Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Oncology Practice (oncology + practice)
Selected AbstractsCE ARTICLE: Recognizing and treating upper extremity lymphedema in postmastectomy/lumpectomy patients: A guide for primary care providersJOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF NURSE PRACTITIONERS, Issue 9 2010Eva Quirion MSN Abstract Purpose: To provide an overview of the lymphatics, physiology of lymphedema (LE), incidence, risks, and costs as well as a guide for the primary care provider on how to recognize the symptoms of LE, a review of current published treatment recommendations, and advice about making a referral to appropriate LE specialists. Data sources: Selected studies on diagnosing and treating LE in breast cancer patients following mastectomy/lumpectomy and evidence-based treatment guidelines. Conclusions: LE is the most common complication related to breast cancer treatment with an occurrence estimated between 10% and 60% depending on the parameters used for measurement. Most commonly, LE occurs within the first 3 years after breast cancer treatment, but the remaining cases happen beyond this period of time and can occur after many years. This means that significant numbers of patients with LE can present to primary care clinicians. Implications for practice: A patient who is treated for breast cancer will be followed for a time by the oncology team, but eventually, that patient will be discharged from the oncology practice and will be seen in primary care. Risk factors for developing LE include treatment-related (number of nodes removed and radiation to axilla), disease-related (stage and location of tumor), and patient-related (younger age, obesity, and comorbid conditions) factors. A systematic evaluation of any patient presenting with LE will assure accurate diagnosis and prompt treatment. [source] Cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of vincristine after bolus intravenous dosingCANCER, Issue 6 2002A surrogate marker of brain penetration Abstract BACKGROUND Vincristine (VCR) is used widely in oncology practice, and regular dosing is commonly associated with the development of sensorimotor or autonomic neuropathies. However, the incidence of VCR-related central nervous system (CNS) toxicity is comparatively low, suggesting that the blood-brain barrier may limit drug penetration into the brain parenchyma. This study determined whether measurable concentrations of VCR could be detected in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), as a surrogate marker of brain parenchyma penetration, after bolus intravenous injection in children without primary CNS pathology. METHODS The authors studied 17 pediatric patients ages 2.5,14.1 years (median, 6.8 years) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia or non-Hodgkin lymphoma without evidence of leptomeningeal disease. Patients received VCR 1.5 mg/m2 by intravenous bolus injection followed at varying intervals by lumbar puncture for scheduled intrathecal methotrexate administration under general anesthesia. Paired VCR concentrations in both plasma and CSF were measured in each patient simultaneously at times ranging from 8 minutes to 146 minutes after the VCR injection. Three patients were studied twice. The paired samples were stored at ,40 °C until analysis using a high performance liquid chromatography assay with a sensitivity of 0.1 ,g/L in CSF and 0.4 ,g/L in plasma. RESULTS Plasma VCR concentrations ranged from 2.2 ,g/L to 91.2 ,g/L. No measurable VCR concentrations were detected in the CSF samples. CONCLUSIONS Measurable concentrations of VCR in CSF are not achieved after the administration of standard intravenous bolus doses of VCR. The current observations are consistent with the relative rarity of VCR-related CNS neurotoxicity compared with the commonly observed sensorimotor and autonomic neuropathies. These findings suggest that the penetration of VCR into the brain parenchyma of patients with a relatively intact blood-brain barrier is low and that VCR may have a limited role in the CNS-directed therapy of these patients. Cancer 2002;94:1815,20. © 2002 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.10397 [source] Differences in Oncologist Communication Across Age Groups and Contributions to Adjuvant Decision OutcomesJOURNAL OF AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, Issue 2009Mary M. Step PhD The objective of this study was to assess potential age-related differences in oncologist communication during conversations about adjuvant therapy decisions and subsequent patient decision outcomes. Communication was observed between a cross-section of female patients aged 40 to 80 with early-stage breast cancer (n=180) and their oncologists (n=36) in 14 academic and community oncology practices in two states. Sources of data included audio recordings of visits, followed by post-visit patient interviews. Communication during the visit was assessed using the Siminoff Communication Content and Affect Program. Patient outcome measures included self-reported satisfaction with decision, decision conflict, and decision regret. Results showed that oncologists were significantly more fluent and more direct with older than middle-aged patients and trended toward expressing their own treatment preferences more with older patients. Satisfaction with treatment decisions was highest for women in their 50s and 60s. Decision conflict was significantly associated with more discussion of oncologist treatment preferences and prognosis. Decision regret was significantly associated with patient age and education. Older adults considering adjuvant therapy may find that oncologists' communication accommodations to perceived deficiencies in older adult cognition or communication challenge their decision-making involvement. Oncologists should carefully assess patient decision-making preferences and be mindful of accommodating their speech to age-related stereotypes. [source] Screening for hepatitis B in chemotherapy patients: survey of current oncology practicesALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, Issue 2 2010T. T. TRAN Summary Background, Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation occurs in up to 78% of patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy for nonhepatic malignancies. Reactivation can lead to hepatic dysfunction, jaundice and fulminant hepatic failure. Current recommendations include screening patients at risk for HBV prior to immunosuppressive therapy and initiating antiviral prophylaxis in patients with chronic HBV. Aim, To investigate current practice among oncologists regarding HBV screening and antiviral prophylaxis in candidates for chemotherapy. Methods, A survey was sent to American Medical Association registered oncologists assessing demographics and HBV screening practices. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test. Results, In all, 265 responses were received. Office-based physicians were less likely to screen for HBV prior to chemotherapy (P < 0.001). Years in practice varied: 51% with <5 years, 29% with 5,15 years and 18% with >15 years, with no difference in screening practices between groups (P = N.S.). Responders screen for HBV as follows: never , 20%, only in the presence of abnormal liver biochemistries , 30%, risk factors or history of hepatitis , 38%. In patients with known HBV, 75% of oncologists refer to specialists, 7% initiate therapy, while 15% do not refer or initiate therapy, most of whom are in an office setting (P = 0.02). Conclusions, Twenty per cent of oncologists never screen for HBV prior to initiating chemotherapy. Office-based physicians were less likely to screen, treat or refer to a specialist prior to chemotherapy. Greater education regarding risk of HBV reactivation is needed for clinicians treating patients with immunosuppressive therapies. Aliment Pharmacol Ther,31, 240,246 [source] | ||||||||||