Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Contemp Oncol (Pozn) ; 18(6): 419-24, 2014.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25784841

ABSTRACT

AIM OF THE STUDY: The first aim was to investigate the knowledge and awareness of oncologists concerning febrile neutropenia (FN) risk assessment and indications for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) primary prophylaxis (PP), based on current therapeutic guidelines (PTOK and EORTC). The second aim was to educate the oncologists on best practices for risk assessment and neutropenia management. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The project participants included 169 oncologists from 7 regions working in large specialist oncological centres, university hospitals, regional and city hospitals, specialist outpatient clinics, and oncological wards in small local hospitals. The participants completed a questionnaire based on seven prepared clinical cases of patients with different tumour types and patient characteristics, receiving chemotherapy (CT), and with different levels of FN risk. Participants answered questions related to FN risk assessment and G-CSF use. After completing the questionnaire, the participants proceeded to an educational module in which they were provided with an analysis of correct diagnostic and therapeutic procedures according to the PTOK and EORTC guidelines. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Febrile neutropenia risk assessment was found to be a routine procedure performed for over 90% of the clinical cases by the participant oncologists. However, the FN risk assessment of clinical cases was correct and consistent with therapeutic guidelines in only 65% of responses. Indications for G-CSF PP were properly identified in 76% of responses and it appeared that indications for G-CSF PP were more likely to be correctly identified in patients receiving high-risk or low-risk regimens than in those receiving intermediate-risk regimens, where the decision to give G-CSF PP is based on additional assessment of patient risk factors. The vast majority of participants who correctly identified the need for PP administered G-CSF in accordance with the dose and schedule recommended by PTOK and EORTC.

2.
Contemp Oncol (Pozn) ; 18(6): 425-8, 2014.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25784842

ABSTRACT

AIM OF THE STUDY: This paper presents the second part of the GoPractice project involving oncologists from seven Polish provinces. The aim of this part of the project was to assess the knowledge of oncologists on indications for granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) secondary prophylaxis (SP) of febrile neutropenia (FN) and FN management based on current therapeutic guidelines (Polish Society of Clinical Oncology [PTOK] and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC]). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The project involved 169 oncologists from 7 regions working in large specialist oncological centers, university hospitals, regional and city hospitals, specialist outpatient clinics and oncological wards in small, local hospitals. The participants completed a questionnaire based on 7 prepared clinical cases of patients with different tumor types and patient characteristics, receiving chemotherapy (CT) with different levels of FN risk. Participants answered questions related to FN risk assessment and G-CSF use as secondary prophylaxis (SP) and for the management of FN. After completing the questionnaire, the participants proceeded to an educational module in which they were provided with an analysis of correct diagnostic and therapeutic procedures according to the PTOK and EORTC guidelines. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Indications for G-CSF SP were generally well recognized: in nearly 90% of responses, oncologists assessed correctly indications/lack of indications for secondary prophylaxis, in accordance with guideline recommendations and Experts' opinion. However, the use of daily G-CSFs was often recommended by the study participants for the management of FN. This clinical practice is contradictory to PTOK and EORTC recommendations and may unnecessarily increase treatment costs. Changing this clinical approach may be achieved through regular training to improve guideline adherence.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...