Recent PublicationsView all

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence shows that patients with cancer have many information needs, but specific requirements of patients undergoing surgery for oesophago-gastric (OG) cancer have not been well explored. This study surveyed information needs of patients with OG cancer and explored associations between patient characteristics and information needs. A validated questionnaire assessing the importance of information about i) the nature, process and prognosis of the cancer, ii) tests, iii) treatments, and iv) physical and psychosocial outcomes (quality of life information) was completed by patients before and after OG cancer treatment. Items responses were transformed to a 0-100 score and linear regression explored associations between clinical and socio-demographic patient characteristics and patient information needs. Questionnaires from 136 respondents were received (response rate 60%, 25% pre-operative, 77% men, mean age 66). Most types of information were rated as important, with information about prognosis and quality of life issues being scored as highly important by over 112 (82%) patients. Linear regression showed that women rated information relating to treatment and psychosocial effects as more important than men (p < 0.038), but no other associations were identified. Most patients with OG cancer want detailed information, especially information about prognosis and quality of life. It is recommended that surgeons provide this for patients alongside information that the surgeon considers important.
    No preview · Article · Aug 2013 · European journal of surgical oncology: the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) may improve outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction, but recent evidence suggests complication rates may be higher when ADM is used. We retrospectively compared early complications and implant loss in implant-based breast reconstruction (BR) with and without ADM to evaluate the safety of the procedure in our centre. Case-notes of consecutive women undergoing implant-based BR from May 2011 to November 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Data were extracted using a standardised pro-forma and the rate of early complications, major complications and implant loss compared between procedure groups. Forty-six implant-based reconstructions were performed for malignancy (n = 31, 67.4%) or prophylaxis (n = 15, 32.6%) in 31 women over the 18-month study period. ADM (Protexa(®), Decomed) was used in 31 (67.4%) cases. There were no differences in patient age, BMI, co-morbidities, smoking or chemotherapy between groups, but patients receiving ADM were more likely to have received radiotherapy prior to their reconstruction (n = 6, 30% vs. n = 0, 0%, p = 0.043). The overall rate of early complications was 26.1% (n = 12) but there was no significant difference between procedure groups (standard-n = 4, 27.7% vs. ADM-n = 8, 25.8%; p = 0.950). There were 2 (4.3%) major complications none of which were associated with ADM use (standard-n = 2, 13.3% vs. ADM-n = 0, 0.0%; p = 0.038). There were 6 (13.0%) implant losses of which 4 were in the ADM group (standard-n = 2, 13.3% vs. ADM-n = 4, 12.9%; p = 0.968). All of these were associated with pre-reconstruction radiotherapy. ADM-assisted implant-based reconstruction with Protexa(®) is safe and may improve outcomes for women by facilitating a single-stage procedure. Robust prospective evaluation is now needed to definitively evaluate the role of ADM in implant-based BR.
    No preview · Article · Aug 2013 · European journal of surgical oncology: the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: National guidelines recommend that fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in all patients being considered for radical treatment of oesophageal or oesophago-gastric cancer without computerised tomography scan (CTS) evidence of metastasis. Guidance also mandates that all patients with cancer have treatment decisions made within the context of a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meeting. Little is known, however, about the influence of PET-CT on decision making within MDTs. The aim of this study was to assess the role of PET-CT in oesophago-gastric cancer on MDT decision making. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively held database of all patients with biopsy-proven oesophageal or oesophago-gastric cancer discussed by a specialist MDT was interrogated. Patients selected for radical treatment without CTS evidence of M1 disease were identified. The influence of PET-CT on MDT decision making was examined by establishing whether the PET-CT confirmed CTS findings of M0 disease (and did not change the patient staging pathway) or whether the PET-CT changed the pathway by showing unsuspected M1 disease, refuting CTS suspicious metastases, or identifying another lesion (needing further investigation). Results: In 102 MDT meetings, 418 patients were discussed, of whom 240 were initially considered for radical treatment and 238 undergoing PET-CT. The PET-CT confirmed CTS findings for 147 (61.8%) and changed MDT recommendations in 91 patients (38.2%) by (i) identifying M1 disease (n=43), (ii) refuting CTS suspicions of M1 disease (n=25), and (iii) identifying new lesions required for investigations (n=23). Conclusion: The addition of PET-CT to standard staging for oesophageal cancer led to changes in MDT recommendations in 93 (38.2%) patients, improving patient selection for radical treatment. The validity of the proposed methods for evaluating PET-CT on MDT decision making requires more work in other centres and teams.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2013 · British Journal of Cancer
Information provided on this web page is aggregated encyclopedic and bibliographical information relating to the named institution. Information provided is not approved by the institution itself. The institution’s logo (and/or other graphical identification, such as a coat of arms) is used only to identify the institution in a nominal way. Under certain jurisdictions it may be property of the institution.