Citations

Mayo Clinic

Clear

763 citation(s) found for "Bähr, Oliver".

A multicentre study of primary breast diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma in the rituximab era
Hosein, Peter J. , Maragulia, Jocelyn, Salzberg, Matthew, Press, Oliver W. , Bast, Martin, Advani, Ranjana H. , Tibshirani, Robert , Evens, Andrew M. , Islam, Nahida , Leonard, John P. , Martin, Peter , Lossos, Izidore S. , Habermann, Thomas M. , Vose, Julie M. , Zelenetz, Andrew D. , Press, Oliver , Advani, Ranjana H , Evens, Andrew M

British Journal of Haematology | January 27, 2014 | Volume: 165 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 358-363

10.1111/bjh.12753 | PMID 24467658 Get It

SummaryPrimary breast diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a rare subtype of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) with limited data on pathology and outcome. A multicentre retrospective study was undertaken to determine prognostic factors and the incidence of central nervous system (CNS) relapses. Data was retrospectively collected on patients from 8 US academic centres. Only patients with stage I/II disease (involvement of breast and localized lymph nodes) were included. Histologies apart from primary DLBCL were excluded. Between 1992 and 2012, 76 patients met the eligibility criteria. Most patients (86%) received chemotherapy, and 69% received immunochemotherapy with rituximab; 65% received radiation therapy and 9% received prophylactic CNS chemotherapy. After a median follow‐up of 4·5 years (range 0·6–20·6 years), the Kaplan–Meier estimated median progression‐free survival was 10·4 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 5·8–14·9 years), and the median overall survival was 14·6 years (95% CI 10·2–19 years). Twelve patients (16%) had CNS relapse. A low stage‐modified International Prognostic Index (IPI) was associated with longer overall survival. Rituximab use was not associated with a survival advantage. Primary breast DLBCL has a high rate of CNS relapse. The stage‐modified IPI score is associated with survival.
Efficacy of a Reduced Electroencephalography Electrode Array for Detection of Seizures
Rubin, Mark N. , Jeffery, Oliver J., Fugate, Jennifer E. , Britton, J., Cascino, Gregory D. , Hocker, Sara E. , Britton, Jeffery W, Wijdicks, Eelco F., Worrell, Gregory A. , Wijdicks, Eelco F. M. , Rabinstein, Alejandro A.

The Neurohospitalist | December 19, 2013 | Volume: 4 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 6-8

10.1177/1941874413507930 | PMID 24381704 Get It

Background: The expertise required for proper electroencephalography (EEG) setup can make the 10-20 array unwieldy in the hospital setting. There may be a role for an EEG array with reduced leads to improve the efficiency of inpatient practice. Methods: Clips from 100 EEG records, 50 ictal and 50 non-ictal, in adult inpatients from January 1, 2007, to January 1, 2012, were retrospectively reviewed and selected for digital lead reduction and blind review. Two epileptologists reviewed these tracings and documented the presence of seizures and severe disturbance of background. The reduced array included 7 leads spanning the scalp. Three different montages were available. Sensitivity and specificity of the reduced array were calculated using the formal EEG report as the comparison standard. Results: For the detection of any seizure, the reduced array EEG had a sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 96%. Sensitivity for identifying encephalopathic patterns was 62% and specificity was 86%. Focal seizures were more readily identified by the reduced array (20 of 25) than were generalized ictal patterns (13 of 25). Conclusion: The reduced electrode array was insufficiently sensitive to seizure detection. Reducing EEG leads might not be a preferred means of optimizing hospital EEG efficiency.
GABA B receptor autoantibody frequency in service serologic evaluation
Jeffery, Oliver J., Lennon, Vanda A. , Pittock, Sean J. , Gregory, Jeremy K., McKeon, Andrew , Britton, Jeffrey W. , Pittock, S J , McKeon, Andrew

Neurology | August 8, 2013 | Volume: 81 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 882-887

10.1212/wnl.0b013e3182a35271 | PMID 23925760 Get It

Expert consensus for multi-modality imaging evaluation of cardiovascular complications of radiotherapy in adults: a report from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the American Society of Echocardiography
Lancellotti, Patrizio , Badano, Luigi P. , Bergler‐Klein, Jutta , Bogaert, Jan , Davin, Laurent , Coucke, Philippe, Dulgheru, Raluca, Edvardsen, Thor , Gaemperli, Oliver , Griffin, Brian P. , Heidenreich, Paul A. , Plana, Juan Carlos , Port, Steven C. , Scherrer‐Crosbie, Marielle , Schwartz, Ronald G. , Sebag, Igal A., Voigt, Jens‐Uwe , Wann, Samuel , Yang, Phillip C. , Nkomo, Vuyisile T. , Cosyns, Bernard , Galderisi, Maurizio , Nieman, Koen , Voigt, Jens-Uwe

European Heart Journal – Cardiovascular Imaging | July 11, 2013 | Volume: 14 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 721-740

10.1093/ehjci/jet123 | PMID 23847385 Get It

Abstract Cardiac toxicity is one of the most concerning side effects of anti-cancer therapy. The gain in life expectancy obtained with anti-cancer therapy can be compromised by increased morbidity and mortality associated with its cardiac complications. While radiosensitivity of the heart was initially recognized only in the early 1970s, the heart is regarded in the current era as one of the most critical dose-limiting organs in radiotherapy. Several clinical studies have identified adverse clinical consequences of radiation-induced heart disease (RIHD) on the outcome of long-term cancer survivors. A comprehensive review of potential cardiac complications related to radiotherapy is warranted. An evidence-based review of several imaging approaches used to detect, evaluate, and monitor RIHD is discussed. Recommendations for the early identification and monitoring of cardiovascular complications of radiotherapy by cardiac imaging are also proposed.
Consensus statement on the multidisciplinary management of patients with recurrent and primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes
Collaborative, The Beyond TME, Antoniou, Anthony , Beynon, John, Bhangu, Aneel , Bose, Pradeep, Boyle, Kirsten, Branagan, Graham , Burling, David , Chang, George J. , Clark, Susan K. , Colquhoun, Patrick, Crane, Christopher H. , Darzi, Ara , Das, Prajnan , Delaney, Conor P. , Desai, Anant, Davies, Mark, Dozois, Eric J. , Fitzgerald, J.E.F. , Frizelle, Frank , George, Bruce , George, Mark, Georgiou, Panagiotis , Gupta, Arun , Harris, Dean , Hawkins, M. , Holm, Torbjörn, Hompes, Roel , Jeys, Lee , Jenkins, John T. , Kiran, Ravi P. , Koh, Cherry , Laurberg, Søren , Law, Wai Lun, Liberman, A. Sender , McArthur, D. Ray, Mirnezami, Alex H. , Moran, Brendan , Mortenson, Neil, Myers, Eddie, Nicholls, R. John, O’Connell, P. R. , O’Dwyer, Sarah , Oliver, Alex, Pallan, Arvind, Patel, Prashant , Patel, Uday , Radley, Simon, Ramsey, Kelvin , Rasmussen, P., Richard, Carole, Rutten, H.J.T. , Sagar, P. M. , Sebag‐Montefiore, David , Stocchi, Luca , Swallow, Carol J. , Tait, Diana , Tan, Emile , Tekkis, Paris, As, Nicholas van , Vuong, T. , Wiggers, Theo , Wilson, Malcolm , Winter, Desmond C. , Woodhouse, Christopher, Collaborative, The Beyond TME, Ali, Simak , Brown, Gina , Wilt, Johannes H.W. de , Desai, Anant , Dietz, David , Duff, Michael J. B. , Dziki, Adam Janusz , Glynne‐Jones, Rob , Goldin, Robert , Harji, Deena Pravin , Heriot, Alexander G. , Marshall, Michelle Berger , Radley, Simon, Solomon, Michael J. , Jeys, Lee M

British Journal of Surgery | June 21, 2013 | Volume: 100 | Issue: 8 | Pages: E1-E33

10.1002/bjs.9192_1 | PMID 23901427 Get It

Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.