| 1. |
- Kamposioras, Konstantinos, et al.
(författare)
-
Synthesis of Recommendations From 25 Countries and 31 Oncology Societies : How to Navigate Through Covid-19 Labyrinth
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Oncology. - : Frontiers. - 2234-943X. ; 10
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Pandemic COVID-19 is an unexpected challenge for the oncological community, indicating potential detrimental effects on cancer patients. Our aim was to summarize the converging key points providing a general guidance in order to support decision making, pertaining to the oncologic care in the middle of a global outbreak.Methods: We did an international online search in twenty five countries that have managed a surge in cancer patient numbers. We collected the recommendations from thirty one medical oncology societies.Results: By synthesizing guidelines for a) oncology service delivery adjustments, b) general and specific treatment adaptations, and c) discrepancies from guidelines comparison, we present a clinical synopsis with the forty more crucial statements. A Covid-19 risk stratification base was also created in order to obtain a quick, objective patient assessment and a risk-benefit evaluation on a case-by-case basis.Conclusions: In an attempt to face these complex needs and due to limited understanding of COVID-19, a variability of recommendations based on general epidemiological and infectious disease principles rather than definite cancer-related evidence has evolved. Additionally, the absence of an effective treatment or vaccine requires the development of cancer management guidance, capitalizing on comprehensive COVID-19 oncology experience globally.
|
|
| 2. |
- Karakatsanis, Andreas, et al.
(författare)
-
Axillary Staging in the Setting of a Preoperative Diagnosis of Ductal Cancer In Situ (DCIS) : Results of an International Expert Panel and a Critical Guideline Performance Using Frequentist and Bayesian Analysis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgical Oncology. - : Springer. - 1068-9265 .- 1534-4681. ; 27:Suppl. 2, s. S337-S338
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Background/Objective: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is not routine in DCIS. Guidelines suggest SLNB when there is high risk for underlying invasion (large size, high grade, symptomatic lesion) or for detection failure (e.g., after mastectomy). However, guidelines and current practice patterns are inconsistent. Moreover, whilst SLNB is thought to be feasible and accurate after wide local excision (WLE), there is less consensus to support its use after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OPBCS), which can reduce the need for mastectomy (Mx) and is gradually adopted as standard of care. The study aim was to assess if guidelines or individualized assessment result in optimal selection of patients for upfront SLNB.Methods: A panel of 28 international experts (20 surgeons, 8 oncologists, Europe 20, USA 5, Asia/Australia 3) was formed, all blind to the identity of the others. They reviewed anonymized patient cases from the SentiNot study (n=184, m. age 60 years, DCIS m. size 4 cm, Grade 2/3= 36%/64%, mass lesions 13,4%, underlying invasion 24.5%) and answer if they would consider upfront SLNB and why. Consensus and majority were set to >75 and >50%. At the same time, 6 independent raters (4 surgeons, 2 oncologists) reviewed guidelines and assessed the same patient cases per each guideline. Accuracy in relation to underlying invasion was assessed by Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and Area Under the Curve (AUC) was reported. Agreement was investigated by kappa statistics and decision-making patterns by logistic multivariate regression and cluster analysis. To allow for flexibility and adaptation to current knowledge, both a frequentist and a Bayesian approach were undertaken. Priors were adjusted after a literature review regarding the factors that are commonly thought to be associated with higher risk for underlying invasion.Results: A total of 44,896 decisions were retrieved and analysed. The panel reached consensus/majority for upfront SLNB in 41.3/61.4%, whereas individual rates ranged from 11 to 100%. Agreement among panelists was low (kappa=0.37). In multivariate regression analysis for the entire panel, type of surgery was the most common determinant, (simple WLE=less, OPBCS=more and Mx=constant for SLNB), followed by symptomatic diagnosis and DCIS size. Most (26) members had a clear decision-making pattern regarding SLND, based mainly on DCIS size and type of surgery. Individual decision-making performed modestly in identifying patients with underlying invasion (AUC range 0,47-0,59), resulting mainly in overtreatment in 44-77% of patients. The panel performed similarly by majority (AUC 0,5) and by consensus (AUC 0,55) but “undertreated” 60-75% of patients with invasion, failing to identify them as "high-risk." After the recognition of different decision-making patterns, panelists were divided in subgroups with similar decision-making pattern. Analysis identified subgroups with difference in SLNB rate but not with better AUC. The disagreement among panelists in the same subgroups was significant, not only regarding which patients should undergo SLNB, but also on what factors that recommendation was based on. Eight guidelines with relevant recommendations were identified [USA (ASCO/NCCN), Europe (ESMO), Sweden, Denmark, UK, Netherlands and Italy, retrieval date May 2019]. Agreement among raters for each guideline separately varied (kappa: 0.23-0.9). Interpretation as to whether SLNB should be performed ranged widely (40-90%) and with varying concordance (32-88%). No guideline demonstrated accuracy (AUC range 0.45-0.55). Overtreatment risk was high (50-90%), whereas 10-50% of patients with invasion were not identified as “high- risk.” Agreement across guidelines was low (kappa=0.24), meaning that different patients had similar risk to be treated inaccurately, regardless of which guideline was examined.Conclusions: Individualized decision-making and guideline interpretation may be highly subjective and with low accuracy in terms of prediction of invasive disease, resulting in almost random risk for over- or undertreatment of the axilla in patients with DCIS. This suggests that current views and guidelines should be challenged. More accurate preoperative workup and novel techniques to allow for delayed SLNB may be of value in this setting.
|
|
| 3. |
- Mauri, Davide, et al.
(författare)
-
Behind the numbers and the panic of a viral pandemic : fixed restrictive oncology guidance may jeopardize patients' survival
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Balkan Union of Oncology. Journal. - : Zerbinis Publications. - 1107-0625. ; 25:3, s. 1277-1280
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To protect cancer patients from COVID-19 exposure, prioritization strategies are being implemented at global level. Measures include use of tele-health services, deferring elective surgeries, delaying non life-saving therapies, interrupting maintenance and supportive care regimens and suspending screening and regular follow-up visits.Nonetheless, the risk of infection may not always outweigh oncology treatment benefit. Lives of most oncology patients depend on their ability to receive medical, surgical and radiotherapy care. Postponing screening,follow-up and radical surgeries increase patients' risk of developing metastatic disease.A viral pandemic lasts long time and exhibits seasonal and geographical variations. Though vaccines will be available only in the 2021, a global, aggressive, all-embracing and protracted slowdown of oncologic activities will severely jeopardize patients' outcomes.A present international oncologists' panel, ECPC and FAVO, strongly suggest that Hospital measures in a specific geographical area/Nation should be in line with the local epidemic, and restrictions adopted should be adapted and stratified over time.
|
|
| 4. |
- Mauri, Davide, et al.
(författare)
-
Cancer pain ... who cares? : International and national patterns of evidence-based global guide-lines recommendations for physicians on the Web (2011 vs. 2018)
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of B.U.ON. (JBUON). - 1107-0625 .- 2241-6293. ; 25:1, s. 62-73
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: Although pain is a common event during treatment of cancer, its assessment and management remains suboptimal in everyday clinical practice at global level.Methods: Considering both the important role of Internet in daily life and that clinical guidelines are important for translating evidence in clinical practice, we performed a prospective study to scrutinize the magnitude of updated evidence-based cancer-pain guideline recommendation for physicians on the web. Changes over-time at a global level were scrutinized at two time points: 2011 for baseline and 2018 at first follow-up. Both anesthesiology and oncology societies were analyzed.Results: In 2011 we scrutinized 181,00 WebPages and 370 eligible societies were identified; 364 of these were eligible for analyses both in 2011 and 2018. The magnitude of cancer pain updated and evidence-based guideline recommendations on the web for health care providers was extremely low at global level and at any time point considered 1.1% (4/364) in 2011 and 4.7% (17364) in 2018. Continental and intercontinental patterns, National's highest developmental index, oncology tradition and economic-geographic areas were not found to influence cancer pain web-guideline provision. In 2018, pain & supportive care societies provided the highest rate of updated evidence-based cancer-pain guidelines for clinicians. Only 3/25 medical oncology societies and 1/34 radiation oncology societies, provided own or e-link (to other societies) evidence-based guidelines in their websites.Conclusions: Major medical oncology and radiation oncology societies - at global level - fail to produce updated cancer pain recommendations for their physicians, with most of these providing no or inconsistent or outdated guidelines.
|
|
