@article{DreischulteSanftenbergHennigsetal.2023,
  author    = {Dreischulte, Tobias and Sanftenberg, Linda and Hennigs, Philipp and Z{\"o}llinger, Isabel and Schwaiger, Rita and Floto, Caroline and Sebastiao, Maria and K{\"u}hlein, Thomas and Hindenburg, Dagmar and Gagyor, Ildik{\´o} and Wildgruber, Domenika and Hausen, Anita and Janke, Christian and H{\"o}lscher, Michael and Teupser, Daniel and Gensichen, Jochen},
  title     = {Detecting medication risks among people in need of care: performance of six instruments},
  series = {International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health},
  volume    = {20},
  journal   = {International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health},
  number    = {3},
  issn      = {1660-4601},
  doi       = {10.3390/ijerph20032327},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-304921},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Introduction: Numerous tools exist to detect potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) and potential prescribing omissions (PPO) in older people, but it remains unclear which tools may be most relevant in which setting. Objectives: This cross sectional study compares six validated tools in terms of PIM and PPO detection. Methods: We examined the PIM/PPO prevalence for all tools combined and the sensitivity of each tool. The pairwise agreement between tools was determined using Cohen's Kappa. Results: We included 226 patients in need of care (median (IQR age 84 (80-89)). The overall PIM prevalence was 91.6 (95\% CI, 87.2-94.9)\% and the overall PPO prevalence was 63.7 (57.1-69.9\%)\%. The detected PIM prevalence ranged from 76.5\%, for FORTA-C/D, to 6.6\% for anticholinergic drugs (German-ACB). The PPO prevalences for START (63.7\%) and FORTA-A (62.8\%) were similar. The pairwise agreement between tools was poor to moderate. The sensitivity of PIM detection was highest for FORTA-C/D (55.1\%), and increased to 79.2\% when distinct items from STOPP were added. Conclusion: Using a single screening tool may not have sufficient sensitivity to detect PIMs and PPOs. Further research is required to optimize the composition of PIM and PPO tools in different settings.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RennerOttoKuebleretal.2023,
  author    = {Renner, Tobias and Otto, Paul and K{\"u}bler, Alexander C. and H{\"o}lscher-Doht, Stefanie and Gbureck, Uwe},
  title     = {Novel adhesive mineral-organic bone cements based on phosphoserine and magnesium phosphates or oxides},
  series = {Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine},
  volume    = {34},
  journal   = {Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10856-023-06714-6},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-357342},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Present surgical situations require a bone adhesive which has not yet been developed for use in clinical applications. Recently, phosphoserine modified cements (PMC) based on mixtures of o-phosphoserine (OPLS) and calcium phosphates, such as tetracalcium phosphate (TTCP) or α-tricalcium phosphate (α-TCP) as well as chelate setting magnesium phosphate cements have gained increasing popularity for their use as mineral bone adhesives. Here, we investigated new mineral-organic bone cements based on phosphoserine and magnesium phosphates or oxides, which possess excellent adhesive properties. These were analyzed by X-ray diffraction, Fourier infrared spectroscopy and electron microscopy and subjected to mechanical tests to determine the bond strength to bone after ageing at physiological conditions. The novel biomineral adhesives demonstrate excellent bond strength to bone with approximately 6.6-7.3 MPa under shear load. The adhesives are also promising due to their cohesive failure pattern and ductile character. In this context, the new adhesive cements are superior to currently prevailing bone adhesives. Future efforts on bone adhesives made from phosphoserine and Mg2+ appear to be very worthwhile.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{PinkawaAebersoldBoehmeretal.2021,
  author    = {Pinkawa, Michael and Aebersold, Daniel M. and B{\"o}hmer, Dirk and Flentje, Michael and Ghadjar, Pirus and Schmidt-Hegemann, Nina-Sophie and H{\"o}cht, Stefan and H{\"o}lscher, Tobias and M{\"u}ller, Arndt-Christian and Niehoff, Peter and Sedlmayer, Felix and Wolf, Frank and Zamboglou, Constantinos and Zips, Daniel and Wiegel, Thomas},
  title     = {Radiotherapy in nodal oligorecurrent prostate cancer},
  series = {Strahlentherapie und Onkologie},
  volume    = {197},
  journal   = {Strahlentherapie und Onkologie},
  number    = {7},
  issn      = {0179-7158},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00066-021-01778-1},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-307763},
  pages     = {575-580},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Objective The current article encompasses a literature review and recommendations for radiotherapy in nodal oligorecurrent prostate cancer. Materials and methods A literature review focused on studies comparing metastasis-directed stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) vs. external elective nodal radiotherapy (ENRT) and studies analyzing recurrence patterns after local nodal treatment was performed. The DEGRO Prostate Cancer Expert Panel discussed the results and developed treatment recommendations. Results Metastasis-directed radiotherapy results in high local control (often > 90\% within a follow-up of 1-2 years) and can be used to improve progression-free survival or defer androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) according to prospective randomized phase II data. Distant progression after involved-node SABR only occurs within a few months in the majority of patients. ENRT improves metastases-free survival rates with increased toxicity in comparison to SABR according to retrospective comparative studies. The majority of nodal recurrences after initial local treatment of pelvic nodal metastasis are detected within the true pelvis and common iliac vessels. Conclusion ENRT with or without a boost should be preferred to SABR in pelvic nodal recurrences. In oligometastatic prostate cancer with distant (extrapelvic) nodal recurrences, SABR alone can be performed in selected cases. Application of additional systemic treatments should be based on current guidelines, with ADT as first-line treatment for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Only in carefully selected patients can radiotherapy be initially used without additional ADT outside of the current standard recommendations. Results of (randomized) prospective studies are needed for definitive recommendations.},
  language  = {en}
}