Geertruida de Bock

Prof. Geertruida de Bock

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

35Years (1992-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
31 May 2011 in British Journal of Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MGM J M Gooden
M J M Gooden
GBGeertruida de Bock
Geertruida de Bock
NLN Leffers
N Leffers
TDT Daemen
T Daemen
HNH W Nijman
H W Nijman
Background: Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are often found in tumours, presumably reflecting an immune response against the tumour. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis, aiming to establish pooled estimates for survival outcomes based on the presence of TILs in cancer. Methods: A Pubmed and Embase literature search was designed. Studies were included, in which the prognostic significance of intratumoural CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, and FoxP3+ lymphocytes, as well as ratios between these subsets, were determined in solid tumours. Results: In pooled analysis, CD3+ TILs had a positive effect on survival with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43–0.78) for death, as did CD8+ TILs with a HR of 0.71 (95% CI 0.62–0.82). FoxP3+ regulatory TILs were not linked to overall survival, with a HR of 1.19 (95% CI 0.84–1.67). The CD8/FoxP3 ratio produced a more impressive HR (risk of death: HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34–0.68), but was used in relatively few studies. Sample size and follow-up time seemed to influence study outcomes. Conclusion: Any future studies should be carefully designed, to prevent overestimating the effect of TILs on prognosis. In this context, ratios between TIL subsets may be more informative.

3 December 2009 in New England Journal of Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
RKRob J. van Klaveren
Rob J. van Klaveren
MOMatthijs Oudkerk
Matthijs Oudkerk
MPMathias Prokop
Mathias Prokop
ESErnst T. Scholten
Ernst T. Scholten
KNKristiaan Nackaerts
Kristiaan Nackaerts
HKHarry J. de Koning
Harry J. de Koning
The use of multidetector computed tomography (CT) in lung-cancer screening trials involving subjects with an increased risk of lung cancer has highlighted the problem for the clinician of deciding on the best course of action when noncalcified pulmonary nodules are detected by CT. A total of 7557 participants underwent CT screening in years 1, 2, and 4 of a randomized trial of lung-cancer screening. We used software to evaluate a noncalcified nodule according to its volume or volume-doubling time. Growth was defined as an increase in volume of at least 25% between two scans. The first-round screening test was considered to be negative if the volume of a nodule was less than 50 mm3, if it was 50 to 500 mm3 but had not grown by the time of the 3-month follow-up CT, or if, in the case of those that had grown, the volume-doubling time was 400 days or more. In the first and second rounds of screening, 2.6% and 1.8% of the participants, respectively, had a positive test result. In round one, the sensitivity of the screen was 94.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.5 to 98.0) and the negative predictive value 99.9% (95% CI, 99.9 to 100.0). In the 7361 subjects with a negative screening result in round one, 20 lung cancers were detected after 2 years of follow-up. Among subjects at high risk for lung cancer who were screened in three rounds of CT scanning and in whom noncalcified pulmonary nodules were evaluated according to volume and volume-doubling time, the chances of finding lung cancer 1 and 2 years after a negative first-round test were 1 in 1000 and 3 in 1000, respectively. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN63545820.)

23 April 2016 in European Radiology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
WHW. J. Heerink
W. J. Heerink
GBGeertruida de Bock
Geertruida de Bock
GJG. J. de Jonge
G. J. de Jonge
HGHarry Groen
Harry Groen
RVR. Vliegenthart
R. Vliegenthart
MOM. Oudkerk
M. Oudkerk
Objectives To meta-analyze complication rate in computed tomography (CT)-guided transthoracic lung biopsy and associated risk factors. Methods Four databases were searched from 1/2000 to 8/2015 for studies reporting complications in CT-guided lung biopsy. Overall and major complication rates were pooled and compared between core biopsy and fine needle aspiration (FNA) using the random-effects model. Risk factors for complications in core biopsy and FNA were identified in meta-regression analysis. Results For core biopsy, 32 articles (8,133 procedures) were included and for FNA, 17 (4,620 procedures). Pooled overall complication rates for core biopsy and FNA were 38.8 % (95 % CI: 34.3–43.5 %) and 24.0 % (95 % CI: 18.2–30.8 %), respectively. Major complication rates were 5.7 % (95 % CI: 4.4–7.4 %) and 4.4 % (95 % CI: 2.7–7.0 %), respectively. Overall complication rate was higher for core biopsy compared to FNA (p < 0.001). For FNA, larger needle diameter was a risk factor for overall complications, and increased traversed lung parenchyma and smaller lesion size were risk factors for major complications. For core biopsy, no significant risk factors were identified. Conclusions In CT-guided lung biopsy, minor complications were common and occurred more often in core biopsy than FNA. Major complication rate was low. For FNA, smaller nodule diameter, larger needle diameter and increased traversed lung parenchyma were risk factors for complications. Key Points • Minor complications are common in CT-guided lung biopsy • Major complication rate is low in CT-guided lung biopsy • CT-guided lung biopsy complications occur more often in core biopsy than FNA • Major complication rate is similar in core biopsy and FNA • Risk factors for FNA are larger needle diameter, smaller lesion size

1 November 2014 in The Lancet Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
NHNanda Horeweg
Nanda Horeweg
JRJoost van Rosmalen
Joost van Rosmalen
MHMarjolein A Heuvelmans
Marjolein A Heuvelmans
CACarlijn M van der Aalst
Carlijn M van der Aalst
RVRozemarijn Vliegenthart
Rozemarijn Vliegenthart
MOMatthijs Oudkerk
Matthijs Oudkerk

10 April 2017 in Journal of Clinical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
VBVeerle A.B. van Den Bogaard
Veerle A.B. van Den Bogaard
BTBastiaan D.P. Ta
Bastiaan D.P. Ta
Arjen Van der SchaafArjen Van der Schaaf
Arjen Van der Schaaf
ABAngelique B. Bouma
Angelique B. Bouma
AMAstrid M.H. Middag
Astrid M.H. Middag
ACAnne P.G Crijns
Anne P.G Crijns
Purpose: A relationship between mean heart dose (MHD) and acute coronary event (ACE) rate was reported in a study of patients with breast cancer (BC). The main objective of our cohort study was to validate this relationship and investigate if other dose-distribution parameters are better predictors for ACEs than MHD. Patients and Methods: The cohort consisted of 910 consecutive female patients with BC treated with radiotherapy (RT) after breast-conserving surgery. The primary end point was cumulative incidence of ACEs within 9 years of follow-up. Both MHD and various dose-distribution parameters of the cardiac substructures were collected from three-dimensional computed tomography planning data. Results: The median MHD was 2.37 Gy (range, 0.51 to 15.25 Gy). The median follow-up time was 7.6 years (range, 0.1 to 10.1 years), during which 30 patients experienced an ACE. The cumulative incidence of ACE increased by 16.5% per Gy (95% CI, 0.6 to 35.0; P = .042). Analysis showed that the volume of the left ventricle receiving 5 Gy (LV-V5) was the most important prognostic dose-volume parameter. The most optimal multivariable normal tissue complication probability model for ACEs consisted of LV-V5, age, and weighted ACE risk score per patient (c-statistic, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.91). Conclusion: A significant dose-effect relationship was found for ACEs within 9 years after RT. Using MHD, the relative increase per Gy was similar to that reported in the previous study. In addition, LV-V5 seemed to be a better predictor for ACEs than MHD. This study confirms the importance of reducing exposure of the heart to radiation to avoid excess risk of ACEs after radiotherapy for BC.

1 August 2016 in The Lancet Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MMMarissa C van Maaren
Marissa C van Maaren
LMLinda de Munck
Linda de Munck
GBGeertruida de Bock
Geertruida de Bock
JJJan J Jobsen
Jan J Jobsen
TDThijs van Dalen
Thijs van Dalen
SSSabine Siesling
Sabine Siesling