4.2 Article

Current Opinion and Knowledge on Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: A Survey among a Swiss Oncology Network

期刊

CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 63, 期 3, 页码 143-147

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000488774

关键词

Peritoneal metastasis; Carcinomatosis; Opinion; Treatment; Ovarian cancer; Satisfaction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims of the Study: The present survey aimed to evaluate current opinion and practice regarding peritoneal metastasis (PM), satisfaction with available treatment options, and need for new therapeutic approaches. Methods: This was a qualitative study conducted between October 2016 and October 2017 in the Reseau Suisse Romand d'Oncologie including 101 members of various oncological specialties. Participants' demographics, current practice, knowledge, and satisfaction regarding available treatment options and need for new treatment options were assessed by semantic differential scales through 33 closed questions with automatic reminders at 4-, 8-, 12-, and 16-week intervals. Results: Twenty-seven participants (27%) completed the survey. Participants were gastrointestinal or gynecologic oncologists and surgeons. Most participants (67%) evaluated their knowledge on PM as moderate, while 22% considered themselves as experts. Clinical usefulness of systemic chemotherapy and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy was judged to be moderate to high for PM of ovarian and colorectal origin and moderate to poor for gastric origin. Satisfaction with available treatment options was 6/10 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7) for ovarian, 5/10 (IQR 3-7) for colorectal, and 3/10 (IQR 1-3) for gastric PM. Treatment strategies varied widely for typical case vignettes. The need for new treatment modalities was rated as 8/10 (IQR 6-10). Conclusion: Usefulness of and satisfaction with available treatment options for PM were rated as moderate at best by oncological experts, and treatment strategies differed importantly among participants. There appears to be a clear need for standardization and new treatment modalities. (c) 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel

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