Improving communication between the general practitioner and the oncologist: a key role in coordinating care for patients suffering from cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients suffering from cancers are increasingly numerous in general practice consultations. The General Practitioner (GP) should be at the heart of the management of patients. Several studies have examined the perceptions of GPs confronted with the patient suffering from cancer and the relationships of GPs with oncologists, but few studies have focused on the patients' perspective. We studied the three-way relationship between the oncologist, the GP, and the patient, from the patient's point of view. METHODS: A questionnaire validated by a group consisting of GPs, oncologists, nurses, an epidemiologist and quality analyst, was administered over a three-week period to patients suffering from cancer receiving chemotherapy in a day hospital. RESULTS: The analysis was based on 403 questionnaires. Patients had confidence in the GP's knowledge of oncology in 88% of cases; 49% consulted their GP for pain, 15% for cancer-related advice, and 44% in emergencies. Perceived good GP/oncologist communication led patients to turn increasingly to their GP for cancer-related consultations (RR = 1.14; p = 0.01) and gave patients confidence in the GP's ability to manage cancer-related problems (RR = 1.30; p < 0.01). Mention by the oncologist of the GP's role increased the consultations for complications (RR = 1.82; p < 0.01) as well as recourse to the GP in an emergency (RR = 1.35; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients suffering from cancer considered that the GP was competent, but did not often consult their GP for cancer-related problems. There is a discrepancy between patients' beliefs and their behaviour. When the oncologist spoke to patients of the GP's role, patients had recourse to their GP more often. Systematically integrating a GP consultation to conclude cancer diagnosis disclosure, could improve management and care coordination.

Primary care physicians and oncologists are partners in cancer announcement.

PURPOSE: The primary care physician (PCP) is central to cancer patients' management. Announcement of the diagnosis is a critical time for patients, even if they wish to be fully informed. The French National Cancer Plan, developed 10 years ago, includes a diagnosis disclosure procedure (DDP) to be used by oncologists, which makes specific provision for a time of communication with PCPs. So, we asked PCPs about their role in cancer announcement since the launching of the DDP. METHODS: A cross-sectional prospective study by postal questionnaire was sent to 500 PCPs in the largest region of France. It addressed (1) the characteristics of cancer disclosure, (2) PCPs' source of information of the diagnosis, (3) time of disclosure, (4) information exchange, and (5) the physicians' knowledge of the DDP. RESULTS: The response rate was 48 %. In 20 % of cases, oncologists delegated the announcement to PCPs. In 19 % of cases, it was the patient or their family who informed the PCP of the diagnosis. We identified three announcement phases of cancer diagnosis in the physicians' clinical practice: pre-disclosure, disclosure, and repeat disclosure. In 57 % of cases, PCPs lacked information on prognosis and in 60 % on treatment. Regarding the DDP, nearly half of PCPs did not know the procedure itself or its content. CONCLUSION: PCPs announce the cancer diagnosis, even if they have not received the necessary information to do so. The DDP needs to be adapted for use in primary care practice.

Guideline sheets on the side effects of anticancer drugs are useful for general practitioners.

PURPOSE: General practitioners (GPs) are more and more involved in the treatment of cancer patients but feel not informed enough about anticancer treatments and associated side effects. Better communication with treatment centers is needed. We hypothesized that information sheets could improve communication. METHODS: This prospective, multicentric, and interventionist study aimed at implementing and assessing therapeutic sheets describing the side effects of anticancer drugs used for digestive and gynecological cancers and their recommended management. GPs' phone interviews were done through three successive phases and two independent cohorts. The first phase (T1; 242 GPs with one patient recently treated) listed their expectations, the second (T2; 158 GPs with one patient beginning treatment) assessed the GPs' opinion regarding the sheets, and the third (T3; responder GPs 4 months after the start of T2) assessed their usefulness in practice. RESULTS: In T1, 94% of GPs declared their need of having information sheets, notably for the management of side effects. Thirty-one one-page sheets were created. In T2, 83.5% gave a favorable opinion about sheets and 80% envisaged their use in the case of side effect. In T3, 56% of GPs whose patient had experienced a side effect had used successfully the sheets for its management, and 21% of patients with side effect were hospitalized. A strong correlation existed between the use of the sheet by GPs and the hospitalization (OR 7.35 in the case of no use vs use). CONCLUSION: The guideline sheets represent a simple and low-cost solution to help GPs managing drugs' side effects and perhaps decrease the rate of unplanned hospitalizations.

Adapting patients' oncological treatment through remote participation of general practitioners in multi-disciplinary consultation meetings: A feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: The general practitioner (GP) is central to managing patients with cancer, whose numbers are increasing worldwide. The GP's involvement requires better coordination between involved partners, in particular oncologists and GPs. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a feasibility study of remote participation of GPs in multi-disciplinary consultation meetings (MCMs). We analysed participation, participants' satisfaction, and their impact on therapeutic decisions. METHODS: We conducted a feasibility study in the regional cancer centre of Toulouse, France. All patient cases discussed in the MCMs for myelodysplasia from 1 January to 31 March 2016 were included. Cases of patients aged over 18 years, with a diagnosis of myelodysplasia and registered with a GP were included if patients gave informed consent. One investigator collected the data provided by GPs during three telephone or video calls: before, during, and after the MCM, respectively. RESULTS: Of 86 patient cases discussed during three months of MCMs, 44 were eligible for GP participation; 27 GPs participated in discussions of 27 patient cases. The GP's participation in the MCM led to a change in management in five cases, with four times treatment intensifications and once de-intensification. Medical, social, family-related, and psychological domains were discussed with input from the GPs. Overall, all participants were satisfied with the MCMs. CONCLUSION: Remote participation of GPs in MCMs is feasible and may result in adapting oncological and haematological management for patients. This patient-centred approach requires a specific organisation that, when implemented, satisfies the needs of all participants.

Active Monitoring of a Humeral Osteoblastoma in a 52-Year-Old Male: A Case Report.

An osteoblastoma is an uncommon benign but painful tumor, typically found on the axial skeleton or on long bones in the case of young patients. Some cases of humeral osteoblastomas have been described in literature but not in men older than 30. We report the case of a painless bone tumor on the humerus of a 52-year-old patient. The CT scan shows a 30 mm hypodense lacunar formation, surrounded by thickened cortical bone resembling an osteoid osteoma. The anatomopathological and immunohistological analyses support the thesis of an osteoblastoma. A course of radiological monitoring without surgical resection was adopted. This unusual case introduces the possibility of carrying out a differential diagnosis with an osteosarcoma and raises the question of the treatment that should be adopted.