Dr Bente Talseth-Palmer

© 2019 Røyset et al. Purpose: Falls are a common adverse event experienced by elderly in hospitals. This study assessed the effects of a fall prevention program on the rate of fallers, the patient safety culture, and patient-perceived safety. Materials and methods: Two orthopedic departments in different towns in Norway participated in the study. A comprehensive, multifactorial fall prevention program was implemented in one of the departments, the other one was used for control. The changes in the outcomes in the two departments from before to after the intervention were compared. All patients above 64 years of age admitted to the two departments in a 1-year period before and after the intervention were included. All employees at the two departments were invited to participate in surveys measuring the patient safety culture, and a selection of the patients reported patient-perceived safety. The primary outcome was the rate of fallers. Secondary outcomes were the employees¿ perceived patient safety culture (measured with the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire) and patient-perceived safety (measured with Norwegian Patient Experience Questionnaire). Results: Falls were registered in 114 out of 3,143 patients (3.6%) with 17,006 days in the hospital. Ten patients had two falls, giving a fall rate of 7.3 falls/1,000 days in the hospital. The number of fallers before and after the intervention in the intervention department were 37/734 (5.04%) and 31/735 (4.22%), P=0.46, and in the control department, 25/811 (3.08%) and 21/863 (2.43%), P=0.46. The difference between the changes in the two departments was not statistically significant; 0.17% (95% CI:-2.49 to 2.84; P=0.90). There were also no significant differences in the changes in patient safety culture and patient-perceived safety. Conclusion: The fall prevention program revealed no significant effect on the rate of fallers, the patient safety culture, or patient-perceived safety.

© 2017 The Authors. Clinical Genetics published by John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Background: Many families with a high burden of colorectal cancer fulfil the clinical criteria for Lynch Syndrome. However, in about half of these families, no germline mutation in the mismatch repair genes known to be associated with this disease can be identified. The aim of this study was to find the genetic cause for the increased colorectal cancer risk in these unsolved cases. Materials and methods: To reach the aim, we designed a gene panel targeting 112 previously known or candidate colorectal cancer susceptibility genes to screen 274 patient samples for mutations. Mutations were validated by Sanger sequencing and, where possible, segregation analysis was performed. Results: We identified 73 interesting variants, of whom 17 were pathogenic and 19 were variants of unknown clinical significance in well-established cancer susceptibility genes. In addition, 37 potentially pathogenic variants in candidate colorectal cancer susceptibility genes were detected. Conclusion: In conclusion, we found a promising DNA variant in more than 25 % of the patients, which shows that gene panel testing is a more effective method to identify germline variants in CRC patients compared to a single gene approach.

© 2016 . Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP) is the second most common inherited predisposition to colorectal cancer (CRC) associated with the development of hundreds to thousands of adenomas in the colon and rectum. Mutations in APC are found in ~. 80% polyposis patients with FAP. In the remaining 20% no genetic diagnosis can be provided suggesting other genes or mechanisms that render APC inactive may be responsible. Copy number variants (CNVs) remain to be investigated in FAP and may account for disease in a proportion of polyposis patients. A cohort of 56 polyposis patients and 40 controls were screened for CNVs using the 2.7M microarray (Affymetrix) with data analysed using ChAS (Affymetrix). A total of 142 CNVs were identified unique to the polyposis cohort suggesting their involvement in CRC risk. We specifically identified CNVs in four unrelated polyposis patients among CRC susceptibility genes APC, DCC, MLH1 and CTNNB1 which are likely to have contributed to disease development in these patients. A recurrent deletion was observed at position 18p11.32 in 9% of the patients screened that was of particular interest. Further investigation is necessary to fully understand the role of these variants in CRC risk given the high prevalence among the patients screened.

© 2016 Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Causative germline mutations in mismatch repair (MMR) genes can only be identified in ~50% of families with a clinical diagnosis of the inherited colorectal cancer (CRC) syndrome hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)/Lynch syndrome (LS). Identification of these patients are critical as they are at substantially increased risk of developing multiple primary tumors, mainly colorectal and endometrial cancer (EC), occurring at a young age. This demonstrates the need to develop new and/or more thorough mutation detection approaches. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was used to screen 22 genes involved in the DNA MMR pathway in constitutional DNA from 14 HNPCC and 12 sporadic EC patients, plus 2 positive controls. Several softwares were used for analysis and functional annotation. We identified 5 exonic indel variants, 42 exonic nonsynonymous single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) and 1 intronic variant of significance. Three of these variants were class 5 (pathogenic) or class 4 (likely pathogenic), 5 were class 3 (uncertain clinical relevance) and 40 were classified as variants of unknown clinical significance. In conclusion, we have identified two LS families from the sporadic EC patients, one without a family history of cancer, supporting the notion for universal MMR screening of EC patients. In addition, we have detected three novel class 3 variants in EC cases. We have, in addition discovered a polygenic interaction which is the most likely cause of cancer development in a HNPCC patient that could explain previous inconsistent results reported on an intronic EXO1 variant.

Introduction: Familial breast cancer (fBC) is generally associated with an early age of diagnosis and a higher frequency of disease among family members. Over the past two decades a number of genes have been identified that are unequivocally associated with breast cancer (BC) risk but there remain a significant proportion of families that cannot be accounted for by these genes. Copy number variants (CNVs) are a form of genetic variation yet to be fully explored for their contribution to fBC. CNVs exert their effects by either being associated with whole or partial gene deletions or duplications and by interrupting epigenetic patterning thereby contributing to disease development. CNV analysis can also be used to identify new genes and loci which may be associated with disease risk.Methods: The Affymetrix Cytogenetic Whole Genome 2.7 M (Cyto2.7 M) arrays were used to detect regions of genomic re-arrangement in a cohort of 129 fBC BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation negative patients with a young age of diagnosis (<50 years) compared to 40 unaffected healthy controls (>55 years of age).Results: CNV analysis revealed the presence of 275 unique rearrangements that were not present in the control population suggestive of their involvement in BC risk. Several CNVs were found that have been previously reported as BC susceptibility genes. This included CNVs in RPA3, NBN (NBS1), MRE11A and CYP19A1 in five unrelated fBC patients suggesting that these genes are involved in BC initiation and/or progression. Of special interest was the identification of WWOX and FHIT rearrangements in three unrelated fBC patients.Conclusions: This study has identified a number of CNVs that potentially contribute to BC initiation and/or progression. The identification of CNVs that are associated with known tumour suppressor genes is of special interest that warrants further larger studies to understand their precise role in fBC. © 2014 Masson et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.