Showing posts with label dupuytren's. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dupuytren's. Show all posts

Friday, 12 November 2021

New Stuff

 I can't say much at the moment but I am hoping that some new work I am collaborating on will be opening up in the new year. It should be a good chance to gathering some information on some patients and to spread the word and information about Ledderhose disease. 

It will be really interesting to see where it goes. In the mean time I am continuing to try and increase the profile of the condition. We had a good catch up with at the BDS recently and Anna has been working hard with Dr Shaffer to create some really good YouTube Content. 

I intend to post a few of these videos, the first is below and is why it might be too early for radiotherapy. 




Saturday, 21 August 2021

Risk Factors for Dupuytrens's

Recently a new article was published around the risk factors for Duputren's and I and by extensions Ledderhose? The article was freely accessible here.

Rydberg, M., Zimmerman, M., Löfgren, J.P. et al. Metabolic factors and the risk of Dupuytren’s disease: data from 30,000 individuals followed for over 20 years. Sci Rep 11, 14669 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-94025-7

In summary the article suggests that the 2 metabolic things that are most likely to increase your risk are diabetes and excessive alcohol consumption. Of course the main risk factor is still likely to be some genetic component. I then found another article, also freely available on the following link.

The article is by Dominic Furniss who has close links with the British Dupuytren's Society and has done lots of great work on Dupuytren's in this research at Oxford. This article produced the following table. 



  Nongenetic Factors Associated with Dupuytren’s Disease: A Systematic Review published by Osaid H. Alser, M.D. Rachel Y. L. Kuo, M.B.B.Chir. Dominic Furniss, F.R.C.S.(Plast.) in (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 146: 799, 2020.)

Thursday, 5 August 2021

Virtual Dupuytren's Symposium - 2021

The registration and program have been released for the next Dupuytren's Symposium and there are some interesting sessions that I am looking forward to attending. 

You can see the whole program here.

Highlights for me will be the session on radiotherapy because 1) It worked so well on me and 2) 2 of the papers being discussed are on the treatment of Ledderhose:

Session 4: Wednesday 3rd November, Time: 20:00 UTC (20:00 GMT)
Radiotherapy

Keynote: Radiotherapy for Dupuytren Disease
Dr. Richard Shaffer, The Dupuytren’s Practise, London, UK

1. A Randomized trial of Radiotherapy for Dupuytren’s Disease – DEPART
J. Martin, Newcastle, Australia
2. Radiotherapy in patients with painful Ledderhose disease: a randomised, multicenter, prospective, double-blind phase III trial.
A. de Haan, Groningen, The Netherlands
3. Radiotherapy for patients with Ledderhose disease: long-term efficacy, side effects and patient-rated outcome
A. de Haan, Groningen, The Netherlands

After this I am also looking forward to session 6 which is experimental treatments. Looking forward to getting an update on the anti-TNF treatment. 

It is a shame that the conference is having to be held virtually as last time it was such a great experience meeting up with everyone and learning a lot from all the different people at a single conference. 



Monday, 4 November 2019

Dupuytren's and Ledderhose Patient Experience

Dupuytrens and Ledderhose Disease 

A Radiotherapy Treatment Experience Written August 2019 – a patient’s review 

I am a 68 year old New Zealand male with a long history of Dupuytrens disease (palmar fibromatosis) and Ledderhose disease (plantar fibromatosis). I have detailed my experiences in this article in the hope that it may give other sufferers of these diseases some insight into the use of radiotherapy as a form of treatment. I documented my treatment period (2018/2019) with photos, notes and measurements and have used these as the basis for this report. I have tried to be accurate and practical with my assessments and hope I have struck the right balance in the content. This article reflects my own journey and private opinions, based on my research and experiences. 

Dupuytrens overview. 

I have a family history of Dupuytrens and I first noticed I had early symptoms of the disease back in the mid 1980’s. These symptoms slowly progressed over the years, with signs of thickening skin, followed by nodes, cords and finally contractures of the fingers. During the period 1996 to 2013 I had 4 surgeries (2 on each hand) for Dupuytrens. As my hand surgeon noted, I have quite an aggressive form of the disease. The surgeries addressed the various nodes, cords and contractures in the palms, index and small fingers and in the webs of both hands. One of the procedures was a revision surgery with a large, full thickness skin graft to my right little finger. In the period 2013 through to 2018 the disease progressed noticeably in both my left and right hands. In both hands there were nodes in some fingers, thickened areas of skin, cords, lumps developing in the webs between thumb and forefinger and also the beginnings of contracture to some fingers. By mid 2018 it was obvious that another operation on my left hand was going to be necessary at sometime in the next couple of years and that the right hand would also need future surgery. Obviously I was not looking forward to the pain, risk, cost, or the 8 to 12 week recovery periods. I will come back to Dupuytrens later in the article. 

Ledderhose overview. 

I probably noticed the first signs of Ledderhose in my feet about the same time as I noticed the Dupuytrens forming – in the mid 1980’s. These signs presented as: a 10mm diameter lump along the arch of each foot, midway between the ball of the foot and heel, and on the left foot there was an additional 10mm lump just below the ball of the foot. Over 30 years these lumps changed very little and caused no problems at all - although I noticed the very slow development of 2 extra lumps along the arch of both feet. 

Catalyst for Change. 

In early 2018 I noticed that the minor lumps in both feet seemed to be getting bigger. By mid 2018 it was obvious that I had 2 to 3 rapidly increasing lumps in each foot and the increases in size were clearly noticeable with each passing month. These were beginning to cause regular pain when standing or walking and they frequently caused a sharp aching sensation, even when my feet were elevated. These distressing developments, coupled with the ongoing Dupuytrens symptoms I mentioned above, were the catalyst for some serious research. My previous experience and reading indicated that for both Dupuytrens and Ledderhose disease the most common treatments were surgical. I already had extensive experience with Dupuytrens surgeries - all successfully performed with no complications but with a reoccurence of the disease guaranteed. 

I discussed the Ledderhose situation with my GP and underwent both ultrasound and then MRI scans to confirm the extent of the condition (and to confirm that the diagnosis was correct). Subsequently I was referred to a specialist orthopaedic foot surgeon for examination and consultation. Essentially the specialist’s written assessment was that my only option was to wait until the disease became debilitating and then to have surgery. He specifically noted that there were no proven alternative treatments. 

My reading had indicated that this disease is know to reappear aggressively after surgery in approx 80% of cases. The level and degree of recommended surgery to minimise reoccurrence is, in my opinion, horrific. My interpretation of the medical terminology is that it involves removing the skin from the soles of the feet and replacing with a skin graft. I considered the side effects of this procedure would dramatically affect my lifestyle – basically, severely limiting my mobility. This was not a surgery that I was prepared to consider. 

Treatment Options. 

I began researching alternative treatments for Dupuytrens and Ledderhose disease. Among them I considered collagenase injections, shockwave therapy, steroid injections and radiotherapy. In my opinion the two medical conditions are essentially the same disease, presenting differently in different parts of the body and I was hoping to find a common treatment for both conditions. 

Treatment Objectives 

My first, and major objective was to halt the progression of the disease - thus avoiding or postponing the need for immediate surgery. The second was to slow or prevent a re-occurrence of symptoms. The third objective was to reduce the effect of these conditions in some practical way - perhaps by reducing the size of lumps, nodes, etc, or perhaps reducing the degree of contraction in fingers or toes, or by simply softening the skin on palms or soles. Extensive reading and research revealed that radiotherapy would likely achieve my major objective and that the second and third objectives could be considered reasonable as an expected outcome. The internet provided a wealth of information – although it took some months for me to reach my conclusion that radiotherapy was the right option. In late August 2018 I began an independent search for a treatment provider by directly approaching private radiotherapy clinics and specialists across New Zealand. My situation and prospects were such that I was also prepared to travel to either the UK, Australia or Germany if necessary. 

I received a positive response from Dr Ramesh Arunachalam, Consultant Radiation Oncologist at the Auckland Radiation Oncologist Specialist Centre. Dr Arunachalam already had experience in treating Dupuytrens and Ledderhose and he agreed to treat me. He gave me clear guidelines as to the most probable outcomes of the radiotherapy and detailed the procedures along with a few possible minor side effects – seemingly, the worst being the possibility of long term dry skin. He did note that radiotherapy is not normally useful in a situation where contractures have already developed. The radiotherapy would involve treating the cords and nodules with a 20mm margin to a dose of 30GY in 10 treatments. This would be done via a split course where 15GY is delivered as 3GY each day for 5 consecutive days. This procedure is repeated after a break of 6 – 8 weeks. The plan was to treat my feet first and to review the results 12 weeks after completion of the radiotherapy, with a plan to then schedule the same treatment for my hands. 

Ledderhose Treatment. 

Treatment was scheduled to begin in late September 2018. The week before treatment began I visited the hospital for approx 2 hours so that some custom shaped, sheet-lead, shields could be made to protect the areas outside the radiation target zones. At each radiation session these were taped across my hands (total set up time of approx 5 mins per hand). The radiation delivery was 2.5 minutes per hand – the machine was silent and the procedure completely free of any discomfort or sensations. It was actually difficult to believe anything was happening. Each visit took a total of approx 25-30min. By the start of treatment I had 3 lumps in my left foot measuring 35x45mm, 18mm diameter and 12mm diameter respectively. The largest had developed in just 18 months from approx. 10mm diameter. In the right foot there were 2 lumps measuring 32x38mm and 18x12mm respectively. These had grown at a similar scale and rate as the left foot. Additionally a noticeable tightness had developed in the tendons along the soles - decreasing flexibility on extension. 

Ledderhose RT Results 

It took about 3 weeks for the effects of the first round of treatment to be clearly noticed and this was generally evidenced as a reduction in size and a softening of the lumps. The skin did become dry and I applied moisturiser twice daily. The effects slowly continued over the 8 weeks leading up to the second round of radiotherapy. I viewed these initial results as very positive. 

The second round was completed and within 2 weeks the effects were really beginning to show with a steady reduction in the size of all lumps. The discomfort experienced on walking, standing and at rest was consistently reducing, and the hard cords which had been developing along the soles of both feet had softened and become more flexible, allowing the feet to extend freely when walking. I cannot express the sense of excitement and relief that I felt by late January 2019. This had been a hugely successful result – far beyond the conservative expectations I had at the beginning of the treatment. 

Dr Arunachalam reviewed my situation at the end of January. His observations can be summarised: “Post treatment the patient has had a dramatic response to RT with all his lesions in both feet showing significant reduction in size. In fact, on examination it is very difficult to feel the smaller nodules”. I had experienced minimal side effects during treatment apart from some mild skin irritation and some tenderness. These symptoms had resolved within 2 weeks of the last RT session – in fact I spent several weeks of last summer barefooted on a boat and at the beach. It has become apparent to me that the positive effects of the RT continue for several months after the treatments end. 

As I write this article in August 2019, nearly 9 months since the treatment ended I can summarise my situation. I do have a single residual lump in each foot, each measuring approx 20x22mm. They are quite flat and not particularly noticeable although they can be felt. There is no discomfort when pressure is applied. The soles of both feet are more flexible and the cords softer and less prominent. 

Overall I feel that my Ledderhose symptoms have been reduced by approx 85%. I can walk, stand and run without any discomfort and essentially, on a normal daily basis, I am completely unaware of the minor residual indications of the condition. In this sense I can positively rate the RT treatment as a total success. Whilst the long term efficacy of the RT is not completely known I believe I can optimistically expect to remain untroubled by Ledderhose disease for at least several years – likely even longer. If the condition should reoccur, my specialist advises that a further round of RT treatment is considered both safe and practical. 

Dupuytrens Treatment. 

The first treatment was at the end of February 2019. At this time, in my right hand, I had a noticeable cord running from the palm to base of the thumb where there were the beginnings of 2 small nodes. These indications were accompanied by the usual thickening in the surrounding skin. There was also a large 10mmx15mm sized lump in the web of the hand. There were early signs of 2 nodes on my little finger (which had been skin grafted in 2000). The Dupuytrens in my left hand was more advanced. The skin around the base of the thumb had thickened and there was a knotted cord running from the palm, up the index finger to a 9mm diameter node just below the first joint. There was a large lump measuring approx 10x15x20mm in the web between thumb and forefinger and this caused some restriction to my ability to fully open the gap between thumb and forefinger, and pain on over extension. At the base of the little finger there was an area of noticeably thickened skin measuring approx 20mmx20mm, and from here were 2 cords running up to an 8mm diameter node just below the second joint. These were causing the early stages of contracture. The preparations for treatment and the treatment regime for my hands were the same as for the Ledderhose procedure. 

Dupuytrens RT Results. 

Again it took about 2 weeks for the effects of the first round of treatment to be clearly noticed and this was generally evidenced as a softening of the harder areas of skin. The skin did become dry and I applied moisturiser twice daily which controlled the condition. The effects slowly continued over the 7 weeks leading up to the second round of radiotherapy. By this time some of the lumps had reduced (although not as obviously as with the large Ledderhose lumps) and the restriction between left thumb and forefinger had eased. 

I viewed these as very positive initial results. 

The second round was completed and within 2 weeks the effects were really beginning to show with a steady reduction in the size of the lumps in the webs of both hands – both were about 30% smaller. There was a further easing in the restriction between thumb and forefinger on my left hand which allowed greater extension with reduced discomfort. The large palm thickening at the base of the small finger was significantly reduced in volume with the surrounding skin becoming soft and flexible to the touch. At this stage the 2 nodes on this hand were little affected but there seemed to be a slight softening of the cords in the little finger (an unexpected benefit – although small). The changes in my right hand followed a similar course but I was pleased to see that the 2 small early stage nodes on the little finger had noticeably reduced. 

At the 5 week point both hands began to dry and the skin deeply peeled in varying degrees over most of the treated areas of both hands but particularly where there had been lumps. This was great as it further reduced the apparent size of the lumps. It took about 3 weeks for this process to complete and after that my hands were generally left softer and the skin more flexible, although still somewhat dry – a condition easily remedied with moisturiser. As with the Ledderhose experience, the positive effects of the RT continue for several months after the treatments end. As I write this article in August 2019, nearly seven months since the Dupuytrens treatment ended I can summarise my situation. 

The lump in the web of my left hand has reduced by 60% in volume and that in the right by 80%. I have no noticeable restriction between thumb and forefinger of the left hand; full extension and lifting a load cause no pain. My little finger is less contracted (it is now almost straight). Nodes in the 2 fingers have reduced by about 20%. Areas of thickened and harder skin are all approx. 50% reduced in size and softer. The cord running from palm to index finger is mainly unchanged but subjectively a little more flexible. 

The right hand has continued to follow a similar improvement with the cord mainly unchanged but both nodes in the little finger are now visually indistinguishable. An interesting observation for me now is just how much the Dupuytrens growth seemed to have been more generally spread across the surface layers of the skin on the palms of both hands than I had noticed. The treatment has left the cords in both hands more noticeable to the touch (I guess since the surface layers are now softer and more flexible). 

Overall the results were very positive and although not as dramatic as those for the Ledderhose I would say that all 3 of my initial expectations regarding RT were exceeded. My main hope that the disease progression could be slowed or halted appears to have been realistic and there is good evidence that Dupuytrens responds in this way to RT. I would rate treatment as approx 60% successful in terms of a physical reduction in symptoms but since the residual symptoms are essentially untroubling and visually insignificant this success might well be considered around 75%. 

I am therefore feeling positive that my Dupuytrens progression has been halted - certainly the symptoms I was experiencing have significantly reduced. Although, as with the Ledderhose, there are still some residual physical indicators, generally on a daily basis I would say that I am now unaffected by the disease. 

Summary. 

At the start of this article I laid out the objectives I had for any treatment. The first was to halt the progression of the disease - thus avoiding or postponing the need for immediate surgery. The second was to slow or prevent re-occurrence of symptoms. The third objective was to reduce the effect of these conditions in some practical way - perhaps by reducing the size of lumps, nodes, etc or perhaps reducing the degree of contraction in fingers or toes or by simply softening the skin on palms or soles. The ratings I have given the 2 treatments are based on my original objectives and conservative expectations. 

For me, the radiotherapy treatments I underwent in late 2018 and early 2019 have been hugely successful in delivering significant improvements to the physical symptoms of the diseases, and a corresponding reduction in the mental anxiety that is a real part of watching the progression of these distressing conditions. I have no ongoing side effects or skin dryness issues. This time last year all I could see ahead of me was a round of aggressive foot surgeries which would surely have left me significantly less mobile, if not partially disabled, and a future of more routine surgeries to control the Dupuytrens. As I write this report I feel a great sense of excitement at the very real and positive results of RT and look forward to the strong probability this has halted the progression of the diseases – maybe not forever, but I’ve read a lot of articles and reports which record no noticeable reoccurence of symptoms for periods of more than 6-8 years. 

My understanding is that RT is acknowledged to work best if treatment is given when either Dupuytrens or Ledderhose are in the active growing phase, rather than after cords and contractures have formed. To me this implies that treatment is better sooner than later and that allowing the conditions to progress to advanced stages of growth and contracture (ie to the degree where surgical intervention is normally considered and recommended) would negate the very real benefits that early RT could bring. 

I was advised that there is no risk of damage to underlying tendons or bone and studies have suggested no increased complications with surgery after RT delivered to this dose – if future surgery is needed. From my experience I would urge those who suffer from Dupuytrens disease (palmar fibromatosis) or Ledderhose disease (plantar fibromatosis) to seriously consider the early intervention of Radiotherapy ahead of regular surgical procedures. If your regular GP or surgical specialist is unfamiliar with, or unsupportive of, the use of RT for these conditions I would urge you to “start the conversation” and, if possible, gain their support. If this is not forthcoming then “self refer’ to a Radiotherapy Specialist. 

I hope there are readers who have found this article useful – good luck with your quest. Thanks to Dr Ramesh Arunachalam and to the kind, talented RT team who treated me at Auckland Hospital. 

Disclaimer: This article is the result of my private research and personal experiences – I do not have a medical background. Readers should form their own opinions about RT treatment and ultimately seek advice from a suitable medical professional. 

Monday, 24 July 2017

RIDD Trial Recruiting Dupuytren's Patients

Anna and I had a phone call today with Prof Nanchahal and the progress that is being made on the RIDD trial. It was good to hear that part 1 has gone really well and they are moving onto a larger study for part 2. Hopefully this trial could led to a new treatment for Dupuytren's and potentially Ledderhose. 

For part 2 of the trial they need over 100 patients with early stage Dupuytren's. Currently they have a centre in Oxford, soon to have one in Edinburgh and then are looking to introduce one in Europe. We have been told they are covering travel costs so don't worry too much about being in the area near the treatment centres.

My understanding is that for 1 year you will be treated with injections every 3 months followed by a 6 month follow up so you will need to be able to get to the centre on several occasions. 

If you have early stage disease and are interesting in learning more and potentially participating in the study then please here to this link. It includes more information on the trial and what they are doing. 

The results of part 1 are being worked on and will be published soon and the protocol being used is available here.

Sunday, 28 May 2017

Some thoughts on diets

I was actually thinking of doing a long well structured and scientific blog post on this as it is something I have been thinking about for some time and just wanted to see what everyone's thoughts were.

Of course I am not a doctor and I am not saying that doing a certain diet should be considered a treatment nor that you should start a diet or life-style change without giving it proper thought etc. Please do not see the below as me giving medical advice, as with everyone on this blog, it is just some research I have noticed and wanted to share.

We know from the various publications and research out there that insulin / diabetes and IGFs have an impact on DD (I have posted about this before see links below) and also that TNF is currently being looked into for clinical trials (https://ridd.octru.ox.ac.uk/). Would also say that with the later age of onset there is a higher chance that patients will have diabetes or at least early stage metabolic syndrome, it is also my understanding that TNF increases with age as well.


It is now fairly well established that a low carbohydrate diet can be used to control type II diabetes and actually, in some cases, can keep it under control without the need for insulin (should be monitored by a doctor). Low carb diets are also low GI as all high GI food would defeat the point of the life-style. Low GI diets have been shown to decrease TNF e.g.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21525252 and I have seen articles suggesting that many tumours rely on glucose and that a low carb diet is being tested as an assisted therapy to be used alongside other cancer treatments. Note that it is not as a treatment in its own right but rather to see if other treatments can be more successful when the patients diet is changed.

Given the above is it reasonable to suggest that a low carb, low GI diet could be used to try to delay the progression of DD/LD or as an adjunctive therapy with other treatments? Who knows as the study pool is limited enough already and finding patients willing to alter their diet may not be easy. I have also not, yet at least, researched this extensively.


I have also had quite a few comments from various people that undertaking a LC and or LGI diet has helped their condition. I am not suggesting for 1 second that a) it would work for everyone (potentially anyone) b) that a low carb diet itself is for everyone c) that everyone should go to the same level of carb intake as me and I also understand that I am probably biased but I personally do think that a low carb diet could increase the quality of life of many patients.

Maybe, depending on how this is received, I think it would perhaps be interesting to do a small survey on the patient community to see whether patients have noticed any impact of diet on their conditions. Again if results are good perhaps I could try and conduct a larger scale survey and get in touch some experts in various fields to gauge their interest.

Ultimately it is up to you to get all the information you can to find out what is the right treatment for you, of course this information should be gained from medical professionals and publications.

Tuesday, 27 October 2015

Videos Going up - Groningen 2015

The videos have started to go up from the conference in Groningen in May 2015. The delay was due to different publishing rights etc but this appears to have now been resolved. Happy to say that my presentation is on there and I think I did ok. 


Hahaha it even looks like they call me Dr Gary Manley... So that makes it official right? 


"Dr. Gary Manley "The patient's view: Ledderhose Disease" 2015 Dupuytren Symposium"

The videos make a great resource for patients and doctors as there is such a wealth of knowledge on there. If anyone has any feedback on what they would like to see then get in touch and we can start targeting the next symposium. 

Sunday, 24 May 2015

Conference over, time to go home

Fountain in the local park where I went for my runs
So the conference is over and it is time to go home and say goodbye to Holland. I have had a fantastic time in Groningen and the conference certainly lived up to my lofty expectations. I have spent so much time in the last few days hearing about Dupuytren's and Ledderhose from the best experts and doctors in the world that I am on information overload, hopefully that is a good thing and hopefully these doctors will stay in touch and feel they are able to use the patient community to enhance their research. 

My talk was apparently received very well and I have had doctors and other attendees telling me I did a good job and hopefully when it comes on YouTube everyone else will agree. I feel like I did myself and the patients proud although I forgot to mention that 92.5% of Ledderhose patients that responded that were over 60 had Dupuytren's, not overly important but that is a shockingly high percentage. 

The final part of the conference was a discussion on collaboration, people working together to get the best funding that they can for this kind of research. It was great to see people working together like that. There seemed to be some great ideas of what is needed to really progress Dupuytren's research and further the work that is going on. 

I certainly feel that with the minds that are looking into this and the way they all want to work together for the benefit of patients there is hope for patients that we may one day have a cure for this. Sure it may not be in the next 5 or 10 years but I am hoping that if nothing else it would be available before my daughter would develop this condition (hopefully she won't get it). 

Saturday, 23 May 2015

International Dupuytren's Symposium Day 2 - Morning

....

Most recurrence will happen in the first 2 years, hopefully this means that I am past that point. They also look at patient satisfaction in terms of hand function in terms of Dupuytren’s patients, I think this is a great measure to use when treating DD patients although it does mean that you are relying on patients having similar goals and would love to see a similar study for Ledderhose. How many Ledderhose patients are happy with foot function after radiotherapy and surgery etc. For DD they did look at degree of contracture and other variables both pre and post operation to see whether there was any linkage between these and patient satisfaction which is great to be able to use as a predictor for success in surgery / PNF.

Much higher number of men were happy with their degree of function compared to women and nothing else was related (well may have been but i missed it). Not surprisingly those who had a more successful surgery with less complications were more likely to happy. Men were 2.5x more likely to be happy, this seems amazingly high and it does make me wonder about thinking more of the female side of this. Could the high numbers of men in most studies, including surgery, bias the results to be more favourable.

A fair amount of this session was on patient satisfaction and how to measure it etc, this was stuff that was not overly relevant to me, it is interesting to see that around 25% of patients do not think that the output given from their responses to surveys actually reflects how they feel about how their treatment went. Personally for me the most disappointing thing was the poor patient response rate, around half didn’t fill it out, come on patients when a doctor gives you a questionnaire fill it out you will be helping all the other patients out there by improving the results of studies.

We then moved on to looking at PNF a lot. Good for me as my Dupuytren’s knowledge is severely lacking as I am very focused on Ledderhose as this is what I have and know well so I haven’t looked at PNF. The first talk was by Gary Pess and his thoughts and tips on the use of PNF and Collagenase, this was interesting as he was someone I was chatting to for an hour or so at the dinner the evening before! Great to have made these contacts and hopefully can put them into good use in the future.

He prefers to treat early with minimally invasive options. Good to hear of a doctor that says that patients should be treated early and aggressively even if RT wasn’t mentioned. After all if treated early you are getting in there before they are losing too much function and he said that it worked better in terms of time until it comes back. Interesting to hear that, but I guess you are destroying a higher percentage of the disease tissue? I mean if you have a huge lump you will damage / remove 10% to break the cord, if you treat early you might destroy more like 50% and therefore it will take longer for the disease tissue to recover. Hopefully I can get some notes done on this to ensure that you can check your doctor knows what he is going, Gary Pess has been going this for a long time so if you are going to have Collagenase or PNF then I really recommend watching the video of this presentation as there is so much great information.

PNF in recurrence of Dupuytren’s - PNF rates can come back up to 85% of the time and the question was can it be done again and again to avoid having to have full surgery. PNF postones limited fasciotomy for around 4 ½ years and up to a fourth procedure it seems to work as well as a first procedure, but after this has reduced usefulness.

Dupuytren’s Treatment - Where are we now:

Are there too many options, they all have different merits and drawbacks and from the start radiotherapy was at least mentioned along with a few other options we had yet to hear about. It was interesting to get a brief history of Dupuytren’s and gives a good overview of it for anyone that hasn’t heard it before.

Steroids - Used in nodules but not cords
Radiotherapy - He didn’t give a good overview of this, just said radiotherapy can cause fibrosis. Just shows not looking at the data and talked about burning holes in hands as with breast cancer, the doses and treatments are different. I can just imagine the reaction that the active DART members are going to have when / if the watch this presentation on YouTube. .
NF and Collagenase - Not for super advanced condition.
Chemotherapy and Gene therapy - Didn’t go into detail

Also quoted the condition as being painless, from what I have heard about DD this is not always the case. Overall the talk was good but it was clear he was a surgeon with strong surgeon views and as I was sitting through it I was hoping that some of the RT doctors for example might be able to question him at the end.
Things then went into a bit more detail and started looking at steroid injections (they can actually be useful when used with NA/PNF) and can delay the recurrence of the condition.

There was another talk on PNF against collagenase (a very active area at the moment, probably due to the money being pumped into Xiapex) and in this case they found no real difference between the two different groups.

Comparison Xiapex with Limited fasciotomy and again there was no real conclusion.

There was a talk on the TEC technique and whilst it sounds like it could be interesting I recommend watching the presentation as the presentation was do at a very rapid pace, I think they were reading from a script and reading it quick! But the results suggest good functional results. I hope I am not being too critical of the speaker given that I will be standing in the spot later today. To be fair she finished bang on time and would have overrun had it been delivered at a slower pace, I guess less is more.

At this point I did start to struggle to keep up with the reports to some extent. I guess a combination of it nearly being lunch-time, having done a 6 mile run and thinking about my talk all played a part. Still I will do my best.

The next talk was looking at the microanatomy of the hand / finger. They are looking at some fibres that are all intertwined in the forming structures which is of course of great interest for these conditions. The idea being that these structures could form cords, I suggest if you are interested that you look up the speaker giving the conference from the notes.

Next 

What is the natural course for patients with primary DD came up next. The idea was to track patients every 6 months, nodules and cords (no mention of looking for Ledderhose??) and they have done this for 2 years at the time of the talk. Had around 250 patients with around 16% of fingers showing contracture. They found that over time the patients stayed stable in terms of the size of the nodules and cords and the angle of the fingers. The changes looked at were minimal so they did some fancy analysis that I didn't understand. Basically there were patients that were stable, increased in disease and decrease in disease and that the decrease was cancelling out the increase (I think) when looking at the numbers as an overview.

Basically they showed that in some cases the condition is not progressive. Of course this is a factor for radiotherapy as if a patient is not going to progress then you do not want to treat with RT when it is not required. A valid point and every more shows that if we can find a marker to show it is aggressive then we know to treat early and perhaps with RT (of course depends on studies etc).

Then we started to go through some recurrence papers / talks. A big problem is that you compare different papers and with DD there have been 40 different descriptions and you can vary your data to show recurrence from 2% to 86%, an extremely important report to get more consistency. After all there are many people championing radiotherapy on the claims it has less chance of coming back but perhaps it uses a different description. Certainly check out this as they had a group of experts and came to a consensus as to what we should call recurrence. This was the talk but Ruuf Selles. One aspect I didn't like is that it was, at least to some extent, on the functional aspect of degree of contracture on the hand. Surely the disease is there if there are nodules and cords, certainly this has no application to Ledderhose where you don't get contracture. I agree that it may not be important for DD where the degree of contracture and therefore function is the most important thing but it just would have been nice to acknowledge the nodules and cords as this is when patients (or at least I would) go to my doctor and therefore I would say the disease has come back. It was not included because (surprise, surprise) the presence of nodules and cords is not an indicator for surgery and some treatment release the fingers but do not remove the cords etc.

Does skin grafting reduce recurrence. As best I could tell it does but there are of course other factors that need to be taking into account when using this.

Later on:


Looking forward to this afternoon as I have seen that Professor Seegenschmiedt is doing a lecture on radiotherapy and he includes a section on Ledderhose, can’t wait and look forward to the discussion of this section as all the surgeons surely cannot deny proper clinical data from him and the obvious results from the patient survey that I will be presenting.

Overall another good session and for me second favourite to yesterday morning.

Friday, 22 May 2015

International Dupuytren's Symposium Day 1 - The Afternoon

The afternoon session kicked off with a genetics session, having studied molecular genetics at uni this really appealed to me, even if I was not sure on their main aspects as I was more molecular cell biology person and the statistics is a bit daunting.

Of course for Dupuytren’s this is vital as there is some genetic elements to the condition and if you know the genetics you can in theory more easily predict the biology that you need to look at to get results that are relevant to the condition.

There was some great background in the first talk which I am happy to say I remembered in good detail. Details on things such as SNPs and alleles. A good background for many and certainly will help when the presentations are published on-line.

One of the papers put the genetic risk at 80% (not inheritance there is a difference) leaving room to talk about trauma.They found some interesting results including the Wnt pathway, inflammation and transcription factors. One of the genes they mentioned was SFRP4. From a quick Google this looks interesting as it has previously been shown to play a role in cancer and apoptosis and a change in apoptosis could easily be relevant to any tumour. Must admit that this session didn’t give me as much of a buzz as the previous session, but this may of been because I was expecting some sort of genetic break-through but if we knew that then we would all know about that.

EPDR1 is another protein they mentioned. All I could tell from this section was that the protein is highly conserved and highly expressed throughout meaning that it is important, especially in those with European heritage which links nicely with Dupuytren’s and that their future work will hopefully unveil a functional reason for them pinning down this protein.

The protein encoded by this gene is a type II transmembrane protein that is similar to two families of cell adhesion molecules, the protocadherins and ependymins. This protein may play a role in calcium-dependent cell adhesion.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/54749

Of course the bottom line is that we still cannot determine the current genetic risk. The other factor that I found interesting was a sibling based study which I had missed seeing before, this showed that if you have the condition your siblings have a much greater chance (around 5x the risk) of getting the condition compared to the general population.

There is of course also the trauma side as I mention above, there was a study in this session looking at hockey players and I reckon you would see the same when looking at other sports such as cricket players and it has been previously shown that rock climbers have an increase. Interestingly the results were actually looked at from the point of view of vibrations causing an increase in risk rather than trauma, I would have thought that it was a combination of the the 2 and to be fair they did cover this in their discussion.

Associated factors was also looked at, with diabetes being looked at in this case. They raised some interesting points, again having to age control the control group. Their results were done from collating data from previous studies and analysing them to statistically correct for different factors. Basically for now their conclusion was that diabetes and Dupuytren’s are linked.

There was then a conversation on whether splinting was good or not. Can it be used to prevent contracture or post-op to make sure the finger stays straight and what sort of splinting should be used. If this is something that you think would be good for you to view I recommend watching the YouTube Video. Interesting that the surgeons are so happy to readily admit the high recurrence (can’t exactly deny it) yet it is still the main treatment option used around the world.

Not sure that I am going to have too much more to write up on this session because a lot of the information was very specific and the outcome was the result of a lot of statistical analysis which I don’t intend to go into in any detail.

The next session was on Collagenase, this session added to my frustrations in terms of lack of mention of Ledderhose. Mine is the only Ledderhose specific talk and throughout the day it was barely mentioned by anyone else other than in passing. There was the same number of talks on frozen shoulder as there was on Ledderhose, I don’t mind that but there could have done with being a few more on both, but then again the talks were really crammed in and it is amazing that so many people are available to talk on these conditions in the first place.

It was interesting to hear, that as in a lot of things, it came around by accident. The treatment was initially suggested for something else but went to the right person at the right time and that the act of snapping the cord came about when after treatment with CCH the fingers hadn’t straightened and the doctor went to shake a patient's hand and the cord popped. There is also part of the political side, that the drugs needs commercialisation and money to get off the ground, the drug needs to be able to make money, we all know that but interesting to hear another side of things. One of the things that shocked me the most was the gender bias in one of the studies. A whopping 83% of the people getting CCH injections were men, so either the men progress more with Dupuytren’s than in our survey or men really are significantly more lazy and aren’t doing the survey. Also lots of videos of fingers being released after injections, the pop of the finger is not the most pleasant of sounds! He did cover the side effects including skin tears and recurrence, which was at least 13% after a few years.There were many interesting points about the different factors such as dose, use of local anaesthetic and time from injection to finger extension.

One person used the presence of Ledderhose in 43% of patients as a case for them being severe cases, at least that was how it came across, that is certainly a high number but I think if all DD patients were checked we would find a high number of Ledderhose patients.

There are still concerns about the quality of data in the USA for radiotherapy, which is something that I know that there are many patient groups trying to address and it sounded like the doctors here wanted to address it as well. The doctors here all actually seemed positive about radiotherapy and it is just the geographical distribution of the surveys that are the issue.

Overall I think that an entire session on these injections was overkill, nevertheless is was still very informative and I appreciate that since the last symposium in 2010 there has been the most development in this treatment option.


Looking forward to tomorrow now with my talk to be given in the afternoon and hopefully I can convince a few people that radiotherapy is a great treatment option for Ledderhose and if I can’t then perhaps I’ll run round the room a few times to prove my point?

The whole day was fantastic and every talk was interesting and all the presenters did a great job.

(My picture wouldn't upload!)

International Dupuytren's Symposium - Day 1, morning

In Summary it was great to see so much interest and so much work going into these conditions, even if almost everything is focused on Dupuytren’s most of the work will have cross over with Ledderhose.

Note this is just an overview and I will try and go into more detail where possible.

The first session was really all about the different processes in different countries, mainly looking in USA, Germany and UK as this is where most of the patients are. There were some interesting points coming through on current trends and the increasing application of collagenase and gradual decrease in open surgery.

One point that interested me was that in the presentation Wolfgang gave it was clear that radiotherapy is actually a good treatment option for DD (as expected) in fact it was one of the top options. The next talk showed that patients, at least those that have had surgery, rank decreasing recurrence as their priority and I know this would probably be true for Ledderhose patient as well. Do these 2 observations combined mean that if you offered these patients the chance of radiotherapy at an early stage where recurrence would be low and their main other tissues such as side effects would be low surely they would take it?

The second session then moved onto a much more scientific point of view. Looking at the different markers in Dupuytren’s cells and how they can have an impact on the development and treatment of the conditions. I took a couple of main points from this:

  1. There is a clinical trial on using anti-TNF to treat the early stage of Dupuytren’s.
  2. I would like to follow up the above by contracting this person and seeing if they would be willing to expand the scope to include Ledderhose, certainly think we can get the patient numbers required.
  3. There is lots of interesting research being done and lots of discussion happening, patients should take some heart from this.
  4. DD cells can be problematic as they do not grow in normal culture environment in the same manner as other cells and this is an area which probably requires improvement and is being worked on.

There was lots of healthy debate in this session including:
  1. How to best control experiments, age groups etc and later onset of DD in control group.
  2. Does Estrogen play a role as some observed that this treatment increases odds - could this be linked to the later onset in women.
  3. Should science be looking more into the aggressive condition, these are the patients that are then more likely to go on and need treatment.

I think the final point is again interesting from a radiotherapy point of view, in that it is in these patients where perhaps RT is worth a go sooner rather than later, especially in cases of DD where the hand can only be treated before contracture has not yet started. Imagine if we could come up with a marker, yes you have high risk of LD / DD and you are showing symptoms and RT helps (assuming a study shows that radiotherapy is a / the most beneficial treatment option for these patients).

Certainly a fascinating and enjoyable start and a lot to be learnt. Time to build contacts over lunch and looking forward to more this afternoon.

I already have 7 pages of typed notes and sorry for any typo's as I am writing this on the go, hopefully I will have some pictures up and about for the post covering this afternoons sessions.

Sunday, 19 April 2015

Related Conditions survey - Can we find a link?

The results of the associated conditions survey are in, although this is using a limited dataset it could be useful to help guide a more comprehensive study on the conditions we now think might be related.


It will come as no surprise that it looks like frozen shoulder, keloids and knuckle pads seem to show an increased incidence in Dupuytren’s and Ledderhose patients. 



Another condition that has already been shown to have a link is Psoriasis and again this link appears to be observed.  However there are some other examples which I shall going into in more detail.



Firstly please see the graph below summarising all of the results. The public rows that are blank are because I was unable to find a good and reliable figure for the general public.






Raynauds:



This condition is explained better than I could do it on the following link:




The linkage in this condition can be seen when looking at the totals with nearly 20% of all patients having this condition compared to the figure of 10% in the general public. When looking into this condition I noticed that the rates are different between men and women, when this is done on the survey data the results are quite striking. Only 4% of men have the condition (compared to the expected 8%) whilst 26% of women have this condition (compared to the expected 13%). This seems to indicate that there is a gender specific bias for the manifestation of this condition as an associated condition with Dupuytren’s and Ledderhose.



The next step here was to drill down into the results, the starting point for this was to determine whether the link was in Dupuytren’s or Ledderhose patients perhaps both. Given this is a condition of the extremities it could be linked to both conditions so it was surprising to see that when the results were limited to the Dupuytren’s population the percentage of women with both increased to 44% whilst in Ledderhose only patients the rate was down the 26% again (note the in the Dupuytren’s group Ledderhose patients were included). On the male side of things there were no patients with Ledderhose and Raynauds whilst 5% of Dupuytren’s patients had the condition.

Clearly the above data appears to indicate that there is a strong link between Raynauds and Dupuytren’s in female patients, a larger study into this could show whether this is just a limitation of this dataset or a true correlation exists. Based on the information I have found on this condition it is not clear to see why it should have a higher occurrence in Dupuytren’s patient or indeed how one could impact the other.  





Plantar Fasciitis:



This is another condition in the plantar fascia, I have covered this previously and as expected we again see an increased incidence in Ledderhose patients.

(See this linked for previous survey, sorry the graphs are broken I will look into this http://ledderhose.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/association-of-plantar-fasciitis-and.html)

Scoliosis:


On first reading about this condition I was baffled as to how it could have any relationship to Dupuytren’s, however from the links I could find the figure for the general public was around 3% whilst in this mini survey the patients had a 14% chance of having this conditions.


Due to this I did a bit more research and it turns out that one of the genes / proteins (Matrilin) that has been implicated in Scoliosis has a function in the extra-cellular matrix which is one of the key areas from Dupuytren’s. In theory this could a link between the 2, perhaps there is some crossover in the extra cellular pathways that result in the manifestation of the 2 conditions. This is something I would love to have the time to do a bit more research on as looking at pathways at this sort of level is what I used to do. To give me some idea of any potential link I googled Matrilin and looked at the images and lots of structures/pathways appeared showing Collagen.

It has also been found that a lack of Matrilin 2 increases the risk of Liver tumour development, although not cancer both Dupuytren's and Ledderhose do of course have the development of tumours. 



Fuch's Corneal Dystrophy:



This also seems to show an increase, from 0.09% in the public to 2.17% in Dupuytren’s and Ledderhose patients. This is a condition that impacts the eye but I am unable to see how this could be related to Dupuytren’s from the research that I have done.



Sources: