RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) cancer is frequently diagnosed in people of working age, and many GI cancer patients experience work-related problems. Although these patients often experience difficulties returning to work, supportive work-related interventions are lacking. We have therefore developed a tailored work-related support intervention for GI cancer patients, and we aim to evaluate its cost-effectiveness compared with the usual care provided. If this intervention proves effective, it can be implemented in practice to support GI cancer patients after diagnosis and to help them return to work. METHODS/DESIGN: We designed a multicentre randomized controlled trial with a follow-up of twelve months. The study population (N = 310) will include individuals aged 18-63 years diagnosed with a primary GI cancer and employed at the time of diagnosis. The participants will be randomized to the intervention or to usual care. 'Usual care' is defined as psychosocial care in which work-related issues are not discussed. The intervention group will receive tailored work-related support consisting of three face-to-face meetings of approximately 30 min each. Based on the severity of their work-related problems, the intervention group will be divided into groups receiving three types of support (A, B or C). A different supportive healthcare professional will be available for each group: an oncological nurse (A), an oncological occupational physician (B) and a multidisciplinary team (C) that includes an oncological nurse, oncological occupational physician and treating oncologist/physician. The primary outcome measure is return to work (RTW), defined as the time to a partial or full RTW. The secondary outcomes are work ability, work limitations, quality of life, and direct and indirect costs. DISCUSSION: The hypothesis is that tailored work-related support for GI cancer patients is more effective than usual care in terms of the RTW. The intervention is innovative in that it combines oncological and occupational care in a clinical setting, early in the cancer treatment process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: METC protocol number NL51444.018.14/Netherlands Trial Register number NTR5022 . Registered 6 March 2015.
Assuntos
Neoplasias Gastrointestinais/psicologia , Psicoterapia/métodos , Retorno ao Trabalho/psicologia , Adulto , Análise Custo-Benefício , Feminino , Neoplasias Gastrointestinais/complicações , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Países Baixos , Assistência Centrada no Paciente , Qualidade de Vida , Retorno ao Trabalho/economia , Licença Médica , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of mediastinal lymphadenopathy has been shown to be a valuable diagnostic tool in high-volume EUS centers (≥ 50 mediastinal EUS-FNA/endoscopist/year). Our goal was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA and its impact on clinical management and costs in low-volume EUS centers (<50 mediastinal EUS-FNA/endoscopist/year). METHODS: Consecutive patients referred to two Dutch endoscopy centers in the period 2002-2008 for EUS-FNA of mediastinal lymphadenopathy were reviewed. The gold standard for a cytological diagnosis was histological confirmation or clinical follow-up of more than 6 months with repeat imaging. The impact of EUS-FNA on clinical management was subdivided into a positive impact by providing (1) adequate cytology that influenced the decision to perform surgery or (2) a diagnosis of a benign inflammatory disorder, and a negative impact which was subdivided into (1) false-negative or inconclusive cytology or (2) an adequate cytological diagnosis that did not influence patient management. Costs of an alternative diagnostic work-up without EUS-FNA, as established by an expert panel, were compared to costs of the actual work-up. RESULTS: In total, 213 patients (71% male, median age= 61 years, range = 23-88 years) underwent EUS-FNA. Sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values were 89%, 100%, 80%, and 100%, respectively. EUS-FNA had a positive impact on clinical management in 84% of cases by either influencing the decision to perform surgery (49%) or excluding malignant lymphadenopathy (35%), and a negative impact in 7% of cases because of inadequate (3%) or false-negative (4%) cytology. In 9% of cases, EUS-FNA was performed without an established indication. Two nonfatal perforations occurred (0.9%). Total cost reduction was 100,593, with a mean cost reduction of 472 (SD = 607) per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Mediastinal EUS-FNA can be performed in low-volume EUS centers without compromising diagnostic accuracy. Moreover, EUS-FNA plays an important role in the management of patients with mediastinal lymphadenopathy and reduces total diagnostic costs.