the two guidelines. All 122 subjects with discordant recommendations would receive a follow-up colonoscopy after 10 years using ESGE guidance and after 5 years using US-MSTF guidance. Conclusion Despite the different criteria used to determine surveillance after serrated Polyp resection, most individuals are recommended identical colonoscopy surveillance intervals whether following the ESGE or US-MSTF guidelines. This suggests that surveillance recommendations do not need to consider the serrated Polyp subtype.
Gulsah K. Ilhan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Survivin Expression in Simple Endometrial Polyps and Tamoxifen-associated Endometrial Polyps
International Journal of Gynecological Pathology, 2018Co-Authors: Ayse F. Gokmen Karasu, Fatma C. Sonmez, Ilknur Adanir, Mustafa Marasli, Serdar Aydin, Gulsah K. IlhanAbstract:© 2017 by the International Society of Gynecological Pathologists. Endometrial Polyps are benign pathologies originating as localized overgrowths of basal endometrium. Risk factors include endogenous and exogenous estrogen excess and tamoxifen (TAM) exposure. Our main objective was to investigate the role of an apoptosis-inhibiting protein, survivin, in endometrial Polyps. We performed a cross-sectional, analytical study; our samples were obtained from the archives of the Department of Pathology. Sixty samples were included, comprising 20 TAM Polyps, 20 simple endometrial Polyps, and 20 cases of simple endometrial hyperplasia without atypia not associated with TAM use. Immunohistochemical staining with rabbit monoclonal anti-human survivin, clone EP 119, was performed. Survivin staining score was highest in the endometrial Polyp group and lowest in the TAM Polyp group (P
-
Survivin Expression in Simple Endometrial Polyps and Tamoxifen-associated Endometrial Polyps.
International Journal of Gynecological Pathology, 2017Co-Authors: Ayse Filiz Gokmen Karasu, Fatma C. Sonmez, Ilknur Adanir, Mustafa Marasli, Serdar Aydin, Gulsah K. IlhanAbstract:Endometrial Polyps are benign pathologies originating as localized overgrowths of basal endometrium. Risk factors include endogenous and exogenous estrogen excess and tamoxifen (TAM) exposure. Our main objective was to investigate the role of an apoptosis-inhibiting protein, survivin, in endometrial Polyps. We performed a cross-sectional, analytical study; our samples were obtained from the archives of the Department of Pathology. Sixty samples were included, comprising 20 TAM Polyps, 20 simple endometrial Polyps, and 20 cases of simple endometrial hyperplasia without atypia not associated with TAM use. Immunohistochemical staining with rabbit monoclonal anti-human survivin, clone EP 119, was performed. Survivin staining score was highest in the endometrial Polyp group and lowest in the TAM Polyp group (P
F Boydenders - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
impact of endoscopist withdrawal speed on Polyp yield implications for optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2006Co-Authors: D T Simmons, Gavin C Harewood, Todd H Baron, Bret T Petersen, Kenneth K Wang, F BoydendersAbstract:ummary Background In 2002, a U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer recommended that the withdrawal phase for colonoscopy should average at least 6–10 min. This was based on 10 consecutive colonoscopies by two endoscopists with different adenoma miss rates. Aims To characterize the relationship between endoscopist withdrawal time and Polyp detection at colonoscopy, and to determine the withdrawal time that corresponds to the median Polyp detection rate. Design Procedural data from out-patient colonoscopies performed at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester during 2003 were reviewed. Endoscopists were characterized by their mean withdrawal time for a negative procedure and individual Polyp detection rate. Results A total of 10 955 colonoscopies performed by 43 endoscopists were analysed. Median withdrawal time was 6.3 min (range: 4.2–11.9); Polyp detection rate was 44.0% (all Polyps), 29.8% (≤5 mm), 5.9% (6–9 mm), 6.7% (10–19 mm), 2.1% (≥20 mm). Longer withdrawal time was associated with higher Polyp detection rate (r = 0.76; P < 0.0001); this relationship weakened for larger Polyps (r = 0.19 for Polyps 6–9 mm, r = 0.28 for Polyps 10–19 mm, r = 0.02 for Polyps ≥20 mm). Overall median Polyp detection rate corresponded to a withdrawal time of 6.7 min. Conclusion Our findings support a colonoscopy withdrawal time of at least 7 min, which correlates with higher colon Polyp detection rates.
Dagmar Klotz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
implications of different guidelines for surveillance after serrated Polyp resection in united states of america and europe
Endoscopy, 2019Co-Authors: Arne Bleijenberg, Dagmar Klotz, Magnus Loberg, Evelien Dekker, Hansolov Adami, Ernst J Kuipers, Oyvind HolmeAbstract:Introduction Because individuals with serrated Polyps and adenomas are at increased risk of developing new Polyps and colorectal cancer (CRC), surveillance after resection is justified. After adenoma resection, most international guidelines are consistent, but recommendations for surveillance after serrated Polyp resection vary. The United States Multi-Society Taskforce on CRC (US-MSTF) base surveillance intervals on serrated Polyp subtype (traditional serrated adenoma, sessile serrated Polyp, hyperplastic Polyps), while the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines do not take serrated Polyp subtype into account. We evaluated the implications of this difference in a primary colonoscopy screening cohort. Methods We included participants from a large colonoscopy screening trial. In a post-hoc simulation, assuming full protocol adherence, we determined the surveillance interval for each subject based on their Polyp burden, using the most recent US-MSTF and ESGE guidelines. Results We included 5323 participants, of whom 1228 had one or more serrated Polyps. In 5201 of all participants (98 %; Cohen’s kappa 0.90) and in 1106 of those with serrated Polyps (90 %; Cohen’s kappa 0.80), both guidelines recommended identical surveillance intervals. Recommendations for a 3-year surveillance interval were identical between the two guidelines. All 122 subjects with discordant recommendations would receive a follow-up colonoscopy after 10 years using ESGE guidance and after 5 years using US-MSTF guidance. Conclusion Despite the different criteria used to determine surveillance after serrated Polyp resection, most individuals are recommended identical colonoscopy surveillance intervals whether following the ESGE or US-MSTF guidelines. This suggests that surveillance recommendations do not need to consider the serrated Polyp subtype.
Magnus Loberg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
implications of different guidelines for surveillance after serrated Polyp resection in united states of america and europe
Endoscopy, 2019Co-Authors: Arne Bleijenberg, Dagmar Klotz, Magnus Loberg, Evelien Dekker, Hansolov Adami, Ernst J Kuipers, Oyvind HolmeAbstract:Introduction Because individuals with serrated Polyps and adenomas are at increased risk of developing new Polyps and colorectal cancer (CRC), surveillance after resection is justified. After adenoma resection, most international guidelines are consistent, but recommendations for surveillance after serrated Polyp resection vary. The United States Multi-Society Taskforce on CRC (US-MSTF) base surveillance intervals on serrated Polyp subtype (traditional serrated adenoma, sessile serrated Polyp, hyperplastic Polyps), while the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines do not take serrated Polyp subtype into account. We evaluated the implications of this difference in a primary colonoscopy screening cohort. Methods We included participants from a large colonoscopy screening trial. In a post-hoc simulation, assuming full protocol adherence, we determined the surveillance interval for each subject based on their Polyp burden, using the most recent US-MSTF and ESGE guidelines. Results We included 5323 participants, of whom 1228 had one or more serrated Polyps. In 5201 of all participants (98 %; Cohen’s kappa 0.90) and in 1106 of those with serrated Polyps (90 %; Cohen’s kappa 0.80), both guidelines recommended identical surveillance intervals. Recommendations for a 3-year surveillance interval were identical between the two guidelines. All 122 subjects with discordant recommendations would receive a follow-up colonoscopy after 10 years using ESGE guidance and after 5 years using US-MSTF guidance. Conclusion Despite the different criteria used to determine surveillance after serrated Polyp resection, most individuals are recommended identical colonoscopy surveillance intervals whether following the ESGE or US-MSTF guidelines. This suggests that surveillance recommendations do not need to consider the serrated Polyp subtype.
