4.4 Article

Decision Making in Lung Cancer - How Applicable are the Guidelines?

期刊

CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 125-131

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE LONDON
DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2014.10.008

关键词

Guidelines; lung cancer; patterns of care; quality of care; radiotherapy; variation

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Modelling demand for radiotherapy is contingent on the uniform application of clinical practice guidelines. However, decision making in lung cancer is a complex process requiring the integration of multimodality treatment in patients who frequently have underlying comorbidities. Population studies have shown that guideline adherence in lung cancer is modest, ranging from 44 to 52%. The application of guideline treatment decreases with increasing age and the presence of comorbidities. Patient and clinician attitudes also impact on this. In some regions, sociodemographic factors, such as lower income and non-White race, have been associated with a lack of guideline treatment. One of the major barriers in treating lung cancer patients according to guidelines is the mismatch between the clinic population and those enrolled in clinical trials from which evidence is derived. The lung cancer clinic population often consists of patients who are older, have multiple comorbidities and are of borderline performance status, all characteristics that are usually exclusion criteria for clinical trials. Hence, there is uncertainty not only about the magnitude of benefit, but also potential toxicities of guideline treatment. Further research is necessary in order to define the best treatment in these patients and thus increase the applicability of guidelines to the general lung cancer population. Lung cancer is an extreme example of the difficulties in translating evidence into clinical practice. The applicability of guidelines to specific cancer populations will affect the modelling of demand for radiotherapy and other treatment modalities. (C) 2014 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.4
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