RESUMO
In the last decades, the survival of many patients with cancer improved thanks to modern diagnostic methods and progresses in therapy. Still for several tumours, especially when diagnosed at an advanced stage, the benefits of treatment in terms of increased survival or quality of life are at best modest when not marginal, and should be weighed against the potential discomfort caused by medical procedures. As in other specialties, in oncology as well the dialogue between doctor and patient should be encouraged about the potential overuse of diagnostic procedures or treatments. Several oncological societies produced recommendations similar to those proposed by other medical disciplines adhering to the Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign. In this review, we describe what was reported in the medical literature concerning adequacy of screening, diagnostic, treatment and follow-up procedures and the potential impact on them of the CW. We only marginally touch on the more complex topic of treatment appropriateness, for which several evaluation methods have been developed (including the European Society for Medical Oncology-magnitude of clinical benefit scale). Finally, we review the possible obstacles for the development of CW in the oncological setting and focus on the strategies which could allow CW to evolve in the cancer field, so as to enhance the therapeutic relationship between medical professionals and patients and promote more appropriate management.
RESUMO
PRINCIPLES: We present a prospective randomised trial comparing complications from three different permanent central venous access systems (PCVAS). METHODS: The PCVAS trial groups were I, polyurethane ChemoSite (AutoSuture); II, polyurethane Port-a-Cath (Pharmacia-Upjohn); and III, silicone Port-a-Cath. The PCVAS were inserted under local anaesthesia by direct puncture of the subclavian vein, using the Seldinger technique. Every complication and ist evolution was recorded and analysed. The follow-up period was closed five years after the last PCVAS was implanted, and interrupted when for any reason the device was removed. RESULTS: Over a period of 45 months, we included 228 patients (96 men, 132 women, average age 58 yr). Patients were followed from six days to 103 mo (median 14.7 mo). We observed 10 pneumothorax (4.3%), seven of them requiring drainage. Out of 10 infected ports (4.3%), eight were removed. We observed 46 complications (20.1%) related to the device (rupture, displacement, disconnection, and occlusion of the catheter). Most of the thirteen ruptures (5.7%) occurred in the space between the clavicle and the first rib. Catheters of group I ruptured more often than those of groups II and III (p <0.05). Polyurethane catheters ruptured more often than silicone catheters (p <0.01). CONCLUSION: The polyurethane catheters that ruptured more often had a larger diameter and a thicker wall than the other polyurethane catheters, and were probably subjected to greater shearing between the clavicle and the first rib. Silicone catheters, although thicker and of larger diameter than the two other catheters, seemed more resistant to shearing.
