Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions: is onsite cytopathology necessary?

The reported median diagnostic yield from endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology is 78% (range 39–93%). The aim of this study is to describe a single-centre experience in the diagnostic work-up of solid pancreatic and peripancreatic masses without the benefit of an onsite...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:HPB (Oxford, England) England), 2010-08, Vol.12 (6), p.389-395
Hauptverfasser: Cherian, P. Thomas, Mohan, Prasoon, Douiri, Abdel, Taniere, Philippe, Hejmadi, Rahul K., Mahon, Brinder S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 395
container_issue 6
container_start_page 389
container_title HPB (Oxford, England)
container_volume 12
creator Cherian, P. Thomas
Mohan, Prasoon
Douiri, Abdel
Taniere, Philippe
Hejmadi, Rahul K.
Mahon, Brinder S.
description The reported median diagnostic yield from endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology is 78% (range 39–93%). The aim of this study is to describe a single-centre experience in the diagnostic work-up of solid pancreatic and peripancreatic masses without the benefit of an onsite cytopathologist. In a consecutive series of 429 EUS examinations performed over a 12-month period by a single operator, 108 were on non-cystic pancreatic or biliary lesions. Data were collected prospectively and the accuracy of FNA was assessed retrospectively using either surgery or repeat imaging as the benchmark in the presence or absence of malignancy. Of the 108 FNAs, 102 (94%) were diagnostic, four were falsely negative (FN) and two were atypical and considered equivocal. There were 78 pancreatic lesions, of which 65 were true positives (TP), 11 true negatives (TN) and two FN, giving an overall accuracy of 97% (76/78). Of nine periampullary lesions, two were TP, six were TN and one was FN, giving an overall accuracy of 89% (8/9). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic and periampullary lesions combined were 96%, 100%, 100% [95% confidence interval (CI) 95–100%], 85% (95% CI 62–97%) and 97%, respectively. There were 21 bile duct lesions, of which 10 were TP, eight TN, two atypical and one FN, giving an overall accuracy of 86% (18/21). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of EUS-FNA for biliary lesions were 91%, 100%, 100% (95% CI 69–100%), 91% (95% CI 59–100%) and 95%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions in our series was 97% and the PPV for the three subgroups of lesion type was 100%; these figures are comparable with the best rates reported in the literature, despite the absence of onsite cytopathology. These rates are potentially a direct result of high-volume practice, dedicated endosonography and cytopathology. These results show that it is possible to achieve high rates of accuracy in places where logistical issues make it impossible to maintain a cytopathologist in the endoscopy suite. In addition, our results contribute to the limited, collective global experience on the effectiveness of EUS-FNA in periampullary and biliary lesions.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2010.00180.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3028579</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1365182X15303142</els_id><sourcerecordid>748929894</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5690-ee877f7e0193cc787180d7ede55c1f3fc9ea0cd83d2487a2c367f10e030cf1273</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNUU1v1DAQjRCIfsBfQL5xytZ2NrGDEIgWaEGlFFQEN8vYk10vWTt4krL7a_irOKSsygl88XjmveeZeVlGGJ2xdI5WMzYXIuelmM84TVlKmaSzzZ1sf1e4m-KiKnMm-Ze97ABxRSlnlNX3sz1Oq4oLWe9nPz-GFkhoCHgb0ITOGTK0fdQYBm_zxeAsWNI4D7kHsAmrsXNR9y544jzpl0Cs0wsf0OGog6F1lnTamwgJZYj26QnR3Uq1gImOT8hI8eh6IGbbh073y9CGxZZ4MICo4_b5g-xeo1uEhzf3Yfbp9aurk7P8_P3pm5MX57kpq5rmAFKIRkAarzBGSJHWYQVYKEvDmqIxNWhqrCwsn0uhuSkq0TAKtKCmYVwUh9mzSbcbvq7BGvBpB63qolunNlTQTv1d8W6pFuFaFZTLUtRJ4PGNQAzfB8BerR0aaFvtIQyoxFzWvJb1PCHlhDQxIEZodr8wqkZ71UqNLqrRRTXaq37bqzaJ-uh2lzviHz8T4OkE-OFa2P63sDq7PE5BoucT3WEPmx1dx2-qEoUo1eeLU_X2g7isXr67UhcJfzzhIVlz7SAqNA68AesimF7Z4P491C-jgd3v</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>748929894</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions: is onsite cytopathology necessary?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Cherian, P. Thomas ; Mohan, Prasoon ; Douiri, Abdel ; Taniere, Philippe ; Hejmadi, Rahul K. ; Mahon, Brinder S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Cherian, P. Thomas ; Mohan, Prasoon ; Douiri, Abdel ; Taniere, Philippe ; Hejmadi, Rahul K. ; Mahon, Brinder S.</creatorcontrib><description>The reported median diagnostic yield from endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology is 78% (range 39–93%). The aim of this study is to describe a single-centre experience in the diagnostic work-up of solid pancreatic and peripancreatic masses without the benefit of an onsite cytopathologist. In a consecutive series of 429 EUS examinations performed over a 12-month period by a single operator, 108 were on non-cystic pancreatic or biliary lesions. Data were collected prospectively and the accuracy of FNA was assessed retrospectively using either surgery or repeat imaging as the benchmark in the presence or absence of malignancy. Of the 108 FNAs, 102 (94%) were diagnostic, four were falsely negative (FN) and two were atypical and considered equivocal. There were 78 pancreatic lesions, of which 65 were true positives (TP), 11 true negatives (TN) and two FN, giving an overall accuracy of 97% (76/78). Of nine periampullary lesions, two were TP, six were TN and one was FN, giving an overall accuracy of 89% (8/9). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic and periampullary lesions combined were 96%, 100%, 100% [95% confidence interval (CI) 95–100%], 85% (95% CI 62–97%) and 97%, respectively. There were 21 bile duct lesions, of which 10 were TP, eight TN, two atypical and one FN, giving an overall accuracy of 86% (18/21). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of EUS-FNA for biliary lesions were 91%, 100%, 100% (95% CI 69–100%), 91% (95% CI 59–100%) and 95%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions in our series was 97% and the PPV for the three subgroups of lesion type was 100%; these figures are comparable with the best rates reported in the literature, despite the absence of onsite cytopathology. These rates are potentially a direct result of high-volume practice, dedicated endosonography and cytopathology. These results show that it is possible to achieve high rates of accuracy in places where logistical issues make it impossible to maintain a cytopathologist in the endoscopy suite. In addition, our results contribute to the limited, collective global experience on the effectiveness of EUS-FNA in periampullary and biliary lesions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1365-182X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1477-2574</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2010.00180.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20662789</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>biliary tract ; Biopsy, Fine-Needle ; cytology ; endoscopic ultrasound ; Endosonography ; England ; False Negative Reactions ; Humans ; investigation ; Original ; Pancreas - diagnostic imaging ; Pancreas - pathology ; pancreatic mass ; Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Pancreatic Neoplasms - pathology ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Prognosis ; Retrospective Studies ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Ultrasonography, Interventional - methods</subject><ispartof>HPB (Oxford, England), 2010-08, Vol.12 (6), p.389-395</ispartof><rights>2010 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association</rights><rights>2010 International Hepato‐Pancreato‐Biliary Association</rights><rights>Journal compilation © 2010 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5690-ee877f7e0193cc787180d7ede55c1f3fc9ea0cd83d2487a2c367f10e030cf1273</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5690-ee877f7e0193cc787180d7ede55c1f3fc9ea0cd83d2487a2c367f10e030cf1273</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3028579/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3028579/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,886,1418,27929,27930,45579,45580,53796,53798</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20662789$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cherian, P. Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohan, Prasoon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Douiri, Abdel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taniere, Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hejmadi, Rahul K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mahon, Brinder S.</creatorcontrib><title>Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions: is onsite cytopathology necessary?</title><title>HPB (Oxford, England)</title><addtitle>HPB (Oxford)</addtitle><description>The reported median diagnostic yield from endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology is 78% (range 39–93%). The aim of this study is to describe a single-centre experience in the diagnostic work-up of solid pancreatic and peripancreatic masses without the benefit of an onsite cytopathologist. In a consecutive series of 429 EUS examinations performed over a 12-month period by a single operator, 108 were on non-cystic pancreatic or biliary lesions. Data were collected prospectively and the accuracy of FNA was assessed retrospectively using either surgery or repeat imaging as the benchmark in the presence or absence of malignancy. Of the 108 FNAs, 102 (94%) were diagnostic, four were falsely negative (FN) and two were atypical and considered equivocal. There were 78 pancreatic lesions, of which 65 were true positives (TP), 11 true negatives (TN) and two FN, giving an overall accuracy of 97% (76/78). Of nine periampullary lesions, two were TP, six were TN and one was FN, giving an overall accuracy of 89% (8/9). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic and periampullary lesions combined were 96%, 100%, 100% [95% confidence interval (CI) 95–100%], 85% (95% CI 62–97%) and 97%, respectively. There were 21 bile duct lesions, of which 10 were TP, eight TN, two atypical and one FN, giving an overall accuracy of 86% (18/21). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of EUS-FNA for biliary lesions were 91%, 100%, 100% (95% CI 69–100%), 91% (95% CI 59–100%) and 95%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions in our series was 97% and the PPV for the three subgroups of lesion type was 100%; these figures are comparable with the best rates reported in the literature, despite the absence of onsite cytopathology. These rates are potentially a direct result of high-volume practice, dedicated endosonography and cytopathology. These results show that it is possible to achieve high rates of accuracy in places where logistical issues make it impossible to maintain a cytopathologist in the endoscopy suite. In addition, our results contribute to the limited, collective global experience on the effectiveness of EUS-FNA in periampullary and biliary lesions.</description><subject>biliary tract</subject><subject>Biopsy, Fine-Needle</subject><subject>cytology</subject><subject>endoscopic ultrasound</subject><subject>Endosonography</subject><subject>England</subject><subject>False Negative Reactions</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>investigation</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Pancreas - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Pancreas - pathology</subject><subject>pancreatic mass</subject><subject>Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Pancreatic Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Prognosis</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Ultrasonography, Interventional - methods</subject><issn>1365-182X</issn><issn>1477-2574</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNUU1v1DAQjRCIfsBfQL5xytZ2NrGDEIgWaEGlFFQEN8vYk10vWTt4krL7a_irOKSsygl88XjmveeZeVlGGJ2xdI5WMzYXIuelmM84TVlKmaSzzZ1sf1e4m-KiKnMm-Ze97ABxRSlnlNX3sz1Oq4oLWe9nPz-GFkhoCHgb0ITOGTK0fdQYBm_zxeAsWNI4D7kHsAmrsXNR9y544jzpl0Cs0wsf0OGog6F1lnTamwgJZYj26QnR3Uq1gImOT8hI8eh6IGbbh073y9CGxZZ4MICo4_b5g-xeo1uEhzf3Yfbp9aurk7P8_P3pm5MX57kpq5rmAFKIRkAarzBGSJHWYQVYKEvDmqIxNWhqrCwsn0uhuSkq0TAKtKCmYVwUh9mzSbcbvq7BGvBpB63qolunNlTQTv1d8W6pFuFaFZTLUtRJ4PGNQAzfB8BerR0aaFvtIQyoxFzWvJb1PCHlhDQxIEZodr8wqkZ71UqNLqrRRTXaq37bqzaJ-uh2lzviHz8T4OkE-OFa2P63sDq7PE5BoucT3WEPmx1dx2-qEoUo1eeLU_X2g7isXr67UhcJfzzhIVlz7SAqNA68AesimF7Z4P491C-jgd3v</recordid><startdate>201008</startdate><enddate>201008</enddate><creator>Cherian, P. Thomas</creator><creator>Mohan, Prasoon</creator><creator>Douiri, Abdel</creator><creator>Taniere, Philippe</creator><creator>Hejmadi, Rahul K.</creator><creator>Mahon, Brinder S.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201008</creationdate><title>Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions: is onsite cytopathology necessary?</title><author>Cherian, P. Thomas ; Mohan, Prasoon ; Douiri, Abdel ; Taniere, Philippe ; Hejmadi, Rahul K. ; Mahon, Brinder S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5690-ee877f7e0193cc787180d7ede55c1f3fc9ea0cd83d2487a2c367f10e030cf1273</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>biliary tract</topic><topic>Biopsy, Fine-Needle</topic><topic>cytology</topic><topic>endoscopic ultrasound</topic><topic>Endosonography</topic><topic>England</topic><topic>False Negative Reactions</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>investigation</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Pancreas - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Pancreas - pathology</topic><topic>pancreatic mass</topic><topic>Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Pancreatic Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Prognosis</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Ultrasonography, Interventional - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cherian, P. Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohan, Prasoon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Douiri, Abdel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taniere, Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hejmadi, Rahul K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mahon, Brinder S.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>HPB (Oxford, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cherian, P. Thomas</au><au>Mohan, Prasoon</au><au>Douiri, Abdel</au><au>Taniere, Philippe</au><au>Hejmadi, Rahul K.</au><au>Mahon, Brinder S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions: is onsite cytopathology necessary?</atitle><jtitle>HPB (Oxford, England)</jtitle><addtitle>HPB (Oxford)</addtitle><date>2010-08</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>389</spage><epage>395</epage><pages>389-395</pages><issn>1365-182X</issn><eissn>1477-2574</eissn><abstract>The reported median diagnostic yield from endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology is 78% (range 39–93%). The aim of this study is to describe a single-centre experience in the diagnostic work-up of solid pancreatic and peripancreatic masses without the benefit of an onsite cytopathologist. In a consecutive series of 429 EUS examinations performed over a 12-month period by a single operator, 108 were on non-cystic pancreatic or biliary lesions. Data were collected prospectively and the accuracy of FNA was assessed retrospectively using either surgery or repeat imaging as the benchmark in the presence or absence of malignancy. Of the 108 FNAs, 102 (94%) were diagnostic, four were falsely negative (FN) and two were atypical and considered equivocal. There were 78 pancreatic lesions, of which 65 were true positives (TP), 11 true negatives (TN) and two FN, giving an overall accuracy of 97% (76/78). Of nine periampullary lesions, two were TP, six were TN and one was FN, giving an overall accuracy of 89% (8/9). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic and periampullary lesions combined were 96%, 100%, 100% [95% confidence interval (CI) 95–100%], 85% (95% CI 62–97%) and 97%, respectively. There were 21 bile duct lesions, of which 10 were TP, eight TN, two atypical and one FN, giving an overall accuracy of 86% (18/21). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of EUS-FNA for biliary lesions were 91%, 100%, 100% (95% CI 69–100%), 91% (95% CI 59–100%) and 95%, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions in our series was 97% and the PPV for the three subgroups of lesion type was 100%; these figures are comparable with the best rates reported in the literature, despite the absence of onsite cytopathology. These rates are potentially a direct result of high-volume practice, dedicated endosonography and cytopathology. These results show that it is possible to achieve high rates of accuracy in places where logistical issues make it impossible to maintain a cytopathologist in the endoscopy suite. In addition, our results contribute to the limited, collective global experience on the effectiveness of EUS-FNA in periampullary and biliary lesions.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>20662789</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1477-2574.2010.00180.x</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1365-182X
ispartof HPB (Oxford, England), 2010-08, Vol.12 (6), p.389-395
issn 1365-182X
1477-2574
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3028579
source MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Access via Wiley Online Library; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects biliary tract
Biopsy, Fine-Needle
cytology
endoscopic ultrasound
Endosonography
England
False Negative Reactions
Humans
investigation
Original
Pancreas - diagnostic imaging
Pancreas - pathology
pancreatic mass
Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnosis
Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Pancreatic Neoplasms - pathology
Predictive Value of Tests
Prognosis
Retrospective Studies
Sensitivity and Specificity
Ultrasonography, Interventional - methods
title Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions: is onsite cytopathology necessary?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-12T09%3A50%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Role%20of%20endoscopic%20ultrasound-guided%20fine-needle%20aspiration%20in%20the%20diagnosis%20of%20solid%20pancreatic%20and%20peripancreatic%20lesions:%20is%20onsite%20cytopathology%20necessary?&rft.jtitle=HPB%20(Oxford,%20England)&rft.au=Cherian,%20P.%20Thomas&rft.date=2010-08&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=389&rft.epage=395&rft.pages=389-395&rft.issn=1365-182X&rft.eissn=1477-2574&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1477-2574.2010.00180.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E748929894%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=748929894&rft_id=info:pmid/20662789&rft_els_id=S1365182X15303142&rfr_iscdi=true