Impact of Endoscopic Ultrasonography on 18F-FDG-PET/CT Upfront Towards Patient Specific Esophageal Cancer Treatment.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with potentially resectable esophageal cancer (EC), the value of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) after fluorine-18 labeled fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography (18F-FDG-PET/CT) is questionable. Retrospectively, we assessed the impact of EUS after PET/CT on the given treatment in EC patients. METHODS: During the period 2009-2015, 318 EC patients were staged as T1-4aN0-3M0 with hybrid 18F-FDG-PET/CT or 18F-FDG-PET with CT and EUS if applicable in a nonspecific order. We determined the impact of EUS on the given treatment in 279 patients who also were staged with EUS. EUS had clinical consequences if it changed curability, extent of radiation fields or lymph node resection (AJCC stations 2-5), and when the performed fine-needle aspiration (FNA) provided conclusive information of suspicious lymph node. RESULTS: EUS had an impact in 80 (28.7%) patients; it changed the radiation field in 63 (22.6%), curability in 5 (1.8%), lymphadenectomy in 48 (17.2%), and FNA was additional in 21 (7.5%). In patients treated with nCRT (n = 194), EUS influenced treatment in 53 (27.3%) patients; in 38 (19.6%) the radiation field changed, in 3 (1.5%) the curability, in 35 (18.0%) the lymphadenectomy, and in 17 (8.8%) FNA was additional. EUS influenced both the extent of radiation field and nodal resection in 31 (16.0%) nCRT patients. CONCLUSIONS: EUS had an impact on the given treatment in approximately 29%. In most patients, the magnitude of EUS found expression in the extent of radiotherapy target volume delineation to upper/high mediastinal lymph nodes.

[An outbreak of measles at an emergency room]. / Een uitbraak van mazelen op de Spoedeisende Hulp.

A small outbreak of measles occurred after a 33-year-old female aircrew (cabin) member presented at an emergency room with fever. Three members of the hospital staff were infected: a 42-year-old man, a 33-year-old woman, and a 26-year-old woman. The first 2 patients had not been immunised, and the third had received 2 immunisations according to the Dutch National Immunisation Programme. Vaccination of the 2 sero-negative patients within 48 h after exposure with the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) did not prevent the development of measles. Vaccination was deemed unnecessary in the third patient. No tertiary cases occurred. The same measles virus (genotype D5) was detected by PCR and sequencing in all 4 patients. Measles remains a risk for hospital staff members who have not acquired natural immunity. The current policy of immunising patients within 72 h after exposure to measles may not be sufficient. It also appears that immunisation through the Dutch National Immunisation Programme does not always protect against nosocomial infection. Providing MMR vaccination or boosters to hospital staff in certain departments might be beneficial.

[Specificity of the Mantoux-reaction to the new tuberculin RT23 in relation to that of previously used PPD-RIVM; a comparative study in hospital staff]. / Specificiteit van de Mantoux-reactie op het nieuwe tuberculine RT23 ten opzichte van de reactie op het oude PPD-RIVM; vergelijkend onderzoek onder ziekenhuispersoneel.

OBJECTIVE: In the Netherlands, an increase in prevalence of tuberculin positivity has been noted since the replacement of the Dutch PPD-RIVM preparation by RT23. This investigation was carried out to assess the specificity of RT23 compared with PPD-RIVM. DESIGN: Comparative. METHOD: In 90 hospital workers simultaneous tuberculin tests were performed in both forearms with RT23 (Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark; lot number 13751; 2 tuberculin units) and PPD-RIVM (Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, Bilthoven, the Netherlands; lot number 76B; 1 IU), respectively. Sensitivity to atypical mycobacteria (Mycobacterium scrophulaceum, M. avium and M. kansasii) was assessed where differences were > 3 mm. RESULTS: In two of 73 non-vaccinated subjects, reactions to RT23 were 11 and 15 mm larger than to PPD-RIVM; both showed sensitivity to M. scrophulaceum and M. avium. Five of nine BCG vaccinated subjects showed differences of five to eight mm; in four of these, the reaction to RT23 was larger. Repeat testing in one showed no cross-reactions. The specificity of RT23 compared with PPD-RIVM was 96% (cut-off at 10 mm diameter). CONCLUSIONS: In a low tuberculosis risk population, tuberculin testing with RT23 yields more positive results than PPD-RIVM. This is probably due to stronger cross-reactivity with atypical mycobacteria of RT23. Decisions on isoniazide prophylaxis should take into account an increased false-positivity rate with RT23.