[Fewer cancer diagnoses during the COVID-19 epidemic according to diagnosis, age and region]. / Onderdiagnostiek bij kanker door de COVID-19-crisis naar diagnose, leeftijd en provincie: Een cruciale rol voor eerstelijnszorgverleners.

The COVID-19 crisis and the intelligent lockdown have led to a situation in which the Dutch health care system was locked for months for non-COVID-19 patients. Patients did not dare to go to their general practitioner, general practitioners were reticent about hospital referrals, and diagnostic and treatment trajectories were delayed or adapted. This also concerned cancer patients. The severity of the underdiagnosis for these patients mainly depends on their prognosis. In this study, we evaluated the magnitude of underdiagnosis using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch registry of histo- and cytopathology (PALGA). From the week of the first COVID-19 diagnosis in the Netherlands, a decrease of 20-40% in the number of cancer diagnosis was noticed. This decrease was observed in nearly all cancer types, including cancers such as lung cancer (average 23%), head-neck cancer (average 36%) and hematology (average 26%), for which a missed or delayed diagnosis can be life threatening. Therefore, we want more attention for the observed underdiagnosis and the role of the primary care givers, including the general practitioner and dentist. Furthermore, it is of crucial importance that patients with symptoms or complaints feel no hesitation to visit their caregivers.

Platelet activation during haemodialysis: comparison of cuprammonium rayon and polysulfone membranes.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Haemodialysis-treated patients are at a high risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Part of this risk may be attributable to the type of the dialysis membrane used. We evaluated whether different dialysis membranes differ with respect to platelet activation. METHODS: In a randomized crossover trial, the platelet activation was measured in 14 patients treated with two different dialyzers (cuprammonium rayon membrane and polysulfone membrane). We compared the platelet activation over the dialyzer and between dialyzers after several weeks of dialysis. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two dialyzers in platelet activation over the dialyzer. After 2 weeks, however, the expression of CD62P, CD63, and PAC-1 was statistically significantly lower after cuprammonium membrane treatment than after polysulfone membrane treatment (mean fluorescence intensity in arbitrary units 8.0 vs. 11.1, 2.64 vs. 4.01, and 5.61 vs. 9.74, respectively). CONCLUSION: Dialysis with a polysulfone membrane seems to lead to more platelet activation than dialysis with a cuprammonium membrane.