Effects of a time out consultation with the general practitioner on cancer treatment decision-making: a randomised controlled trial: Time out with the general practitioner and cancer treatment decision.

OBJECTIVE: Improving shared decision-making (SDM) enables more tailored cancer treatment decisions. We evaluated a Time Out consultation (TOC) with the general practitioner (GP), between cancer diagnosis and treatment decision, which aims at supporting SDM and improving continuity of primary care. This study aims to evaluate the effects of a TOC on perceived SDM, information provision and self-efficacy. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial included newly diagnosed patients with curable cancer (breast, lung, colorectal, gynaecologic and melanoma) from four Dutch hospitals. Primary outcome is perceived SDM and secondary outcomes are information provision and self-efficacy. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four patients (control n = 77, intervention n = 77) - female: 75%, mean age: 61 (SD ± 11.9). In the intervention group, 80.5% (n = 62) had a TOC, of which 82.3% (n = 51) took place after treatment decision. Perceived SDM was lower in the intervention group (-8.9 [95% CI: 0.6-17.1]). Among those with a TOC before treatment decision (n = 11), perceived SDM was comparable to the control group (66.5 ± 27.2 vs. 67.9 ± 26.1). CONCLUSION: Even though patients are motivated to have a TOC, implementing a TOC between diagnosis and treatment decision is challenging. Effects of a timely TOC could not be established. Non-timely TOC decreased perceived SDM. Planning of the TOC should be optimised, and future research should establish if adequately timed TOC results in improved SDM in cancer patients.

[A woman with a bleeding umbilical nodule]. / Een vrouw met een bloedende navel.

A 39-year-old woman was referred to the Dermatology outpatient clinic with a bleeding umbilical nodule. A Sister Mary Joseph's nodule - an ominous sign of periumbilical cutaneous metasasis - was in the differential diagnosis. However, punch biopsy of the nodule revealed cutaneous endometriosis.

A search for biomarkers as diagnostic tools for food allergy: a pilot study in peanut-allergic patients.

BACKGROUND: The impact of peanut allergy is large and accidental ingestion of peanut can lead to severe reactions. Currently used diagnostic tests, such as skin prick tests (SPT) and determination of specific immunoglobulins (IgE) have, however, limited sensitivity and specificity. Therefore, new tools have to be developed to improve the accuracy of the diagnostic work-up of food-allergic patients. Comprehensive metabolite analysis may provide biomarkers for diagnosing food allergy as metabolite levels reflect actual physiological conditions. We investigated whether metabolites can be found that discriminate between peanut-allergic patients and non-peanut-allergic subjects. Such metabolites may be used for future diagnostic purposes. METHODS: Plasma and saliva samples were obtained from 23 participants (12 peanut allergic and 11 peanut tolerant) prior to and after a peanut challenge and measured with (1)H nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy with subsequent multivariate data analysis. RESULTS: Clear differences were observed between NMR spectra of peanut-allergic and peanut-tolerant subjects in plasma as well as saliva. Allergic patients already showed aberrant metabolite levels prior to peanut ingestion, thus before the onset of allergic reactions. CONCLUSION: This pilot study shows that aberrant metabolite levels as determined by NMR in combination with multivariate statistics may serve as novel biomarkers for food allergy.

Lupine allergy: not simply cross-reactivity with peanut or soy.

BACKGROUND: Reports of lupine allergy are increasing as its use in food products increases. Lupine allergy might be the consequence of cross-reactivity after sensitization to peanut or other legumes or de novo sensitization. Lupine allergens have not been completely characterized. OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify allergens associated with lupine allergy, evaluate potential cross-reactivity with peanut, and determine eliciting doses (EDs) for lupine allergy by using double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. METHODS: Six patients with a history of allergic reactions to lupine flour were evaluated by using skin prick tests, CAP tests, and double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. Three of these patients were also allergic to peanut. Lupine allergens were characterized by means of IgE immunoblotting and peptide sequencing. RESULTS: In all 6 patients the ED for lupine flour was 3 mg or less for subjective symptoms and 300 mg or more for objective symptoms. The low ED and moderate-to-severe historical symptoms indicate significant allergenicity of lupine flour. Two patients allergic to lupine but not to peanut displayed IgE binding predominantly to approximately 66-kd proteins and weak binding to 14- and 24-kd proteins, whereas patients with peanut allergy and lupine allergy showed weak binding to lupine proteins of about 14 to 21 or 66 kd. Inhibition of binding was primarily species specific. CONCLUSION: Lupine allergy can occur either separately or together with peanut allergy, as demonstrated by 3 patients who are cosensitized to peanut and lupine. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Lupine flour is allergenic and potentially cross-reactive with peanut allergen, thus posing some risk if used as a replacement for soy flour.