Search

Introduction: Documentation as well as IT-based management of medical data is of ever-increasing relevance in modern medicine. As radiation oncology is a rather technical, data-driven discipline, standardization, and data exchange are in principle possible. We examined electronic healthcare documents to extract structured information. Planning CT order entry documents were chosen for the analysis, as this covers a common and structured step in radiation oncology, for which standardized documentation may be achieved. The aim was to examine the extent to which relevant information may be exchanged among different institutions. Materials and Methods: We contacted representatives of nine radiation oncology departments. Departments using standardized electronic documentation for planning CT were asked to provide templates of their records, which were analyzed in terms of form and content. Structured information was extracted by identifying definite common data elements, containing explicit information. Relevant common data elements were identified and classified. A quantitative analysis was performed to evaluate the possibility of data exchange. Results: We received data of seven documents that were heterogeneous regarding form and content. 181 definite common data elements considered relevant for the planning CT were identified and assorted into five semantic groups. 139 data elements (76.8%) were present in only one document. The other 42 data elements were present in two to six documents, while none was shared among all seven documents. Conclusion: Structured and interoperable documentation of medical information can be achieved using common data elements. Our analysis showed that a lot of information recorded with healthcare documents can be presented with this approach. Yet, in the analyzed cohort of planning CT order entries, only a few common data elements were shared among the majority of documents. A common vocabulary and consensus upon relevant information is required to promote interoperability and standardization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a treatment option for patients with peritoneal metastases. We evaluated the current status of ongoing prospective clinical trials investigating PIPAC to provide an overview and predict trends in this field. Methods: All 367,494 records of clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for trials dealing with PIPAC. Active or unpublished trials were further analyzed. Results: In total, 22 clinical trials were identified and selected for further analyses. Most trials had a single-arm design and were phase I or II. No phase III trials were registered. Academic centers were recorded as primary sponsors in the majority of trials (63.6%). Every year, between 2 and 5 new trials were initiated. In 17 trials (81.8%), PIPAC was used in a palliative setting only, 2 trials performed PIPAC in a neoadjuvant setting, and 2 trials performed PIPAC in an adjuvant setting. Six different drugs (doxorubicin, cisplatin, oxaliplatin, nab-paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil, and docetaxel) were used in these clinical trials. Most trials investigated the efficacy (n = 15) or safety (n = 7) of PIPAC therapies. Conclusions: The results of ongoing clinical trials will bring specific information on indications for PIPAC as well as the impact of PIPAC on quality of life and overall survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decision making is one of the most complex skills required of an oncologist and is affected by a broad range of parameters. For example, the wide variety of treatment options, with various outcomes, side-effects and costs present challenges in selecting the most appropriate treatment. Many treatment choices are affected by limited scientific evidence, availability of therapies or patient-specific factors. In the decision making process, standardized approaches can be useful, but a multitude of criteria are relevant to this process. Thus, the aim of this review is to summarize common types of decision criteria used in oncology by focusing on 3 main categories: criteria associated with the decision maker (both patient and doctor), decision specific criteria, and the oftenoverlooked contextual factors. Our review aims to highlight the broad range of decision criteria in use, as well as variations in their interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]