What is the potential benefit of pre-hospital extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for patients with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest? A predictive modelling study.

AIM: In this predictive modelling study we aimed to investigate how many patients with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) would benefit from pre-hospital as opposed to in-hospital initiation of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). METHODS: A temporal spatial analysis of Utstein data was performed for all adult patients with a non-traumatic OHCA attended by three emergency medical services (EMS) covering the north of the Netherlands during a one-year period. Patients were considered potentially eligible for ECPR if they had a witnessed arrest with immediate bystander CPR, an initial shockable rhythm (or signs of life during resuscitation) and could be presented in an ECPR-centre within 45 minutes of the arrest. Endpoint of interest was defined as the hypothetical number of ECPR eligible patients after 10, 15 and 20 minutes of conventional CPR and upon (hypothetical) arrival in an ECPR-centre as a fraction of the total number of OHCA patients attended by EMS. RESULTS: During the study period 622 OHCA patients were attended, of which 200 (32%) met ECPR eligibility criteria upon EMS arrival. The optimal transition point between conventional CPR and ECPR was found to be after 15 minutes. Hypothetical intra-arrest transport of all patients in whom no return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was obtained after that point (n = 84) would have yielded 16/622 (2.5%) patients being potentially ECPR eligible upon hospital arrival (average low-flow time 52 minutes), whereas on-scene initiation of ECPR would have resulted in 84/622 (13.5%) potential candidates (average estimated low-flow time 24 minutes before cannulation). CONCLUSION: Even in healthcare systems with relatively short transport distances to hospital, consideration should be given to pre-hospital initiation of ECPR for OHCA as it shortens low-flow time and increases the number of potentially eligible patients.

Features of prostate cancers detected during a prevalence screening round. The Rotterdam experience.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing of asymptomatic men may lead to the detection of "minimal" prostate cancers that are less likely to be associated with morbidity or mortality. OBJECTIVE: To examine the significance of various diagnostic outcomes from needle biopsies of the prostate in an asymptomatic population of men. METHODS: Prostatic needle biopsy findings were matched with those from radical prostatectomy specimens using data from the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Men, aged between 55 and 75 years, with elevated PSA levels underwent lateralized sextant needle biopsies. In corresponding radical prostatectomy specimens, the tumor categories (minimal, moderate, or advanced) were determined. RESULTS: Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 5.1% of 19,970 screened men, and 31.6 % of the men had cancers that were categorized as "minimal." Repeat biopsies performed after initial diagnoses of either isolated prostatic intra-epithelial neoplasia (PIN) or "suspicious for malignancy," detected adenocarcinoma in 12.1%and 36.5 % of the men, respectively. In a substudy of 510 men with a benign biopsy outcome 12 months previously, repeat biopsies detected adenocarcinoma in 12.4 of the men. Of men who were subsequently treated with radical prostatectomy, the cancers were classified as "minimal" in 27.8% of the men with previously benign biopsies and in 47.4% of the men with previously suspicious lesions, CONCLUSIONS: The chance of finding a "minimal" prostate cancer in an asymptomatic population is substantial and increases when a repeat biopsy is performed following a biopsy with a suspicious outcome.

Screening for prostate cancer.

Epidemiologically, prostate cancer is the most common cancer in the Western world after skin cancer. To date, it is still unknown whether screening for prostate cancer is justified, because results of randomised clinical trials are not yet available. The available screening tests (i.e. prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test) do not always detect cancers that otherwise would have resulted in prostate cancer mortality. Favourable results from prostate cancer screening include an increasing number of men with localised disease and an increase in the number of well-differentiated tumours. However, the risk of overdiagnosis and subsequent over-treatment (due to the diagnosis of localised disease), using aggressive therapies fuels arguments against screening. Therefore, until more evidence is available proving otherwise, prostate cancer screening can only be justified in the context of clinical trials.

Atrophy in prostate needle biopsy cores and its relationship to prostate cancer incidence in screened men.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the incidence of atrophy reported on sextant biopsies is associated with subsequent prostate cancer detection and to obtain a more thorough analysis of the different categories and extent of atrophy, we performed a review of benign biopsy cores. METHODS: In the Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer, 4117 and 1840 men underwent sextant biopsy in the first and second screening round (4-year interval), respectively. Sextant biopsy was prompted by elevated prostate-specific antigen levels. For review, randomly taken benign sextant biopsies (n = 202) with a follow-up of at least 8 years were chosen. RESULTS: Before review, atrophy was reported in the biopsies of 11.4% and 8.7% of the first and second round, respectively. The prostate cancer incidence during 8 years of follow-up after an initial diagnosis of atrophy was 10.4%, which was not significantly different than the 12.3% of cancers detected after a benign diagnosis without reference to atrophy. After review, the incidence of simple atrophy, post-atrophic hyperplasia, and sclerotic atrophy in sextant biopsies was 91%, 47%, and 9%, respectively. Extensive atrophy was observed in 5% of biopsies. Only 2 men (4.7%) in the reviewed group had a subsequent diagnosis of prostate cancer in the 8 years of follow-up. Additionally, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia was diagnosed in 3 men (7.0%) in the second screening round. CONCLUSIONS: Atrophy, especially its simple form, is a very common lesion in prostate biopsy cores (94%). Atrophy in an asymptomatic population undergoing screening was not associated with a greater prostate cancer or prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia incidence during subsequent screening rounds.

Prostate volume ultrasonography: the influence of transabdominal versus transrectal approach, device type and operator.

OBJECTIVES: We conduct a longitudinal non-invasive study of changes in urinary bladder contractility secondary to benign prostatic enlargement. In that study, the prostate volume is estimated by transabdominal ultrasonography. The accuracy of those measurements was verified by comparison of transabdominal to transrectal stepwise planimetric ultrasonography as the gold standard. Also, two different transabdominal devices used were compared, and the influence of different operators was studied. MATERIALS & METHODS: Two series of measurements in 100 patients each were done. In the first series, transabdominal and transrectal sonography were pairwise compared in each patient. In the second series, transabdominal measurements were done with two devices (a hospital Aloka SSD-1700 and a portable Aloka SSD-900). Transrectal scannings were done by three investigators whilst all transabdominal scannings were done by one. Regression graphs, ratio plots and statistical analyses of the data quantified the reproducibility of different methods, observers and device types. RESULTS: In the transrectal-transabdominal series of prostate volume measurements (in cm3), the Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.84 (p < 0.001), the mean of the means was 51.8 +/- 23.0 (mean +/- S.D.), and the mean of the differences was 1.0 +/- 1.4. In the series with two devices, the Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.73 (p < 0.001), the mean of the means was 31.0 +/- 10.9, and the mean of the differences was 1.0 +/- 1.3. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant differences were found between the transabdominal- transrectal ultrasonography, two different transabdominal devices nor between different observers. However, for those using these measurements in everyday clinical practice, it is worth to point out that in our data a transabdominal scan and a transrectal scan in the same patient, on the same day, differed more than 30% in one fourth of the patients and that two transabdominal scans in the same patient (with two different devices, on two different days) differed more than 30% in every fifth patient.