RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients may decide to undertake shared care with a general practitioner (GP) during follow-up after treatment for localised melanoma. Routine imaging tests for surveillance may be commonly used despite no evidence of clinical utility. This study describes the frequency of shared care and routine tests during follow-up after treatment for localised melanoma. METHODS: We randomly sampled 351 people with localised melanoma [American Joint Cancer Committee (AJCC) substages 0 - II] who had not had recurrent or new primary melanoma diagnosed from a total of 902 people diagnosed and treated for localised melanoma at a specialist centre in 2014. We interviewed participants by telephone about their experience of follow-up in the past year, and documented the proportion of patients who were undertaking shared care follow-up with a GP. We also recorded the frequency and type of investigations during follow-up. We calculated weighted estimates that are representative of the full inception cohort. RESULTS: Of the 351 people who were invited to participate, 230 (66%) people consented to the telephone interview. The majority undertook shared care follow-up with a GP (61%). People who choose to have shared care follow-up with a GP are more likely to be male (p = 0.006), have lower AJCC stage (p for trend = 0.02), reside in more remote areas (p for trend< 0.001), and are less likely to have completed secondary school (p < 0.001). Few people saw a non-doctor health practitioner as part of their follow-up (9%). Many people report undergoing tests for melanoma, much of which may be routine tests for surveillance (37%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of people treated for a first primary localised melanoma at a specialist centre, without recurrent or new melanoma, choose to undertake shared care follow-up with a GP. Many appear to have routine diagnostic imaging as part of their melanoma surveillance.
Asunto(s)
Cuidados Posteriores/métodos , Melanoma , Neoplasias Cutáneas , Anciano , Diagnóstico por Imagen , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Médicos Generales , Humanos , Entrevistas como Asunto , Masculino , Melanoma/patología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina , Investigación Cualitativa , Neoplasias Cutáneas/patología , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Melanoma Cutáneo MalignoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the amount of fear of new or recurrent melanoma among people treated for localised melanoma in an Australian specialist centre. METHODS: We randomly selected 400 potential participants from all those treated for localised melanoma at the Melanoma Institute Australia during 2014 (n = 902). They were asked to complete an adapted version of the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory (FCRI). We calculated summary statistics for demographics, clinical variables and total FCRI and subscale scores. RESULTS: Two hundred fifteen people (54%) completed the FCRI questionnaire. The overall mean severity subscale score was 15.0 (95% CI 14.0-16.1). A high proportion of participants had scores above a proposed threshold to screen for clinical fear of cancer recurrence (77% and 63% of participants with and without new or recurrent melanoma had severity subscale scores ≥13). Most participants also had scores above a threshold found to have high specificity for clinical fear of cancer recurrence (65% and 48% of participants with and without new or recurrent melanoma had severity subscale scores ≥16). The severity subscale appeared to discriminate well between groups with differing levels of risk of new or recurrent melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: There is a substantial amount of fear of new or recurrent melanoma among this population, despite most having a very good prognosis.
Asunto(s)
Miedo , Melanoma/psicología , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/psicología , Neoplasias Cutáneas/psicología , Adulto , Australia , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Melanoma/patología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/patología , Pronóstico , Neoplasias Cutáneas/patología , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure (CHF) is an increasing and costly health problem worldwide. Effective self-care behaviors reduce the cost and improve CHF outcomes. Interventions targeting improvement of self-care need to identify the baseline status of patients and factors associated with self-care to tailor the programs to patients' needs. AIM: The aim of this study was to describe self-care and its predictors in patients with CHF in western Iran. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 255 patients with CHF in Kermanshah were recruited and 231 (mean [SD] age, 66 [13] years; 51.5% women) completed the interviews. Self-care maintenance, self-care management, and self-care confidence were evaluated using a Persian heart failure self-care index. Each of these 3 measures had a total possible score of 100, with 22 indicators. RESULTS: The mean (SD) self-care scores were low: maintenance, 33.8 (10.7); management, 32.2 (12.0); and confidence, 43.6 (15.6). Self-care maintenance was significantly and positively associated with education, disease duration, and living conditions. Self-care management was significantly and positively associated with education and number of hospital admissions. However, the parameter estimates in all those relationships were small. CONCLUSION: Self-care in patients with CHF in Iran needs major improvement, and many determinants of self-care identified by other studies were not consistently associated with poor self-care scores in Iran. Further research considering a wide range of factors associated with self-care (eg, socioeconomic and health system-related factors) and application of culturally relevant interventional strategies is recommended.
Asunto(s)
Conductas Relacionadas con la Salud , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/psicología , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/terapia , Autocuidado , Autoimagen , Anciano , Enfermedad Crónica , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Irán , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Factores SocioeconómicosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Combination chemotherapy can cause greater tumour cell kill if the drug dose is not compromised, while sequential single agent chemotherapy may allow for greater dose intensity and treatment time, potentially meaning greater benefit from each single agent. In addition, sequentially using single agents might cause less toxicity and impairment of quality of life, but it is not known whether this might compromise survival time. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of combination chemotherapy compared to the same drugs given sequentially in women with metastatic breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, using the search terms "advanced breast cancer" and "chemotherapy", MEDLINE and EMBASE on 31 October 2013. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov were also searched (22 March 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of combination chemotherapy compared to the same drugs used sequentially in women with metastatic breast cancer in the first-, second- or third-line setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data from published trials. Hazard ratios (HR) were derived from time-to-event outcomes where possible, and a fixed-effect model was used for meta-analysis. Response rates were analysed as dichotomous variables (risk ratios (RR)), and toxicity and quality of life data were extracted where available. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve trials reporting on nine treatment comparisons (2317 patients randomised) were identified. The majority of trials (10 trials) had an unclear or high risk of bias. Time-to-event data were collected for nine trials for overall survival and eight trials for progression-free survival. All 12 trials reported results for tumour response. In the 12 trials there were 1023 deaths in 2317 women randomised. There was no difference in overall survival, with an overall HR of 1.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.16; P = 0.45), and no significant heterogeneity. This result was consistent in the four subgroups analysed (risk of bias, line of chemotherapy, type of schema of chemotherapy, and relative dose intensity). In particular, there was no difference in survival according to the type of schema of chemotherapy, that is whether chemotherapy was given on disease progression or after a set number of cycles. In the eight trials that reported progression-free survival, 678 women progressed out of the 886 women randomised. The combination arm had a higher risk of progression than the sequential arm (HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.31; P = 0.01) with no significant heterogeneity. This result was consistent in all subgroups. Overall tumour response rates were higher in the combination arm (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.24; P = 0.008) but there was significant heterogeneity for this outcome across the trials. In the seven trials that reported treatment-related deaths, there was no significant difference between the two arms, although the CIs were very wide due to the small number of events (RR 1.53; 95% CI 0.71 to 3.29; P = 0.28). The risk of febrile neutropenia was higher in the combination arm (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.65; P = 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of neutropenia, nausea and vomiting, or treatment-related deaths. Overall quality of life showed no difference between the two groups, but only three trials reported this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Sequential single agent chemotherapy has a positive effect on progression-free survival, whereas combination chemotherapy has a higher response rate and a higher risk of febrile neutropenia in metastatic breast cancer. There is no difference in overall survival time between these treatment strategies, both overall and in the subgroups analysed. In particular, there was no difference in survival according to the schema of chemotherapy (giving chemotherapy on disease progression or after a set number of cycles) or according to the line of chemotherapy (first-line versus second- or third-line). Generally this review supports the recommendations by international guidelines to use sequential monotherapy unless there is rapid disease progression.
Asunto(s)
Antineoplásicos/administración & dosificación , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/administración & dosificación , Neoplasias de la Mama/tratamiento farmacológico , Antineoplásicos/efectos adversos , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efectos adversos , Neoplasias de la Mama/mortalidad , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Supervivencia sin Enfermedad , Femenino , Humanos , Náusea/inducido químicamente , Neutropenia/inducido químicamente , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Vómitos/inducido químicamenteRESUMEN
The act of conducting an insider attack carries with it cognitive and social challenges that may affect an offender's day-to-day work behavior. We test this hypothesis by examining the language used in e-mails that were sent as part of a 6-hr workplace simulation. The simulation involved participants (N = 54) examining databases and exchanging information as part of a four-stage organized crime investigation. After the first stage, 25% of the participants were covertly incentivized to act as an "insider" by providing information to a provocateur. Analysis of the language used in participants' e-mails found that insiders became more self-focused, showed greater negative affect, and showed more cognitive processing compared to their coworkers. At the interpersonal level, insiders showed significantly more deterioration in the degree to which their language mimicked other team members over time. Our findings demonstrate how language may provide an indirect way of identifying employees who are undertaking an insider attack.
Asunto(s)
Crimen , Correo Electrónico , Lenguaje , Lugar de Trabajo , Crimen/prevención & control , Crimen/psicología , Psicología Criminal , Decepción , Humanos , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
IMPORTANCE: Patient-led surveillance is a promising new model of follow-up care following excision of localized melanoma. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient-led surveillance in patients with prior localized primary cutaneous melanoma is as safe, feasible, and acceptable as clinician-led surveillance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a pilot for a randomized clinical trial at 2 specialist-led clinics in metropolitan Sydney, Australia, and a primary care skin cancer clinic managed by general practitioners in metropolitan Newcastle, Australia. The participants were 100 patients who had been treated for localized melanoma, owned a smartphone, had a partner to assist with skin self-examination (SSE), and had been routinely attending scheduled follow-up visits. The study was conducted from November 1, 2018, to January 17, 2020, with analysis performed from September 1, 2020, to November 15, 2020. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized (1:1) to 6 months of patient-led surveillance (the intervention comprised usual care plus reminders to perform SSE, patient-performed dermoscopy, teledermatologist assessment, and fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visits) or clinician-led surveillance (the control was usual care). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of eligible and contacted patients who were randomized. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (eg, SSE knowledge, attitudes, and practices, psychological outcomes, other health care use) and clinical outcomes (eg, clinic visits, skin surgeries, subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma). RESULTS: Of 326 patients who were eligible and contacted, 100 (31%) patients (mean [SD] age, 58.7 [12.0] years; 53 [53%] men) were randomized to patient-led (n = 49) or clinician-led (n = 51) surveillance. Data were available on patient-reported outcomes for 66 participants and on clinical outcomes for 100 participants. Compared with clinician-led surveillance, patient-led surveillance was associated with increased SSE frequency (odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% CI, 0.9 to 14.0) and thoroughness (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.8 to 5.7), had no detectable adverse effect on psychological outcomes (fear of cancer recurrence subscale score; mean difference, -1.3; 95% CI, -3.1 to 0.5), and increased clinic visits (risk ratio [RR], 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.1), skin lesion excisions (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6 to 2.0), and subsequent melanoma diagnoses and subsequent melanoma diagnoses (risk difference, 10%; 95% CI, -2% to 23%). New primary melanomas and 1 local recurrence were diagnosed in 8 (16%) of the participants in the intervention group, including 5 (10%) ahead of routinely scheduled visits; and in 3 (6%) of the participants in the control group, with none (0%) ahead of routinely scheduled visits (risk difference, 10%; 95% CI, 2% to 19%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This pilot of a randomized clinical trial found that patient-led surveillance after treatment of localized melanoma appears to be safe, feasible, and acceptable. Experiences from this pilot study have prompted improvements to the trial processes for the larger trial of the same intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12616001716459.
Asunto(s)
Melanoma , Neoplasias Cutáneas , Humanos , Masculino , Melanoma/diagnóstico , Melanoma/cirugía , Persona de Mediana Edad , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia , Proyectos Piloto , Autoexamen , Neoplasias Cutáneas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Cutáneas/patología , Neoplasias Cutáneas/cirugíaRESUMEN
Importance: The standard model of follow-up posttreatment of localized melanoma relies on clinician detection of recurrent or new melanoma, through routinely scheduled clinics (clinician-led surveillance). An alternative model is to increase reliance on patient detection of melanoma, with fewer scheduled visits and increased support for patients' skin self-examination (SSE) (eg, using smartphone apps to instruct, prompt and record SSE, and facilitate teledermatology; patient-led surveillance). Objective: To determine the proportion of adults treated for localized melanoma who prefer the standard scheduled visit frequency (as per Australian guideline recommendations) or fewer scheduled visits (adapted from the Melanoma Follow-up [MELFO] study of reduced follow-up). Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used a telephone interview for surveillance following excision of localized melanoma at an Australian specialist center. We invited a random sample of 400 patients who had completed treatment for localized melanoma in 2014 to participate. They were asked about their preferences for scheduled follow-up, and experience of follow-up in the past 12 months. Those with a recurrent or new primary melanoma diagnosed by the time of interview (0.8-1.7 years since first diagnosis) were asked about how it was first detected and treated. SSE practices were also assessed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion preferring standard vs fewer scheduled clinic visits, median delay between detection and treatment of recurrent or new primary melanoma, and SSE practices. Results: Of the 262 people who agreed to be interviewed, the mean (SD) age was 64.3 (14.3) years, and 93 (36%) were women. Among the 230 people who did not have a recurrent or new primary melanoma, 149 vs 81 preferred the standard vs fewer scheduled clinic visits option (70% vs 30% after adjusting for sampling frame). Factors independently associated with preferring fewer visits were a higher disease stage, melanoma on a limb, living with others, not having private health insurance, and seeing a specialist for another chronic condition. The median delay between first detection and treatment of recurrent or new primary melanoma was 7 and 3 weeks, respectively. Only 8% missed a scheduled visit, while 40% did not perform SSE or did so at greater than 3-month intervals. Conclusions and Relevance: Some patients with melanoma may prefer fewer scheduled visits, if they are supported to do SSE and there is rapid clinical review of anything causing concern (patient-led surveillance).