Displaying all 7 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Abouammo MD, Narayanan MS, Alsavaf MB, Alwabili M, Gosal JS, Bhuskute GS, et al.
    PMID: 38506519 DOI: 10.1227/ons.0000000000001119
    BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Expanded endonasal approaches (EEAs) have proven safe and effective in treating select petrous apex (PA) pathologies. Angled endoscopes and instruments have expanded indications for such approaches; however, the complex neurovascular anatomy surrounding the petrous region remains a significant challenge. This study evaluates the feasibility, anatomic aspects, and limitations of a contralateral nasofrontal trephination (CNT) route as a complementary corridor improving access to the PA.

    METHODS: Expanded endonasal and CNT approaches to the PA were carried out bilaterally in 15 cadaveric heads with endovascular latex injections. The distance to the PA, angle between instruments through the 2 approach portals, and surgical freedom were measured and compared.

    RESULTS: Three-dimensional DICOM-based modeling and visualization indicate that the CNT route reduces the distance to the target located within the contralateral PA by an average of 3.33 cm (19%) and affords a significant increase in the angle between instruments (15.60°; 54%). Furthermore, the vertical vector of approach is improved by 28.97° yielding a caudal reach advantage of 2 cm. The area of surgical freedom afforded by 3 different approaches (endonasal, endonasal with an endoscope in CNT portal, and endonasal with an instrument in CNT portal) was compared at 4 points: the dural exit point of the 6th cranial nerve, jugular foramen, foramen lacerum, and petroclival fissure. The mean area of surgical freedom provided by both approaches incorporating the CNT corridor was superior to EEA alone at each of the surgical targets (P =

  2. Chiu HM, Ching JY, Wu KC, Rerknimitr R, Li J, Wu DC, et al.
    Gastroenterology, 2016 Mar;150(3):617-625.e3.
    PMID: 26627608 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.11.042
    BACKGROUND & AIMS: Age, sex, smoking, and family history are risk factors for colorectal cancer in Asia. The Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening (APCS) scoring system was developed to identify subjects with a high risk for advanced neoplasm (AN). We tested an algorithm that combined APCS scores with fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in colorectal cancer screening.
    METHODS: We performed a multicenter prospective study, enrolling asymptomatic individuals older than 40 years old in 12 Asia-Pacific regions from December 2011 to December 2013. APCS scores were calculated for each individual (0-1 = low risk [LR], 2-3 = medium risk [MR], and 4-7 = high risk [HR] for AN). LR and MR subjects were offered FIT and referred for early colonoscopies if FIT results were positive. HR subjects were offered colonoscopies. The proportions of subjects with ANs were determined for each group based on colonoscopy findings; odd ratios for LR and MR subjects were calculated compared to LR individuals. We calculated the sensitivity of the APCS-FIT algorithm in identifying subjects with AN.
    RESULTS: A total of 5657 subjects were recruited: 646 subjects (11.4%) were considered LR, 3243 subjects (57.3%) were considered MR, and 1768 subjects (31.3%) were considered HR for AN. The proportions of individuals with an AN in these groups were 1.5%, 5.1%, and 10.9%, respectively. Compared with LR group, MR and HR subjects had a 3.4-fold increase and a 7.8-fold increase in risk for AN, respectively. A total of 70.6% subjects with AN (95% confidence interval: 65.6%-75.1%) and 95.1% subjects with invasive cancers (95% confidence interval: 82.2%-99.2%) were correctly instructed to undergo early colonoscopy examination.
    CONCLUSIONS: The APCS scoring system, which is based on age, sex, family history, and smoking, is a useful tool for determining risk for colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma in asymptomatic subjects. Use of the APCS score-based algorithm in triaging subjects for FIT or colonoscopy can substantially reduce colonoscopy workload.
  3. Wong MCS, Rerknimitr R, Lee Goh K, Matsuda T, Kim HS, Wu DC, et al.
    Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2021 01;19(1):119-127.e1.
    PMID: 31923642 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.12.031
    BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients found to be at high risk of advanced proximal neoplasia (APN) after flexible sigmoidoscopy screening should be considered for colonoscopy examination. We developed and validated a scoring system to identify persons at risk for APN.

    METHODS: We collected data from 7954 asymptomatic subjects (age, 50-75 y) who received screening colonoscopy examinations at 14 sites in Asia. We randomly assigned 5303 subjects to the derivation cohort and the remaining 2651 to the validation cohort. We collected data from the derivation cohort on age, sex, family history of colorectal cancer, smoking, drinking, body mass index, medical conditions, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin. Associations between the colonoscopic findings of APN and each risk factor were examined using the Pearson χ2 test, and we assigned each participant a risk score (0-15), with scores of 0 to 3 as average risk and scores of 4 or higher as high risk. The scoring system was tested in the validation cohort. We used the Cochran-Armitage test of trend to compare the prevalence of APN among subjects in each group.

    RESULTS: In the validation cohort, 79.5% of patients were classified as average risk and 20.5% were classified as high risk. The prevalence of APN in the average-risk group was 1.9% and in the high-risk group was 9.4% (adjusted relative risk, 5.08; 95% CI, 3.38-7.62; P < .001). The score included age (61-70 y, 3; ≥70 y, 4), smoking habits (current/past, 2), family history of colorectal cancer (present in a first-degree relative, 2), and the presence of neoplasia in the distal colorectum (nonadvanced adenoma 5-9 mm, 2; advanced neoplasia, 7). The c-statistic of the score was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.79), and for distal findings alone was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.60-0.74). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test statistic was greater than 0.05, indicating the reliability of the validation set. The number needed to refer was 11 (95% CI, 10-13), and the number needed to screen was 15 (95% CI, 12-17).

    CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated a scoring system to identify persons at risk for APN. Screening participants who undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy screening with a score of 4 points or higher should undergo colonoscopy evaluation.

  4. Sung JJ, Chiu PW, Chan FKL, Lau JY, Goh KL, Ho LH, et al.
    Gut, 2018 10;67(10):1757-1768.
    PMID: 29691276 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-316276
    Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding remains an important emergency condition, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. As endoscopic therapy is the 'gold standard' of management, treatment of these patients can be considered in three stages: pre-endoscopic treatment, endoscopic haemostasis and post-endoscopic management. Since publication of the Asia-Pacific consensus on non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) 7 years ago, there have been significant advancements in the clinical management of patients in all three stages. These include pre-endoscopy risk stratification scores, blood and platelet transfusion, use of proton pump inhibitors; during endoscopy new haemostasis techniques (haemostatic powder spray and over-the-scope clips); and post-endoscopy management by second-look endoscopy and medication strategies. Emerging techniques, including capsule endoscopy and Doppler endoscopic probe in assessing adequacy of endoscopic therapy, and the pre-emptive use of angiographic embolisation, are attracting new attention. An emerging problem is the increasing use of dual antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants in patients with cardiac and cerebrovascular diseases. Guidelines on the discontinuation and then resumption of these agents in patients presenting with NVUGIB are very much needed. The Asia-Pacific Working Group examined recent evidence and recommends practical management guidelines in this updated consensus statement.
  5. Ling KL, Hilmi I, Raja Ali RA, Leong RWL, Leung WK, Ng SC, et al.
    JGH Open, 2020 Jun;4(3):320-323.
    PMID: 32514431 DOI: 10.1002/jgh3.12362
    The COVID-19 pandemic, secondary to SARS-CoV-2, has resulted in high mortality and morbidity worldwide. As inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic disease, and most patients are on long-term immunosuppressive agents, there is understandable concern, particularly in terms of therapy. In view of this, experts in IBD across the Asia Pacific region were invited to put together recommendations based on their experience and the currently available data. In general, most IBD therapies (with a few exceptions) can be continued safely, and the general consensus is that maintaining disease control should remain the main principle of management. In addition, social distancing measures and the appropriate use of personal protective equipment should be strictly adhered to. During the current pandemic, face-to-face clinic follow ups and non-urgent procedures should be kept to a minimum.
  6. Wong MC, Ching JY, Chiu HM, Wu KC, Rerknimitr R, Li J, et al.
    Am J Gastroenterol, 2016 11;111(11):1621-1629.
    PMID: 26977757 DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2016.52
    OBJECTIVES: We tested the hypothesis that the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN), and colorectal adenoma among screening participants with different first-degree relatives (FDRs) affected by CRC was similar.

    METHODS: A multi-center, prospective colonoscopy study involving 16 Asia-Pacific regions was performed from 2008 to 2015. Consecutive self-referred CRC screening participants aged 40-70 years were recruited, and each subject received one direct optical colonoscopy. The prevalence of CRC, ACN, and colorectal adenoma was compared among subjects with different FDRs affected using Pearson's χ2 tests. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the risk of these lesions, controlling for recognized risk factors including age, gender, smoking habits, alcohol drinking, body mass index, and the presence of diabetes mellitus.

    RESULTS: Among 11,797 asymptomatic subjects, the prevalence of CRC was 0.6% (none: 0.6%; siblings: 1.1%; mother: 0.5%; father: 1.2%; ≥2 members: 3.1%, P<0.001), that of ACN was 6.5% (none: 6.1%; siblings: 8.3%; mother: 7.7%; father: 8.7%; ≥2 members: 9.3%, P<0.001), and that of colorectal adenoma was 29.3% (none: 28.6%; siblings: 33.5%; mother: 31.8%; father: 31.1%; ≥2 members: 38.1%, P<0.001). In multivariate regression analyses, subjects with at least one FDR affected were significantly more likely to have CRC (adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=2.02-7.89), ACN (AOR=1.55-2.06), and colorectal adenoma (AOR=1.31-1.92) than those without a family history. The risk of CRC (AOR=0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-2.35, P=0.830), ACN (AOR=1.07, 95% CI 0.75-1.52, P=0.714), and colorectal adenoma (AOR=0.96, 95% CI 0.78-1.19, P=0.718) in subjects with either parent affected was similar to that of subjects with their siblings affected.

    CONCLUSIONS: The risk of colorectal neoplasia was similar among subjects with different FDRs affected. These findings do not support the need to discriminate proband identity in screening participants with affected FDRs when their risks of colorectal neoplasia were estimated.

  7. Koo JH, Leong RW, Ching J, Yeoh KG, Wu DC, Murdani A, et al.
    Gastrointest Endosc, 2012 Jul;76(1):126-35.
    PMID: 22726471 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.03.168
    BACKGROUND: The rapid increase in the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the Asia-Pacific region in the past decade has resulted in recommendations to implement mass CRC screening programs. However, the knowledge of screening and population screening behaviors between countries is largely lacking.
    OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, international study investigated the association of screening test participation with knowledge of, attitudes toward, and barriers to CRC and screening tests in different cultural and sociopolitical contexts.
    METHODS: Person-to-person interviews by using a standardized survey instrument were conducted with subjects from 14 Asia-Pacific countries/regions to assess the prevailing screening participation rates, knowledge of and attitudes toward and barriers to CRC and screening tests, intent to participate, and cues to action. Independent predictors of the primary endpoint, screening participation was determined from subanalyses performed for high-, medium-, and low-participation countries.
    RESULTS: A total of 7915 subjects (49% male, 37.8% aged 50 years and older) were recruited. Of the respondents aged 50 years and older, 809 (27%) had undergone previous CRC testing; the Philippines (69%), Australia (48%), and Japan (38%) had the highest participation rates, whereas India (1.5%), Malaysia (3%), Indonesia (3%), Pakistan (7.5%), and Brunei (13.7%) had the lowest rates. Physician recommendation and knowledge of screening tests were significant predictors of CRC test uptake. In countries with low-test participation, lower perceived access barriers and higher perceived severity were independent predictors of participation. Respondents from low-participation countries had the least knowledge of symptoms, risk factors, and tests and reported the lowest physician recommendation rates. "Intent to undergo screening" and "perceived need for screening" was positively correlated in most countries; however, this was offset by financial and access barriers.
    LIMITATIONS: Ethnic heterogeneity may exist in each country that was not addressed. In addition, the participation tests and physician recommendation recalls were self-reported.
    CONCLUSIONS: In the Asia-Pacific region, considerable differences were evident in the participation of CRC tests, physician recommendations, and knowledge of, attitudes toward, and barriers to CRC screening. Physician recommendation was the uniform predictor of screening behavior in all countries. Before implementing mass screening programs, improving awareness of CRC and promoting the physicians' role are necessary to increase the screening participation rates.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links