Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Matthijs P. Schwartz
Based on 2 articles published since 2010
(Why 2 articles?)
||||

Between 2010 and 2020, M. P. Schwartz wrote the following 2 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Article Rapid on-site evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of lymph nodes does not increase diagnostic yield: A randomized, multicenter trial. 2018

Kappelle, W F W / Van Leerdam, M E / Schwartz, M P / Bülbül, M / Buikhuisen, W A / Brink, M A / Sie-Go, D M D S / Pullens, H J M / Nikolakopoulos, S / Van Diest, P J / Leenders, M / Moons, L M G / Bogte, A / Siersema, P D / Vleggaar, F P. ·Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The Netherlands Cancer institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands. Department of Respiratory Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Department of Thorax Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Department of Biostatistics, Julius Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. ·Am J Gastroenterol · Pubmed #29681624.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Studies on the impact of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of lymph nodes are retrospective and have shown conflicting results. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of lymph nodes with ROSE (ROSE+) and without ROSE (ROSE-). METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive patients who were scheduled to undergo EUS-FNA of mediastinal or abdominal lymph nodes were randomized to ROSE+ or ROSE-. In the ROSE+ group, the number of passes was dictated by the on-site cytotechnician. In the ROSE- group, five passes were performed without interference from the cytotechnician. All samples were reviewed by a single-expert cytopathologist, blinded to group allocation. Primary endpoint was diagnostic yield with and without ROSE. RESULTS: After inclusion of 90 patients, interim analysis showed futility of study continuation since diagnostic yield of ROSE+ and ROSE- were comparable. A total of 91 patients were randomized to ROSE+ (N = 45) or ROSE- (N = 46). Diagnostic yield of ROSE+ and ROSE- and diagnostic accuracy were comparable: 93.3% vs. 95.7% (P = 0.68) and 97.6% vs. 93.2% (P = 0.62), respectively. Two major complications (one per group) occurred (p = 0.99). ROSE- patients more often reported self-limiting post-procedural pain (p < 0.001). Median procedure time for ROSE+ (20 min) and ROSE- (23 min) was comparable (P = 0.06). Median time to review slides in the ROSE- group (12:47 min) was longer than with ROSE+ (7:52 min) (P < 0.001). Mean costs of ROSE- and ROSE+ were comparable: €938.29 (±172.70) vs. €945.98 (±223.38) (P = 0.91), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic yield and accuracy of EUS-FNA of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes with and without ROSE are comparable. Time needed to review slides was shorter and post-procedural pain was less often reported in the ROSE+ group. Based on the primary outcome, the implementation of ROSE during EUS-FNA of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes cannot be advised. (Dutch Trial Register: NTR4876).

2 Article Predictors of survival in patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a patient-oriented decision approach for palliative treatment. 2011

Jeurnink, Suzanne M / Steyerberg, Ewout W / Vleggaar, Frank P / van Eijck, Casper H J / van Hooft, Jeanin E / Schwartz, Matthijs P / Kuipers, Ernst J / Siersema, Peter D / Anonymous5130688. ·Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands. s.m.jeurnink@students.uu.nl ·Dig Liver Dis · Pubmed #21376680.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Gastrojejunostomy and stentplacement are the most commonly used treatments for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). The preference for either treatment largely depends on the expected survival. Our objective was to investigate predictors of survival in patients with malignant GOO and to develop a model that could aid in the decision for either gastrojejunostomy or stentplacement. METHODS: Prognostic factors for survival were collected from a literature search and evaluated in our patient population, which included 95 retrospectively and 56 prospectively followed cases. All 151 patients were treated with gastrojejunostomy or stentplacement. RESULTS: A higher WHO performance score was the only significant prognostic factor for survival in our multivariable analysis (HR 2.2 95%CI 1.7-2.9), whereas treatment for obstructive jaundice, gender, age, metastases, weight loss, level of obstruction and pancreatic cancer were not. A prognostic model that includes the WHO score was able to distinguish patients with a poor survival (WHO score 3-4, median survival: 31 days) from those with a relatively intermediate or good survival (WHO score 2, median survival: 69 and WHO score 0-1, median survival: 139 days, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Only the WHO score is a significant predictor of survival in patients with malignant GOO. A simple prognostic model is able to guide the palliative treatment decision for either gastrojejunostomy (WHO score 0-1) or stentplacement (WHO 3-4) in patients with malignant GOO.