Search

Contains fulltext : 288214.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Due to the centralization of pancreatic surgery, patients with suspected pancreatic cancer may undergo diagnostic workup in both a non-pancreatic centre and a pancreatic centre, i.e. multicentre workup. This retrospective study assessed whether multicentre diagnostic workup is associated with repeated diagnostics, delayed time-to-diagnosis, delayed time-to-treatment, survival and whether variation existed among pancreatic cancer networks. METHODS: This nationwide study included all patients diagnosed with non-metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in 2015, registered by the Netherlands Cancer Registry. A delayed time-to-diagnosis was defined as ≥3 weeks from initial hospital visit to final diagnosis. A delayed time-to-treatment was defined as ≥6 weeks from the first hospital visit to start of first tumour treatment. Multilevel logistic regression analyses and survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: In total, 931 patients with non-metastatic PDAC were included. Overall, 175 patients (19%) underwent a multicentre diagnostic workup, which was significantly associated with repeated diagnostic investigations (OR = 6.31, 95% CI 4.13-9.64, P

INTRODUCTION: With the accumulating evidence on the added value on prediction of outcomes of geriatric assessment (GA) in older patients with cancer, the question shifts from whether performing a GA is useful, to how to implement this into standard practice in a feasible and effective way. The effect of implementing GA, and assessment of patient preferences on treatment recommendations by an onco-geriatric multidisciplinary team (MDT), was compared to the recommendation previously made by the tumor board (care as usual).METHODS: Patients aged 70 years and older with a solid malignancy who were referred to a tertiary care center for diagnosis and treatment recommendations, as provided by a tumor board, were included. The intervention consisted of: a nurse-led GA and assessment of patient preferences prior to the start of oncological treatment, discussing this in an onco-geriatric MDT, and weighing all this information in a structured, stepwise manner. Treatment recommendations formulated by this onco-geriatric MDT were compared to the treatment recommendations by the tumor board.RESULTS: Of 236 eligible patients, 197 were included. For 27%, treatment recommendations from the onco-geriatric MDT differed from the recommendations formulated by the tumor board. These modifications were mostly towards less intensive curative or palliative treatment. Thirteen percent of patients were subsequently referred to a geriatrician in order to reach a treatment recommendation.DISCUSSION: Implementing an onco-geriatric care trajectory, using GA and assessment of patient preferences, resulted in an adjustment of treatment recommendations for a quarter of patients. Thirteen percent needed subsequent referral to a geriatrician.

Background Oncological health care services are challenged by the increasing number of cancer survivors, long-term follow-up care, and fragmentation of care. Digital care platforms are potential tools to deliver affordable, patient-centered oncological care. Previous reviews evaluated only one feature of a digital care platform or did not evaluate the effect on enhancement of information, self-efficacy, continuity of care, or patient- and health care provider–reported experiences. Additionally, they have not focused on the barriers and facilitators for implementation of a digital care platform in oncological care. Objective The aim of this systematic review was to collect the best available evidence of the effect of a digital care platform on quality of care parameters such as enhancement of available information, self-efficacy, continuity of care, and patient- and health care provider–reported experiences. Additionally, barriers and facilitators for implementation of digital care platforms were analyzed. Methods The PubMed (Medline), Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for the period from January 2000 to May 2020 for studies assessing the effect of a digital care platform on the predefined outcome parameters in oncological patients and studies describing barriers and facilitators for implementation. Synthesis of the results was performed qualitatively. Barriers and facilitators were categorized according to the framework of Grol and Wensing. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for critical appraisal of the studies. Results Seventeen studies were included for final analysis, comprising 8 clinical studies on the effectiveness of the digital care platform and 13 studies describing barriers and facilitators. Usage of a digital care platform appeared to enhance the availability of information and self-efficacy. There were no data available on the effect of a digital care platform on the continuity of care. However, based on focus group interviews, digital care platforms could potentially improve continuity of care by optimizing the exchange of patient information across institutes. Patient-reported experiences such as satisfaction with the platform were considerably positive. Most barriers for implementation were identified at the professional level, such as the concern for increased workload and unattended release of medical information to patients. Most facilitators were found at the patient and innovation levels, such as improved patient-doctor communication and patient empowerment. There were few barriers and facilitators mentioned at the economic and political levels. Conclusions The use of digital care platforms is associated with better quality of care through enhancement of availability of information and increased self-efficacy for oncological patients. The numerous facilitators identified at the patient level illustrate that patients are positive toward a digital care platform. However, despite these favorable results, robust evidence concerning the effectiveness of digital care platforms, especially from high-quality studies, is still lacking. Future studies should therefore aim to further investigate the effectiveness of digital care platforms, and the barriers and facilitators to their implementation at the economic and political levels.

Objectives Several treatment modalities are available for patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Over the past decade, these treatment modalities have been further investigated and might have changed current treatment regimens. In this review we present an overview of the treatment options, developments and future perspectives for stage I NSCLC. Furthermore, we describe the current use of these treatment modalities in the Netherlands. Materials and Methods A bibliographical search was performed in PubMed and the Cochrane Library for publications concerning treatment modalities for stage I NSCLC. In addition, evidence-based guidelines of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) were studied. Results The guideline-recommended treatment for operable stage I NSCLC patients is a lobectomy with systematic lymph node dissection. Inoperable patients or those refusing surgery are offered stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). Percutaneous ablation, such as radiofrequency ablation, is a non-surgical minimally invasive technique offered to those who are ineligible for surgery or SABR. The role of systemic therapy is currently limited. However, the efficacy of immunotherapy is being investigated in clinical trials. In the Netherlands, an increasing use of SABR and a relative decrease in resection rates have been observed. Conclusion Surgery and SABR are currently the prevailing treatment modalities for stage I NSCLC patients. Despite optimization of treatment regimens, survival of patients with stage I NSCLC remains to be improved. Future studies are required to optimize treatment strategies, but also to investigate factors influencing treatment decision-making for patients with stage I NSCLC.