4.2 Article

Impact of active tuberculosis on treatment decisions in cancer

期刊

CURRENT PROBLEMS IN CANCER
卷 45, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2020.100643

关键词

Tuberculosis; Cancer; Treatment

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A retrospective study was conducted to investigate the impact of active TB on treatment decisions in cancer patients. Among 32,509 cancer cases, 0.17% were diagnosed with active TB, leading to delays in treatment for 46% of patients and changes to palliative treatment for 11% of patients. It highlights the importance of considering TB in cancer treatment decisions.
Background Tuberculosis (TB) and cancer can coexist in some patients especially from lowand middleincome countries. Impact of active TB on treatment decisions in cancer is less well studied. Methods A retrospective case record review of all cases of cancer diagnosed and or treated between January 2012 and December 2019 who were also diagnosed to have active TB (pulmonary or extrapulmonary) was done. Results Any delay or change in standard treatment of cancer because of active TB or its treatment was noted. Among a total of 32,509 cancer cases, 56 (0.17%) patients were diagnosed to have active TB. Twenty six patients (46%) had delay in starting treatment or delay during cancer treatment. Six (11%) patients were changed from curative treatment option to palliative intent (either best supportive care or palliative Radiation) or no further treatment. Three (5%) patients required change from one type of curative treatment modality to another curative option. Conclusion Eleven percent of patients had to be changed from curative intent to palliative treatment or no further treatment, TB being either the direct or indirect cause in all of them. A nationwide data registry of cancer patients with TB, involving multiple centers, should be considered so that specific problems in this context can be identified and addressed in larger details. (c) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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