OBJECTIVES: The present study aims to explore the level of awareness, attitude, and practice of PM in Pakistan along with the challenges faced by the oncologists for the treatment of cancer using the PM approach.
METHODS: Phenomenology-based qualitative approach was used. Face-to-face in-depth interviews were conducted using the purposive sampling approach among oncologists in Lahore, Pakistan. The data were analyzed using thematic content analysis to identify themes and sub-themes.
RESULTS: Out of 14 physicians interviewed 11 were aware of PM. They were keen on training to hone their skills and agreed on providing PM. Oncologists believed PM was expensive and given to affluent patients only. Other impeding factors include cost, lack of knowledge, and drug unavailability.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite basic knowledge and will to practice, resource and cost constraints were marked as significant barriers. Additional training programs and inclusion into the curriculum may help to pave the way to PM implementation in the future. In addition, health authorities and policymakers need to ensure a cheaper PM treatment can be made available for all cancer patients.
METHODS: Based on information gathered from literature searches, in-depth interviews with oncologists, and discussions with experts, an English-language questionnaire was developed. The questionnaire was tested for validity and reliability. A final version of the questionnaire (63 items) was piloted among 64 practicing oncologists and oncology trainees via convenient sampling. Data analysis was done using SPSS.
RESULTS: Correlation coefficients for each of the questionnaire's domains were more than 0.7 (P<0.001), which suggests that the questionnaire had strong test-retest reliability. The overall internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) for knowledge (0.728), attitude (0.722), and practice (0.716) were greater than 0.7 indicating good internal consistency. Participants demonstrated a low level of knowledge and a positive attitude toward chemotherapy resistance. A statistically significant difference was noted between the knowledge score and education level, years of experience in the medical and oncology field, and experiencing resistance cases.
CONCLUSION: The developed questionnaire was found to be valid and reliable and can be used as an assessment tool for assessing oncologists' knowledge, attitude, and practice toward chemotherapy resistance in future studies. This study also reported that the oncologists have low knowledge on chemotherapy resistance and a predominantly positive attitude towards fighting chemotherapy resistance. Thus, it is essential for current practices in chemotherapy to be optimized to reduce the risk of chemotherapy resistance.
METHODS: Thirteen medical oncologists and five radiation oncologists currently practising in Australia participated in this study. Data collection involved individual semi-structured interviews via telephone. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach.
RESULTS: Four key themes emerged: (1) beliefs about the impact of priming on cancer survivors' perceived cognitive function, (2) perceptions of who is more likely to raise concerns of cognitive change, (3) uncertainty of how to best manage CRCC, and (4) the perceived role of oncologists in the management of CRCC.
CONCLUSIONS: CRCC and its impact on the cancer survivor's journey have been under-addressed by oncology specialists, and they are uncertain of potential management strategies. With cancer survival rates increasing, there is a need for specific interventions and management guidelines addressing CRCC and their effects on cancer survivors. Future exploration should focus on the survivor as central to their care and holistic approaches to CRCC management involving all members of the multidisciplinary team.
METHODS: Using online surveys, availability of specialty manpower and MDTBs among PSTUs was first determined. From the subset of PSTUs with MDTBs, one pediatric surgeon and one pediatric oncologist from each center were queried using 5-point Likert scale questions adapted from published questionnaires.
RESULTS: In 37 (80.4%) of 46 identified PSTUs, availability of pediatric-trained specialists was as follows: oncologists, 94.6%; surgeons, 91.9%; radiologists, 54.1%; pathologists, 40.5%; radiation oncologists, 29.7%; nuclear medicine physicians, 13.5%; and nurses, 81.1%. Availability of pediatric-trained surgeons, radiologists, and pathologists was significantly associated with the existence of MDTBs (P = .037, .005, and .022, respectively). Among 43 (89.6%) of 48 respondents from 24 PSTUs with MDTBs, 90.5% of oncologists reported > 50% oncology-dedicated workload versus 22.7% of surgeons. Views on benefits and barriers did not significantly differ between oncologists and surgeons. The majority agreed that MDTBs helped to improve accuracy of treatment recommendations and team competence. Complex cases, insufficient radiology and pathology preparation, and need for supplementary investigations were the top barriers.
CONCLUSION: This first known profile of pediatric solid tumor care in Southeast Asia found that availability of pediatric-trained subspecialists was a significant prerequisite for pediatric MDTBs in this region. Most PSTUs lacked pediatric-trained pathologists and radiologists. Correspondingly, gaps in radiographic and pathologic diagnoses were the most common limitations for MDTBs. Greater emphasis on holistic multidisciplinary subspecialty development is needed to advance pediatric solid tumor care in Southeast Asia.
METHODS: Surgeons in the APFCP completed an Institutional Review Board-approved anonymous e-survey and/or printed letters (for China) containing 19 questions regarding nonsurgical close observation in patients who achieved clinical complete response (cCR) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).
RESULTS: Of the 417 responses, 80.8% (n = 337) supported the W&W approach and 65.5% (n = 273) treated patients who achieved cCR after nCRT. Importantly, 78% of participants (n = 326) preferred a selective W&W approach in patients with old age and medical comorbidities who achieved cCR. In regard to restaging methods after nCRT, the majority of respondents based their decision to use W&W on a combination of magnetic resonance imaging results (94.5%, n = 394) with other test results. For interval between nCRT completion and tumor response assessment, most participants used 8 weeks (n = 154, 36.9%), followed by 6 weeks (n = 127, 30.5%) and 4 weeks (n = 102, 24.5%). In response to the question of how often responders followed-up after W&W, the predominant period was every 3 months (209 participants, 50.1%) followed by every 2 months (75 participants, 18.0%). If local regrowth was found during follow-up, most participants (79.9%, n = 333) recommended radical surgery as an initial management.
CONCLUSION: The W&W approach is supported by 80% of Asia-Pacific surgeons and is practiced at 65%, although heterogeneous hospital or society protocols are also observed. These results inform oncologists of future clinical study participation.
Methods: This was an observational prospective study carried out at multiple centers. In total, 172 breast cancer patients were included. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue Questionnaire was used to measure QOL, while the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) was used to assess the severity of fatigue.
Results: The total average mean and standard deviation of QOL were 84.58±18.07 and 4.65±1.14 for BFI scores, respectively. A significant association between fatigue and QOL was found in linear and multiple regression analyses. The relationships between fatigue severity and cancer stage, chemotherapy dose delay, dose reduction, chemotherapy regimen, and ethnicity were determined using binary logistic regression analysis.
Conclusion: The findings of this study are believed to be useful for helping oncologists effectively evaluate, monitor, and treat fatigue related to QOL changes.