Organ Center

Aabenraa, Denmark

Organ Center

Aabenraa, Denmark
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

Petersen H.,University of Southern Denmark | Holdgaard P.C.,Vejle Hospital | Madsen P.H.,Vejle Hospital | Knudsen L.M.,University of Southern Denmark | And 13 more authors.
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Year: 2016

Purpose: The Region of Southern Denmark (RSD), covering 1.2 of Denmark’s 5.6 million inhabitants, established a task force to (1) retrieve literature evidence for the clinical use of positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and provide consequent recommendations and further to (2) compare the actual use of PET/CT in the RSD with these recommendations. This article summarizes the results. Methods: A Work Group appointed a professional Subgroup which made Clinician Groups conduct literature reviews on six selected cancers responsible for 5,768 (62.6 %) of 9,213 PET/CT scans in the RSD in 2012. Rapid Evidence Assessment was applied, using the methodology of systematic reviews with predefined limitations to search PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published in English/Danish/Swedish/Norwegian since 2002. PICO questions were defined, data recorded and quality appraised and rated with regard to strength and evidence level. Consequent recommendations for applications of PET/CT were established. The actual use of PET/CT was compared with these, where grades A and B indicated “established” and “useful” and grades C and D “potentially useful” and “non-recommendable” indications, respectively. Results: Of 11,729 citations, 1,729 were considered for review, and 204 were included. The evidence suggested usefulness of PET/CT in lung, lymphoma, melanoma, head and neck, and colorectal cancers, whereas evidence was sparse in gynaecological cancers. The agreement between actual use of PET/CT and literature-based recommendations was high in the first five mentioned cancers in that 96.2 % of scans were made for grade A or B indications versus only 22.2 % in gynaecological cancers. Conclusion: Evidence-based usefulness was reported in five of six selected cancers; evidence was sparse in the sixth, gynaecological cancers. Actual use of PET/CT agreed well with recommendations. © 2015, The Author(s).


PubMed | University of Southern Denmark, Vejle Hospital, Naestved Sygehus, Organ Center and Aabenraa Sygehus
Type: Comparative Study | Journal: European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging | Year: 2016

The Region of Southern Denmark (RSD), covering 1.2 of Denmarks 5.6 million inhabitants, established a task force to (1) retrieve literature evidence for the clinical use of positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and provide consequent recommendations and further to (2) compare the actual use of PET/CT in the RSD with these recommendations. This article summarizes the results.A Work Group appointed a professional Subgroup which made Clinician Groups conduct literature reviews on six selected cancers responsible for 5,768 (62.6%) of 9,213 PET/CT scans in the RSD in 2012. Rapid Evidence Assessment was applied, using the methodology of systematic reviews with predefined limitations to search PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles published in English/Danish/Swedish/Norwegian since 2002. PICO questions were defined, data recorded and quality appraised and rated with regard to strength and evidence level. Consequent recommendations for applications of PET/CT were established. The actual use of PET/CT was compared with these, where grades A and B indicated established and useful and grades C and D potentially useful and non-recommendable indications, respectively.Of 11,729 citations, 1,729 were considered for review, and 204 were included. The evidence suggested usefulness of PET/CT in lung, lymphoma, melanoma, head and neck, and colorectal cancers, whereas evidence was sparse in gynaecological cancers. The agreement between actual use of PET/CT and literature-based recommendations was high in the first five mentioned cancers in that 96.2% of scans were made for grade A or B indications versus only 22.2% in gynaecological cancers.Evidence-based usefulness was reported in five of six selected cancers; evidence was sparse in the sixth, gynaecological cancers. Actual use of PET/CT agreed well with recommendations.


Hemke A.C.,Organ Center | Heemskerk M.B.,Organ Center | Van Diepen M.,Leiden University | Weimar W.,Erasmus Medical Center | And 3 more authors.
BMC Nephrology | Year: 2013

Background: There is no single model available to predict the long term survival for patients starting renal replacement therapy (RRT). The available models either predict survival on dialysis until transplantation, survival on the transplant waiting list, or survival after transplantation. The aim of this study was to develop a model that includes dialysis survival and survival after an eventual transplantation. Methods. From the Dutch renal replacement registry, patients of 16 years of age or older were included if they started RRT between 1995 and 2005, still underwent RRT at baseline (90 days after the start of RRT) and were not registered at a non-renal organ transplant waiting list (N = 13868). A prediction model of 10-year patient survival after baseline was developed through multivariate Cox regression analysis, in one half of the research group. Age at start, sex, primary renal disease (PRD) and therapy at baseline were included as possible predictors. A sensitivity analysis has been performed to determine whether listing on the transplant waiting list should be added. The predictive performance of the model was internally validated. Calibration and discrimination were computed in the other half of the research group. Another sensitivity analysis was to assess whether the outcomes differed if the model was developed and tested in two geographical regions, which were less similar than the original development and validation group. No external validation has been performed. Results: Survival probabilities were influenced by age, sex, PRD and therapy at baseline (p < 0.001). The calibration and discrimination both showed very reasonable results for the prediction model (C-index = 0.720 and calibration slope for the prognostic index = 1.025, for the 10 year survival). Adding registration on the waiting list for renal transplantation as a predictor did not improve the discriminative power of the model and was therefore not included in the model. Conclusions: With the presented prediction model, it is possible to give a reasonably accurate estimation on the survival chances of patients who start with RRT, using a limited set of easily available data. © 2013 Hemke et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.


Stewart D.E.,United Network for Organ Sharing | Tlusty S.M.,United Network for Organ Sharing | Taylor K.H.,United Network for Organ Sharing | Brown R.S.,Organ Center | And 5 more authors.
American Journal of Transplantation | Year: 2015

Analysis and dissemination of transplant patient safety data are essential to understanding key issues facing the transplant community and fostering a "culture of safety." The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network's (OPTN) Operations and Safety Committee de-identified safety situations reported through several mechanisms, including the OPTN's online patient safety portal, through which the number of reported cases has risen sharply. From 2012 to 2013, 438 events were received through either the online portal or other reporting pathways, and about half were self-reports. Communication breakdowns (22.8%) and testing issues (16.0%) were the most common types. Events included preventable errors that led to organ discard as well as near misses. Among events reported by Organ Procurement Organization (OPOs), half came from just 10 of the 58 institutions, while half of events reported by transplant centers came from just 21 of 250 institutions. Thirteen (23%) OPOs and 155 (62%) transplant centers reported no events, suggesting substantial underreporting of safety-related errors to the national database. This is the first comprehensive, published report of the OPTN's safety efforts. Our goals are to raise awareness of safety data recently reported to the OPTN, encourage additional reporting, and spur systems improvements to mitigate future risk. The authors summarize national patient safety-related incidents reported to the OPTN and find a sharply increasing trend in reporting driven by a relatively small number of institutions, with events often involving communication breakdowns and leading to organ nonutilization. See the editorial from Axelrod on page 3021. © 2015 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.


There is no single model available to predict the long term survival for patients starting renal replacement therapy (RRT). The available models either predict survival on dialysis until transplantation, survival on the transplant waiting list, or survival after transplantation. The aim of this study was to develop a model that includes dialysis survival and survival after an eventual transplantation.From the Dutch renal replacement registry, patients of 16 years of age or older were included if they started RRT between 1995 and 2005, still underwent RRT at baseline (90 days after the start of RRT) and were not registered at a non-renal organ transplant waiting list (N = 13868). A prediction model of 10-year patient survival after baseline was developed through multivariate Cox regression analysis, in one half of the research group. Age at start, sex, primary renal disease (PRD) and therapy at baseline were included as possible predictors. A sensitivity analysis has been performed to determine whether listing on the transplant waiting list should be added. The predictive performance of the model was internally validated. Calibration and discrimination were computed in the other half of the research group. Another sensitivity analysis was to assess whether the outcomes differed if the model was developed and tested in two geographical regions, which were less similar than the original development and validation group. No external validation has been performed.Survival probabilities were influenced by age, sex, PRD and therapy at baseline (p < 0.001). The calibration and discrimination both showed very reasonable results for the prediction model (C-index = 0.720 and calibration slope for the prognostic index = 1.025, for the 10 year survival). Adding registration on the waiting list for renal transplantation as a predictor did not improve the discriminative power of the model and was therefore not included in the model.With the presented prediction model, it is possible to give a reasonably accurate estimation on the survival chances of patients who start with RRT, using a limited set of easily available data.

Loading Organ Center collaborators
Loading Organ Center collaborators