[Detection of multiple colon and rectal tumors during diagnostic treatment and follow-up]. / Többszörös vastag- és végbéldaganatok felismerése a kivizsgálás, kezelés és gondozás során.

Recognition of the commonly encountered colorectal cancer (CRC) generally begins and takes place because of and based on symptoms and signs, due to the unsettled screening of this type of cancer. Sometimes, because of advanced stage cancer urgent surgical intervention could become necessary and, if this is the case, there is no time and possibility for searching for an eventual second tumor and perhaps the patient's status does not permit performing intraoperative investigations either. The incidence of multiple colon cancer is considered to be between 2.5 and 30% according to the literature. That is why one should exclude them even in the absence of pre- and intraoperative investigations and complaints. On the other hand, colonoscopy and perhaps irrigoscopy of seemingly healthy followed-up patients is mandatory. In the case of the presence of complaints/symptoms denoting impaired intestinal passage seen in a followed-up patient or during the adjuvant setting or metastatic/recurrent disease, treatment and even during hospice care we should evaluate the possibility of a second metachronous tumor. Moreover, if there is no urgency, the multidisciplinary team (oncoteam) should recommend the adequate treatment by balancing gain/utility and risk.

[Thoughts about thromboembolic events prophylaxis in cancer patients]. / Gondolatok a daganatos betegek vénás trombózisprofilaxisáról.

The risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) in cancer patients is higher than in the general population. Treatment may also increase this risk in these patients. Based on the appropriate criteria (of which the most important are the current ministerial guidelines) thrombosis prophylaxis should be started (given that there is no contraindication) on these patients and be continued while they are at risk. In the event of permanent risk thrombosis prophylaxis should be given lifelong. The drug of choice is low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) which is safer and more effective than the oral vitamin K antagonists. Platelet aggregation inhibitors have proved unsuccessful in this patient group. The evidence so far suggests that LMWH (during VTE prophylaxis) can have a positive impact on the course of cancer and perhaps it will be registered under the indication section for cancer patients in the future.

[Extravasation of cytostatic drugs]. / Citosztatikumok paravazációja.

Paravasation of cytostatic drugs during peripheral intravenous administration is a well known complication. In the United States of America it occurs in seven percent of cases with different severity and consequences. Although methods to completely avoid this complication are still unavailable, we are able to decrease the risks by identifying the patient- and procedure-related factors. The educated patient is a good indicator of paravasation in case he or she can cooperate and call the nurse. When the patient is unable to cooperate, the risks of extravasation is higher and closer nursing surveillance is indicated. The extent of injury depends mainly on the chemical structure of the extravasant substance (vesicant, irritant or non-vesicant) which may be modified by other factors. There is no strong evidence-based guidance for the management of complication. Abrupt cessation of the infusion and drawing back on the inserted venous catheter as well as elevating and resting the affected limb are necessary measures. In the available literature cooling or warming of the affected area is controversial. Similarly there are still open questions regarding the value of using antidotes as dexrazoxane, dimethylsulfoxide, thiosulfate and hyaluronidase (which is not registered as medicament in Hungary). In the event of extravasation early multidisciplinary dermatological and surgical assessment is essential for definitive diagnosis and setting the optimal management.