4.6 Article

Ten-year experience of the multidisciplinary Osteoncology Center

期刊

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
卷 27, 期 9, 页码 3395-3402

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-019-4635-5

关键词

Osteoncology; Bone metastases; Multidisciplinary team; Skeletal-related events; Quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeBone metastases (BMs) are responsible for high morbidity in patients. A multidisciplinary approach involving a team of specialists offers an effective therapeutic strategy based on disease characteristics, medical history, and performance status. We evaluated the impact of our 10-year multidisciplinary experience on the management of patients with BM.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 2194 medical reports of 1628 patients referred to our Osteoncology Center from 2005 to 2015. Cases were discussed weekly by a multidisciplinary team.ResultsEight hundred thirty-eight (38.2%) of the 2194 visits were requested because of a risk of complications from BM. Antiblastic treatment and bone-targeted therapy were modified in 709 (66.3%) and 309 (31%) of cases, respectively. Radiotherapy was scheduled in 220 (20%) of the 1099 patients for whom information was recorded. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) during their first visit, 1296 (59.1%) reporting pain (median intensity 4), and 537 (41.4%) experiencing a level that interfered substantially with daily activities. New ortheses and/or antalgic therapy was prescribed accordingly. After 7days, 208 (16%) patients were re-evaluated and a new BPI administered. A significant improvement in the worst (p<0.0001) and current pain (p=0.03) was seen, together with a favorable impact on daily activities (p=0.02). Two thousand fifty-one patients completed an anonymous questionnaire on the quality of the service, the majority (69.4%) expressing high satisfaction.ConclusionsOur 10-year osteoncology experience confirms the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to optimize BM management. Further evaluations are needed in relation to quality of life, outcome, and costs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据