6 Συνέντευξη
11 Αφιέρωμα
12 Άρθρο
18 Άρθρο Μ.
24 Άρθρο
νοσημάτων
Κ. Αθανασάκης Ρευματοειδής
28 Άρθρο
προεκτάσεις
Ευ. Καταξάκη Ρευματοειδής Αρθρίτιδα:
34 Άρθρο
38 Άρθρο
Γ.
42 Άρθρο
46 Ρεπορτάζ
49 Αφιέρωμα GDPR
50 Ρεπορτάζ GDPR:
52 Συνέντευξη
58 Άρθρο
62 Άρθρο
66 Άρθρο
70
73 ΝΟΒ
74 Newsroom
78 Ρεπορτάζ
mouteveli.g@ethosmedia.eu
salvarlis.k@ethosmedia.eu
monopoli.m@ethosmedia.eu ΔΗΜΙΟΥΡΓΙΚΟ:
T: 210 9984950, Φ: 210 9984953
E: info@virus.com.gr
• www.virus.com.gr • www.phb.com.gr
• www.ethosmedia.eu • www.ethosevents.eu
• www.alivemag.gr • www.hrima.gr
• www.insuranceworld.gr
ISSN: 2241-0961
Ειδικά για τις
επιχειρήσεις
του κλάδου της
υγείας, όπως
φαρμακευτικές και
ιατροτεχνολογικού
εξοπλισμού, δημιουργείται άλλη
«Κατακτώντας»
Agilis Clinical Project.
ΑΠ_To Agilis Clinical Project (clinicalproject.
Agilis Clinical Project
(query & discrepancies management),
DCFs (Data Correction Forms),
(Investigators),
(Monitors/ Clinical Research Associates CRAs),
2.
3.
υψηλό βαθμό φιλικότητας και ευχρηστίας στην αλληλεπίδραση
υπηρεσιών.
4. Η πλατφόρμα φιλοξενείται σε αξιόπιστο data centre εντός ΕΕ (Γερμανία), το ο-
ποίο πληροί όλες τις σύγχρονες απαιτήσεις και πρότυπα ασφάλειας δεδομένων και εξασφαλίζει την προστασία και εμπιστευτικότητα των δεδομένων.
5. Συμμορφώνεται πλήρως με τα διεθνή πρότυπα σχετικά με την οργάνωση και
έλεγχο της διεξαγωγής κλινικών μελετών (CRF 21 Part 11, ICH E6 GCP), με τις ευρωπαϊκές κοινοτικές οδηγίες για την
προστασία των προσωπικών δεδομένων (GDPR) καθώς
Who is who
Who is who
2015; 78(4): 434-447.
• Dissecting the damage in Northern Greek patients with childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus:a retrospective cohort study, Artemis Koutsonikoli, Maria Trachana, Anna-Bettina Heidichet al.RheumatolInt 2015; 35(7): 1225-1232. •
• An update on cross-cultural adaptation of US English SMILEY LN Moorthy, E Weiss, MGE Peterson, and members of the International SMILEY Collaborative Lupus 2012 21: 1450 DOI: 10.1177/0961203312461965.
Lajas, Abasolo et al. 2003; Verstappen, Verkleij et al. 2004; Hallert, Husberg et al. 2006; Hulsemann, Ruof et al. 2006).
Who is who
MD,
Etanercept, Adalimumab, Certolizumab Pegol, Golimumab, Abatacept, Tocilizumab, Anakinra, Rituximab.
Όμως, παρά τις προόδους αυτές, σημαντικές ανεκπλήρωτες ανάγκες παραμένουν ακόμη, όπως η κόπωση, ο πόνος και
η ψυχική υγεία, τις οποίες ευελπιστούμε
να καλύψουν τα νέα φάρμακα που αναμένεται να κυκλοφορήσουν.
Η συνεχής έρευνα που γίνεται τα τελευ-
Who is who
GDPR
ΤΗΛΕΦΩΝΟ ΕΠΙΚΟΙΝΩΝ 210.8962416, 210.8962142
(ΣΤΗ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΕΙΑ ΑΛΛΑ & ΣΤΟ ΕΣΩΤ. 110)
EMAIL: sxoles@nov.gr και nov@nov.gr
ΔΕ-ΠΑ: 10:00-20:00 | ΣΑ: 10:00-15:00 novouliagmenis www.nov.gr |
Υδατοσφαίριση, Κολύμβηση, Ιστιοπλοΐα, Συγχρονισμένη Κολύμβηση,
Θαλάσσιο Σκι, Wakeboard,
Tae kwon do, Κηπουρική, Γυμναστική, Καλλιτεχνικά, Θεατρικό Παιχνίδι
Summer Camp
Ναυτικός Όμιλος Βουλιαγμένης διοργανώνει και φέτος, όπως κάθε καλοκαίρι, το Summer Camp για τους αγαπημένους του φίλους.
Παιδιά από 5 έως 13 ετών έχουν τη δυνα-
τότητα να κάνουν τα πρώτα τους βήματα
στον ναυταθλητισμό (ιστιοπλοΐα, wind surf, water polo, κολύμβηση, συγχρονισμένη
κολύμβηση, θαλάσσιο σκι, wakeboard, κανό), τη γυμναστική, την κηπουρική, το
θεατρικό παιχνίδι και άλλες εκπλήξεις, με
τη σωστή καθοδήγηση των επιλεγμένων προπονητών και ομαδαρχών του Ναυτι-
1η περίοδος: Δευτέρα 11/6-15/6 (1 εβδομάδα)
2η περίοδος: Δευτέρα 18/6-6/7 (3 εβδομάδες)
3η περίοδος: Δευτέρα 9/7-27/7 (3 εβδομάδες)
4η περίοδος: Δευτέρα 30/7-10/8 (2 εβδομάδες)
summer camp2018
European Society of Breast Imaging
EUSOBI
(contrast-enhanced
mammography-CESM).
δηλαδή
δημοσιευμένων μελετών CESM.
Οι συγγραφείς εντόπισαν οκτώ μελέτες (4
προοπτικές και 4 αναδρομικές) για συνολικά 920 ασθενείς με 994 αλλοιώσεις. Η
ικανότητα ανίχνευσης των υφιστάμενων
καρκίνων (ευαισθησία), υπολογιζόμενη
από όλες τις μελέτες, ήταν περίπου 98%,
ενώ η ικανότητα αναγνώρισης της φυσιολογικής κατάστασης, ελλείψει οποιουδήποτε ψευδώς θετικού ευρήματος (εξειδί -
ήταν περίπου 58%.
Συνήθεις
ερωτήσεις-απαντήσεις
1. Sardanelli F, Helbich TH, European Society of Breast Imaging Mammography: EUSOBI recommendations for women’s information. Insights Imaging. 2012;3:710. doi: 10.1007/s13244-011-0127-y.
2. Sardanelli F, Aase H, Αlvarez M et al. (2016) Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey. Eur Radiol Nov 2
3. Feig SA. Screening mammography benefit controversies: sorting the evidence. Radiol Clin N Am. 2014;52:455480. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2014.02.009
4. Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, International Agency for Research on Cancer Handbook Working Group et al. Breast Cancer Screeningviewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2353-2358. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr1504363
5. Saadatmand S, Bretveld R, Siesling S, Tilanus-Linthorst MMA. Influence of tumour stage at breast cancer detection on survival in modern times: population based study in 173,797 patients. BMJ. 2015;351:h4901. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4901.
6. Kaplan HG, Malmgren JA, Atwood MK, Calip GS. Effect of treatment and mammography detection on breast cancer survival over time: 1990-2007. Cancer. 2015;121:2553-2561. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29371.
7. Prummel MV, Muradali D, Shumak R, et al. Digital compared with screen-film mammography: measures of diagnostic accuracy among women screened in the Ontario breast screening program.
Radiology. 2016;278:365-373. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2015150733.
8. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C et al. (2006) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth Edition. Available at: http://www.euref.org/europeanguidelines. Accessed on Sept 10, 2016
9. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:1296-1316. doi: 10.1016/j. ejca.2010.02.015.
10. Mann RM, Balleyguier C, Baltzer PA, European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI), with language review by Europa Donna-The European Breast Cancer Coalition et al. Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women’s information. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:36693678. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3807-z.
11. Drossaert CHC, Boer H, Seydel ER. Monitoring women’s experiences during three rounds of breast cancer screening: results from a longitudinal study. J Med Screen. 2002;9:168-175. doi: 10.1136/ jms.9.4.168.
12. American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas). Reston, Va, USA: American College of Radiology; 2013. At: http://www.acr.org/QualitySafety/Resources/BIRADS. Accessed on 9 Sept 2016.
13. Törnberg S, Kemetli L, Ascunce N, et al. A pooled analysis of interval cancer rates in six European countries. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2010;19:87-93. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e32833548ed.
14. Carbonaro LA, Azzarone A, Paskeh BB, et al. Interval breast cancers: absolute and proportional incidence and blinded review in a community mammographic screening program. Eur
J Radiol. 2014;83:e84-e91. doi: 10.1016/j. ejrad.2013.11.025.
15. Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG. Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology. 2011;258:98-105. doi: 10.1148/ radiol.10100655.
16. Hauge IH, Pedersen K, Olerud HM, Hole EO, Hofvind S. The risk of radiation-induced breast cancers due to biennial mammographic screening in women aged 50-69 years is minimal. Acta Radiol. 2014;55:1174-1179. doi: 10.1177/0284185113514051.
17. Biesheuvel C, Barratt A, Howard K, et al. Effects of study methods and biases on estimates of invasive breast cancer overdetection with mammography screening: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:1129-1138. doi: 10.1016/ S1470-2045(07)70380-7.
18. Paci E, Broeders M, Hofvind S, Puliti D, Duffy SW, EUROSCREEN Working Group European breast cancer service screening outcomes: a first balance sheet of the benefits and harms. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23:1159-1163. doi: 10.1158/10559965.EPI-13-0320.
19. Semturs F, Sturm E, Gruber R, Helbich TH. Physical aspects of different tomosynthesis systems. Radiologe. 2010;50:982-990. doi: 10.1007/s00117010-2012-y.
20. Diekmann F, Bick U. Breast tomosynthesis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2011;32:281-287. doi: 10.1053/j. sult.2011.03.002.
21. Kopans DB. Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202:299308. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.11520.
22. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis
screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology. 2014; 271:655-663. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13131391.
23. Svahn TM, Houssami N, Sechopoulos I, Mattsson S. Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full field digital mammography. Breast. 2015;24:93-99. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2014.12.002.[
24. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47-56[
25. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:20612071. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-2820-3.
26. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:583-589. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70134-7.
27. Lang K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S. Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:184-190. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3803-3.
28. Houssami N. Digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening: data and implications for population screening. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015;12:377-379. doi: 10.1586/17434440.2015.1028362
29. McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:737-743. doi: 10.1001/ jamaoncol.2015.5536.
30. Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;146:371-381. doi: 10.1007/ s10549-014-3023-6.
31. Lobbes MBI, Lalji U, Houwers J, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:1668-1676.
32. Knogler T, Homolka P, Hörnig M, et al. Contrast-enhanced dual energy mammography with a novel anode/filter combination and artifact reduction: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:15751581. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-4007-6.
33. Jeukens CRLPN, Lalji UC, Meijer E et al (2014) Radiation exposure of contrastenhanced spectral mammography compared with full-field digital mammography. Invest Radiol 49:659-665
34. Tagliafico AS, Bignotti B, Rossi F, et al. Diagnostic performance of contrastenhanced spectral mammography: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast. 2016;28:13-19. doi: 10.1016/j. breast.2016.04.008.
35. Tennant SL, James JJ, Cornford EJ et al (2016) Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography improves diagnostic accuracy in the symptomatic setting. Clin Radiol 71:1148-1155
36. Tardivel AM, Balleyguier C, Dunant A, et al. Added value of contrast-enhanced
spectral mammography in postscreening assessment. Breast J. 2016;22:520-528. doi: 10.1111/tbj.12627.
37. Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, et al. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dualenergy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology. 2013;266:743-751. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12121084.
38. Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: Initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:256-264. doi: 10.1007/s00330013-3007-7.
39. Stacul F, van der Molen AJ, Reimer P, Contrast Media Safety Committee of European Society of Urogenital Radiology et al. Contrast induced nephropathy: updated ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee guidelines. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:2527-2541. doi: 10.1007/s00330011-2225-0.
40. Morcos SK, Bellin MF, Thomsen HS, Contrast Media Safety Committee of European Society of Urogenital Radiology et al. Reducing the risk of iodine-based and MRI contrast media administration: recommendation for a questionnaire at the time of booking. Eur J Radiol. 2008;66:225-229. doi: 10.1016/j. ejrad.2008.01.030.
41. Simon MS, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Thomson CA, et al. Mammography interval and breast cancer mortality in women over the age of 75. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;148:187-195. doi: 10.1007/s10549-014-3114-4.
42. Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R et al (2015) Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA 314:1599-1614 •••
(089/470271-92
