Search

Your search keyword '"Jennifer W. Bradshaw"' showing total 3 results
Start Over Author "Jennifer W. Bradshaw"
3 results on '"Jennifer W. Bradshaw"'

1. Optimised treatment of patients with enlarged lateral lymph nodes in rectal cancer: protocol of an international, multicentre, prospective registration study after extensive multidisciplinary training (LaNoReC)

Author

Susan Van Dieren, Joost Nederend, Pieter J Tanis, Roel Hompes, Klaas Havenga, Melissa W Taggart, Robert Riedl, Michail Doukas, Evert-Jan G. Boerma, Marinke Westerterp, Corrie A M Marijnen, Jaap Stoker, Andrew Ruszkiewicz, Tsuyoshi Konishi, Jarno Melenhorst, Karin Muller, Krista Gerbrands, Michael Croft, Michael Wilks, Johanne G. Bloemen, Peter A. Neijenhuis, Koen C.M.J. Peeters, Miranda Kusters, Martijn Intven, Jan Peringa, Maria Verseveld, Eline G M van Geffen, Tania C Sluckin, Sanne-Marije J A Hazen, Karin Horsthuis, Geerard Beets, Marilyne M Lange, Regina G H Beets-Tan, Marc R. W. Engelbrecht, Elisabeth D. Geijsen, Philip Meijnen, Jurriaan B. Tuynman, Ingrid M. Bruijnzeel, Bas Lamme, Femke M. Alberts, Rogier M. P. H. Crolla, Joanne Verdult, Johan H. Wijsman, Charlotte S. van Kessel, Erik Jan Mulder, Jan Binne Hulshoff, Ivan M. Cherepanin, Hans F. J. Fabry, G. Y. Mireille, Frank J. M. Kemper, Fatih Polat, Jacobus W. A. Burger, Jeltsje S. Cnossen, Shira H. de Bie, Robbert J. I. Bosker, Aaldert K. Talsma, Leonora S. F. Boogerd, Marc J. P. M. Govaert, Merel M. Scheurkogel, Imogeen E. Antonisse, Joost Rothbarth, Marianne de Vries, Marcel A. H. Ribbert, Anthony W. H. van de Ven, Susan ter Borg, Jennifer W. Bradshaw, Heleen M. Ceha, Fleur I. de Korte, Andreas W. K. S. Marinelli, Tjeerd S. Aukema, Liselotte W. van Bockel, Aukje A. J. M. van Tilborg, Tom Rozema, Amarins Brandsma, Stefan Hoogendoorn, Saskia R. Offerman, Hanneke Vos, Henderik L. van Westreenen, Jeroen W. A. Leijtens, Fabian A. Holman, Laura A. Velema, L Els, van Persijn van Meerten, Frans C. H. Bakers, Iryna Samarska, Nina Šefčovičová, Maaike Berbée, Bastiaan B. Pultrum, Dennis B. Rouw, Matthew Albert, L. René Arensman, Hanneke Basart, Esther C. J. Consten, Bart C.T. van de Laar, Inne Somers, Paul M. Verheijen, Thomas A. Fassaert, Christiaan Hoff, Eino B. van Duyn, Ellen M. Hendriksen, Hugo A.J. Gielkens, Arend G. J. Aalbers, Brechtje A. Grotenhuis, Michalda S. Dunker, Anne M. van Geel, Christof Meischl, W. Hermien Schreurs, Patty H. Spruit, Michael F. Gerhards, Thomas M. Karsten, Eveline J.T. Krul, Sebastiaan van Koeverden, Andre J. A. Bremers, Heidi Rütten, Johannes H. W. de Wilt, Mariska den Hartogh, Vera Oppedijk, Jan Willem T. Dekker, Debora Eschbach-Zandbergen, Daphne Roos, Arjan van Tilburg, Ernst Jan, Spillenaar Bilgen, Nikki Knijn, Marnix A. J. de Roos, Ilse van Dop, Tracy Fitzsimmons, Hidde M. Kroon, Michael Penniment, Mitchell Raeside, Tarik Sammour, Steven J. Oosterling, Jeroen A. W. Tielbeek, Ronald J. C. L. M. Vuylsteke, Erik J. R. J. van der Hoeven, Anke B. Smits, Anniek H. Boer, Edgar J. B. Furnée, Robbert J. de Haas, Manon N. G. J. A. Braat, Wilhelmina M. U. van Grevenstein, Milan C. Richir, Patricia J. A. M. Brouwers, Tilly Leseman, Eric H. J. Belgers, Jasenko Krdzalic, and Roy F. A. Vliegen

Subjects
Medicine
Abstract

Introduction Inadequate treatment of enlarged lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) in rectal cancer patients is associated with an increased lateral local recurrence (LLR) risk, despite neoadjuvant treatment and total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery. There is a promising role for LLN dissection (LLND) to lower this risk, but this challenging procedure requires appropriate training. This study protocol describes a prospective evaluation of oncological outcomes after standardised treatment based on multidisciplinary training, thereby aiming for a 50% reduction in LLR rate.Methods and analysis A prospective registration study will be opened in hospitals in which the involved multidisciplinary team members (radiologists, radiation oncologists, surgeons and pathologists) have received dedicated training to enhance knowledge and awareness of LLNs and in which standardised treatment including LLND has been implemented. Patients with rectal cancer and at least one enlarged LLN (short-axis ≥7.0 mm), or intermediate LLN (short-axis 5.0–6.9 mm) with at least one malignant feature on primary MRI, evaluated by a trained radiologist, are eligible. Patients will undergo neoadjuvant treatment by trained radiation oncologists, followed by TME surgery in combination with a minimally invasive, nerve-sparing LLND performed by trained surgeons. LLND specimens are evaluated by trained pathologists or grossing assistants. The primary outcome is LLR rate 3 years postoperatively. Secondary outcomes are morbidity, disease-free survival, overall survival and quality of life. To demonstrate a significant reduction in LLR rate from 13% (based on historical control data) to 6% after optimised treatment, 200 patients with enlarged LLNs are required.Ethics and dissemination The medical ethics board of the Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre (VUMC), the Netherlands, approved the study on 23 November 2022 (reference: 2021.0524). Participating centres must obtain local approval and participants are required to provide written informed consent. Results obtained from this study will be communicated via peer-reviewed medical journals and presentations at conferences.Trail registration number NCT04486131, 24 July 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04486131.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Randomized controlled trial comparing magnetic marker localization (MaMaLoc) with wire-guided localization in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer

Author

T.M.A.L. Klem, Theo J.M. Ruers, Erwin Birnie, Bernard ten Haken, Gerson M. Struik, Jurgen E M Mourik, Ingeborg Mares, Jennifer W Bradshaw, Harold E Lont, B. Schermers, Nanobiophysics, TechMed Centre, Magnetic Detection and Imaging, Technical Medicine, and Health Psychology Research (HPR)

Subjects
Reoperation, medicine.medical_specialty, patient satisfaction, tumor localization, UT-Hybrid-D, Breast Neoplasms, Segmental, Mastectomy, Segmental, 030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging, law.invention, surgical usability, surgery, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, Patient satisfaction, Breast cancer, Randomized controlled trial, law, nonradioactive, Internal Medicine, medicine, Humans, breast carcinoma, Stage (cooking), Pathological, Mastectomy, Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging, Magnetic marker, business.industry, Magnetic Phenomena, Wire-Guided Localization, Margins of Excision, trial registration, medicine.disease, Oncology, 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis, magnetism, Female, Radiology, Breast carcinoma, business
Abstract

Wire-guided localization (WGL) is the standard of care in the surgical treatment of nonpalpable breast tumors. In this study, we compare the use of a new magnetic marker localization (MaMaLoc) technique to WGL in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer patients. Open-label, single-center, randomized controlled trial comparing MaMaLoc (intervention) to WGL (control) in women with early-stage breast cancer. Primary outcome was surgical usability measured using the System Usability Scale (SUS, 0-100 score). Secondary outcomes were patient reported, clinical, and pathological outcomes such as retrieval rate, operative time, resected specimen weight, margin status, and reoperation rate. Thirty-two patients were analyzed in the MaMaLoc group and 35 in the WGL group. Patient and tumor characteristics were comparable between groups. No in situ complications occurred. Retrieval rate was 100% in both groups. Surgical usability was higher for MaMaLoc: 70.2 ± 8.9 vs. 58.1 ± 9.1, p < 0.001. Patients reported higher overall satisfaction with MaMaLoc (median score 5/5) versus WGL (score 4/5), p < 0.001. The use of magnetic marker localization (MaMaLoc) for early-stage breast cancer is effective and has higher surgical usability than standard WGL.

Published
2021

3. Management of vagal paraganglioma: Is operative resection really the best option?

Author

Jeroen C. Jansen and Jennifer W. Bradshaw

Subjects
Adult, Male, Vagus Nerve Diseases, medicine.medical_specialty, Vagal nerve, Cranial nerve palsy, Resection, Neoplasms, Multiple Primary, Paraganglioma, Postoperative Complications, Swallowing, Risk Factors, medicine, Humans, Cranial Nerve Neoplasms, Vocal Cord Palsy, Vagal paraganglioma, Aged, business.industry, digestive, oral, and skin physiology, Cranial nerves, Vagus Nerve, Middle Aged, medicine.disease, Cranial Nerve Diseases, Surgery, Female, business
Abstract

Background Vagal paragangliomas cannot be resected without sacrifice of the vagal nerve. The risk of bilateral vocal cord palsy has been reason to postpone treatment of this benign and slow growing neoplasm in hereditary cases. Postponement could be considered for solitary cases as well. Methods An institute-based review of 48 patients with vagal paragangliomas over the past 30 years was performed. Results Forty-eight patients with 58 vagal paragangliomas were studied. All but 4 patients had multiple paragangliomas and should be considered hereditary cases. The 10 patients that underwent an operation lost the vagal nerve; 60% of them had additional cranial nerve palsy postoperatively. In the group of patients who were followed for an average period of 8.5 years, 3 patients (8%) developed cranial nerve palsy. Conclusions Aggressive treatment of vagal paragangliomas leads to unnecessary early loss of vagal nerve function. A period of clinical and radiologic follow-up preceding an operation may lead to prolonged preservation of voice and swallowing functions in these patients, without grave consequences for other lower cranial nerves.

Published
2005

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results