ABSTRACT
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the predominant form of primary liver cancer and the third contributor to malignancy-related deaths worldwide. The hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), transient elastography-liver stiffness measurement (TE-LSM), and the association between TBS (tumor burden score), alpha-fetoprotein levels, and the Child-Pugh classification (TAC score) can serve as valuable prognostic indicators for these patients. Therefore, the main objective of our research was to analyze the prognostic value of the HVPG, TE-LSM, TBS, and TAC scores. An observational and survival study was conducted on 144 subjects. Our findings indicated that HVPG greater than 10 mmHg, AFP surpassing 400 ng/mL, an advanced C-P class, and low TAC score are independent predictors of overall survival. During the multivariate analysis, AFP serum levels and C-P class proved statistically significant. The present study revealed significant differences in overall survival between the two groups divided upon HVPG values and settled by the cutoff of 10 mmHg (p = 0.02). Moreover, by dividing the cohort into three groups based on the TAC score (very low, low, and moderate), statistically significant differences in overall survival were observed across the groups (p = 0.004).
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Gastric cancer is the fourth most frequently diagnosed form of cancer and the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. The aim of this review is to identify individual metabolic biomarkers and their association with accurate diagnostic values, which can predict gastric cancer metastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After searching the keywords, 83 articles were found over a period of 13 years. One was eliminated because it was not written in English, and two were published outside the selected period. Seven scientific papers were qualified for this investigation after eliminating duplicates, non-related articles, systematic reviews, and restricted access studies. RESULTS: New metabolic biomarkers with predictive value for gastric cancer metastasis and for elucidating metabolic pathways of the metastatic process have been found. The pathogenic processes can be outlined as follows: pro-oxidant capacity, T-cell inactivation, cell cycle arrest, energy production and mitochondrial enzyme impairment, cell viability and pro-apoptotic effect, enhanced degradation of collagen extracellular matrix, migration, invasion, structural protein synthesis, and tumoral angiogenesis. CONCLUSION: Metabolic biomarkers have been recognized as independent risk factors in the molecular process of gastric cancer metastasis, with good diagnostic and prognostic value.
ABSTRACT
Background: The family caregiver (FCG) is with the patient from diagnosis till the end of life. The accumulated burden has a negative impact on the caregiver's quality of life and on his physical and emotional well-being. Objective: To quantify the burden of care for a patient with palliative needs, and to compare the burden experienced by caregivers for nononcological patients with those for cancer patients. Design: Prospective longitudinal study. Setting/Participants: One hundred forty patient-primary caregiver pairs participated in the study, which were separated into two groups: those who cared for patients with nononcological diseases (n = 63) and those who cared for patients with cancer (n = 77). Measurements: The burden measurement was assessed with Burden Scale for FCGs. Results: The average score of the FCG's burden was significantly higher in the nononcological group (45 ± 14.45 vs. 36.52 ± 15.05; p = 0.001). In the case of caregivers for cancer patients it is noticed that the caregivers' burden decreases after the intervention of the specialized team (45.58 ± 14.11 at T1 vs. 36.65 ± 16.10 at T2; p = 0.001). The burden values for caring for patients with nononcological diseases remained in the plateau, indicating incremental caregiver adaptation, although the rising trend is still present toward the end of the term (47.43 ± 13.32 vs. 56.69 ± 15.44; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The burden dynamics are different depending on the patient's disease, duration of care, degree of dependence, number of comorbidities, and on the intervention of the palliative care team that ensures the support of the caregiver for the palliative patient.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A primary caregiver shares the illness experience of the patient and undertakes vital care work, alongside managing the patient's emotions, and is actively involved in care process without being paid. When faced with the palliative care patient's needs, caregivers are affected on multiple levels (physical, psychological and socio-economic), thereby experiencing a moderate or severe burden of care. AIM: To identify assessment instruments for the burden of care for family caregivers that are suitable to be used in clinical practice. METHOD: A narrative review was conducted using an electronic search in Pubmed, PsychINFO, CINAHL of articles published in English between 2009-2019, using the search terms: 'caregiver/family, caregiver/carer and burden and palliative care/hospice/end of life'. An assessment grid was developed to appraise the clinical use of identified instruments. RESULTS: Of the 568 articles identified, 40 quantitative studies were selected using 31 instruments to measure the caregiver burden of cancer, noncancer and terminally ill patients. Most instruments 23 (74.11%) evaluate the psycho-emotional and, 22 (70.96%) the social domain, 12 instruments (38.7%) focused on the physical domain, three (9.67%) on the spiritual field and six instruments (19.35%) on economic aspects. For the multidimensional instruments, the assessment grid scored highest for the Burden Scale for Family Caregiver (BSFC). CONCLUSION: The BSFC is the tool that seems to meet the most requirements, being potentially the most useful tool in clinical practice.
Subject(s)
Hospice Care , Hospice and Palliative Care Nursing , Neoplasms , Adult , Caregivers/psychology , Humans , Palliative Care/psychologyABSTRACT
Introduction: Quality of life is a difficult concept to understand and therefore difficult to evaluate. From the general definition to the individuality of the person, there are factors that positively or negatively influence quality of life. Aim: The aim is to identify the factors that influence the quality of life of primary caregivers of patients with progressive life-threatening illnesses. Methodology: PUBMED was searched to retrieve the relevant literature for our research questions used the following keywords: "Quality of life and caregiver or caretaker and palliative care or life threatening disease." Only quantitative studies containing randomized trials were included using at least one caregiver's quality-of-life tool, not older than 10 years, written in English, and with subjects older than 18 years, who considered they were involved in the active care of a palliative patient. Results: A number of 687 articles were identified from which only 38 were analyzed in detail regarding the impact of different interventions over the quality-of-life of the caregiver. The factors that influence the quality-of-life can be distributed into four areas: social, psycho-emotional, financial, and physical. The disruption of daily routine, non-existential financial resources, multiple responsibilities and psychological tension are reduce the caregiver's quality-of-life. Family involvment, knowledge about disease and treatment, abilities to communicate patient and the team and optimistic atitude improve caregiver's quality-of-life. Conclusions: The quality of life of the caregiver be improved by social, and relaxation techniques, reduction of insecurity or anxiety. Furthermore, the caregiver's quality of increases through and adequate communication diagnosis, a proper conducted treatment and education over the care maneuvers.
Subject(s)
Caregivers , Quality of Life , Anxiety , Caregivers/psychology , Emotions , Humans , Palliative Care/methodsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Progressive chronic diseases presume a complex treatment plan that depends on the number of symptoms, their severity, and comorbidities. Drug management is an essential responsibility of the family caregiver of a palliative care patient, but has received limited attention in field research. STUDY QUESTIONS: The aim of this study is to identify the complexity of the therapeutic plan followed at home by cancer or noncancer patients needing palliative care, and to assess its impact on the burden of the family caregivers. STUDY DESIGN: This observational study was conducted at patient's admission in a palliative care department. The study involved cancer and noncancer patients and their primary family caregivers. To measure the care burden, the Burden Scale for Family Caregiver was used and for the complexity of the therapeutic plan, the Medication Regime Complexity Index. MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: To measure the care burden, the Burden Scale for Family Caregiver was used and for the complexity of the therapeutic plan, the Medication Regime Complexity Index. RESULTS: One hundred and forty patients were enrolled with their family caregivers: patients with nononcological pathologies (n = 63) and patients with cancer (n = 77). Caregiver's burden score is statistically significantly correlated with the complexity of the medical plan in both groups (P = 0.32 and P = 0.012 respectively). The average family caregiver's burden was significantly higher in the nononcological group (45 ± 14.45 vs. 36.52 ± 15.05; P = 0.001). The number of medications that family caregivers administer daily for patients without cancer is higher than in the other subset (8.25 ± 4.94 vs. 5.89 ± 4.93; P = 0.004). Opioids were more frequently used for pain control in cancer patients (5 vs. 72; P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The caregiver's burden is high for nononcological patients. The complexity of the treatment plan (number of drugs and frequency of administration) is significantly correlated with the care burden. Further studies are needed to understand which interventions targeted on family caregivers will minimize the burden of care.
