Cancer survivors' needs during various treatment phases after multimodal treatment for colon cancer - is there a role for eHealth?

BACKGROUND: More colon cancer patients are expected to fully recover after treatment due to earlier detection of cancer and improvements in general health- and cancer care. The objective of this study was to gather participants' experiences with full recovery in the different treatment phases of multimodal treatment and to identify their needs during these phases. The second aim was to propose and evaluate possible solutions for unmet needs by the introduction of eHealth. METHODS: A qualitative study based on two focus group discussions with 22 participants was performed. The validated Supportive Care Needs Survey and the Cancer Treatment Survey were used to form the topic list. The verbatim transcripts were analyzed with Atlas.ti. 7th version comprising open, axial and selective coding. The guidelines of the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) were used. RESULTS: Experiences with the treatment for colon cancer were in general positive. Most important unmet needs were 'receiving information about the total duration of side effects', 'receiving information about the minimum amount of chemo needed to overall survival' and 'receiving a longer aftercare period (with additional attention for psychological guidance)'. More provision of information online, a chat function with the oncological nurse specialist via a website, and access to scientific articles regarding the optimal dose of chemotherapy were often mentioned as worthwhile additions to the current health care for colon cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the unmet needs of colon cancer survivors occur during the adjuvant treatment phase and thereafter. To further optimize recovery and cancer care, it is necessary to have more focus on these unmet needs. More attention for identifying patients' problems and side-effects during chemotherapy; and identifying patients' supportive care needs after finishing chemotherapy are necessary. For some of these needs, eHealth in the form of blended care will be a possible solution.

A randomised, multicentre study of ceftriaxone versus standard therapy in the treatment of lower respiratory tract infections.

In this study the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of i.v. ceftriaxone 1 g once daily (CTX) was compared with standard i.v. antibiotic treatment (STD) for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). STD was given according to the guidelines of the American Thoracic Society and consisted of either cefuroxime 1500 mg three times daily (q8h), amoxicillin/clavulanic acid 1200 mg q8h or ceftriaxone 2 g once daily; each with or without a macrolide. After a minimum of 5 days i.v. therapy, patients could be switched to oral therapy. One hundred patients were enrolled in the study; 52 patients received CTX and 48 STD. Groups were comparable with respect to demographic and baseline characteristics. Seventy patients had a confirmed diagnosis of pneumonia. Twenty-nine patients had a severe type I exacerbation of chronic bronchitis. In one patient the diagnosis of LRTI could not be confirmed. In approximately 50% of the patients a microbiological diagnosis could be made. The most important isolated pathogens from sputum and blood were (positive blood cultures in brackets): Streptococcus pneumoniae 14 (9) and Haemophilus influenzae 16. Mean duration of i.v. therapy was 7.4 days in both groups. Average duration of hospitalisation was 15.0 days for CTX patients and 15.9 days for STD patients. Overall cure and improvement rate at the end of treatment was 47 (90%) for patients receiving ceftriaxone 1 g compared to 37 (77%) for patients receiving standard therapy. Pathogens were eradicated or presumed to be eradicated in 84% of the CTX patients and in 76% of the STD patients. Mean total costs per treatment were lower for CTX than for STD treatment: NLG 169 versus 458. These results show, that i.v. ceftriaxone 1 g once daily is as effective as standard therapy in the treatment of LRTI and that its use reduces treatment costs, in view of the multiple daily dosing regimens of most standard therapies.