Karin Haustermans

Bio: Karin Haustermans is an academic researcher from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. The author has contributed to research in topics: Radiation therapy & Prostate cancer. The author has an hindex of 65, co-authored 371 publications receiving 19254 citations. Previous affiliations of Karin Haustermans include Catholic University of Leuven.

Long-term outcome in patients with a pathological complete response after chemoradiation for rectal cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data

Abstract: Summary Background Locally advanced rectal cancer is usually treated with preoperative chemoradiation. After chemoradiation and surgery, 15–27% of the patients have no residual viable tumour at pathological examination, a pathological complete response (pCR). This study established whether patients with pCR have better long-term outcome than do those without pCR. Methods In PubMed, Medline, and Embase we identified 27 articles, based on 17 different datasets, for long-term outcome of patients with and without pCR. 14 investigators agreed to provide individual patient data. All patients underwent chemoradiation and total mesorectal excision. Primary outcome was 5-year disease-free survival. Kaplan-Meier survival functions were computed and hazard ratios (HRs) calculated, with the Cox proportional hazards model. Subgroup analyses were done to test for effect modification by other predicting factors. Interstudy heterogeneity was assessed for disease-free survival and overall survival with forest plots and the Q test. Findings 484 of 3105 included patients had a pCR. Median follow-up for all patients was 48 months (range 0–277). 5-year crude disease-free survival was 83·3% (95% CI 78·8–87·0) for patients with pCR (61/419 patients had disease recurrence) and 65·6% (63·6–68·0) for those without pCR (747/2263; HR 0·44, 95% CI 0·34–0·57; p Q test and forest plots did not suggest significant interstudy variation. The adjusted HR for pCR for failure was 0·54 (95% CI 0·40–0·73), indicating that patients with pCR had a significantly increased probability of disease-free survival. The adjusted HR for disease-free survival for administration of adjuvant chemotherapy was 0·91 (95% CI 0·73–1·12). The effect of pCR on disease-free survival was not modified by other prognostic factors. Interpretation Patients with pCR after chemoradiation have better long-term outcome than do those without pCR. pCR might be indicative of a prognostically favourable biological tumour profile with less propensity for local or distant recurrence and improved survival. Funding None.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Abstract: Background Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty. Objectives To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions. Search methods For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008). Selection criteria We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were: A) 'choice made' attributes; B) 'decision-making process' attributes. Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model. Main results This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each. Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies). A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes: Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13). B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes: Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18); b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18). Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice. C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive. Authors' conclusions There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values. New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine

Abstract: Radiomics, the high-throughput mining of quantitative image features from standard-of-care medical imaging that enables data to be extracted and applied within clinical-decision support systems to improve diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive accuracy, is gaining importance in cancer research. Radiomic analysis exploits sophisticated image analysis tools and the rapid development and validation of medical imaging data that uses image-based signatures for precision diagnosis and treatment, providing a powerful tool in modern medicine. Herein, we describe the process of radiomics, its pitfalls, challenges, opportunities, and its capacity to improve clinical decision making, emphasizing the utility for patients with cancer. Currently, the field of radiomics lacks standardized evaluation of both the scientific integrity and the clinical relevance of the numerous published radiomics investigations resulting from the rapid growth of this area. Rigorous evaluation criteria and reporting guidelines need to be established in order for radiomics to mature as a discipline. Herein, we provide guidance for investigations to meet this urgent need in the field of radiomics.