Combined assessment of 3q26 amplification and promoter methylation in patients with high grade cervical lesions show age specific differences.

A considerable proportion of high grade cervical intraepithelial lesions (CIN2/3) are known to resolve on their own especially among young women. However, since reliable prognostic markers are still lacking, the diagnosis "CIN3" is still an indication for surgery which may result in overtreatment. It is conceivable that a combination of different, ideally independent molecular markers may provide more reliable results. In the present cross-sectional study two established triage markers, 3q26 amplification and a methylation signature, were evaluated in an age-dependent manner. The patient cohort comprised 60 patients with histologically confirmed CIN2/3 in two equally sized age groups (<30 years, ≥30 years). Cervical scrapes were analyzed by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization for 3q26 amplification and methylation specific PCR (GynTect®) for six different genome regions. Both assays showed a significantly different pattern of test outcome independent of age (P = .001). Moreover, the combination of both assays differed significantly for double positive and double negative cases when comparing the two age groups: In patients <30 years there were clearly less cases with positive methylation signature and amplification of 3q26 as in women ≥30 years (23% vs 63%, Bonferroni adjusted P = .016). Of particular interest is the finding that double negative results were exclusive for the young age group (0% vs 27%, Bonferroni adjusted P = .020). Since regression of CIN2/3 characteristically occurs among young women it is tempting to speculate that a double negative test result could be prognostic for regression of CIN2/3. This will have to be investigated further in a prospective longitudinal intervention study.

Evaluation of a practice team-supported exposure training for patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in primary care - study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Panic disorder and agoraphobia are debilitating and frequently comorbid anxiety disorders. A large number of patients with these conditions are treated by general practitioners in primary care. Cognitive behavioural exposure exercises have been shown to be effective in reducing anxiety symptoms. Practice team-based case management can improve clinical outcomes for patients with chronic diseases in primary care. The present study compares a practice team-supported, self-managed exposure programme for patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in small general practices to usual care in terms of clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a cluster randomised controlled superiority trial with a two-arm parallel group design. General practices represent the units of randomisation. General practitioners recruit adult patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia according to the International Classification of Diseases, version 10 (ICD-10). In the intervention group, patients receive cognitive behaviour therapy-oriented psychoeducation and instructions to self-managed exposure exercises in four manual-based appointments with the general practitioner. A trained health care assistant from the practice team delivers case management and is continuously monitoring symptoms and treatment progress in ten protocol-based telephone contacts with patients. In the control group, patients receive usual care from general practitioners. Outcomes are measured at baseline (T0), at follow-up after six months (T1), and at follow-up after twelve months (T2). The primary outcome is clinical severity of anxiety of patients as measured by the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). To detect a standardised effect size of 0.35 at T1, 222 patients from 37 general practices are included in each group. Secondary outcomes include anxiety-related clinical parameters and health-economic costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials [http://ISCRTN64669297].

[Motivation and barriers to participation in clinical trials]. / Motivation und Barrieren für die Teilnahme an klinischen Studien.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are essential in clinically orientated medical research. Enrollment of patients is determined by patient-related barriers, protocol-related barriers, and motivation and behavior of the physician. MAIN THESES: Patients enrollment in clinical trials is determined by disease, possible diagnostic or therapeutic benefit of study procedures, effort of protocol procedures, and trust of the relationship between the physician and patient. Randomized trials, extensive study procedures and the possibility of receiving placebo are barriers to participation. Understanding of the communication process and knowledge of patients' needs are the base education to gain patients' informed consent to enter a clinical trial and a stable compliance in the course of the study. Motivation of physicians to enroll patients in a clinical trial is determined, e. g., by environmental conditions in clinic or doctors' office, the time and effort of study procedures, and individual academic interest. CONCLUSION: Awareness of factors (positive and negative) which influence motivation of participation in a clinical trial is useful to provide strategies for successful enrollment of patients.