Care management for foreign children, adolescents, young adults with cancer, and their families.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about care management for foreign patients in pediatric oncology in European centers. We aimed to describe care given to children, adolescents, and young adults who came to France for cancer treatment, and to determine whether their geographical origin had an influence on decision making. PROCEDURE: We conducted a monocentric retrospective study on all foreign patients aged 0-25 years and hospitalized for at least one night in Institut Curie (Paris, France) from 2009 to 2013. We analyzed the potential advantages of receiving treatment in France as well as their social and familial consequences. RESULTS: A total of 93 foreign patients' files were retrieved. Most of these patients came from Africa (70%). In accord with the specific expertise of the institution, retinoblastoma was the most frequent tumor type (39%). An antitumor treatment had already been administrated in the native country in 44% of patients. We considered that 66% of patients received a significant medical advantage from care in our institution. The treatment provided in France was considered impossible in the native country in 44% of cases. The social and familial impact on the patients' families was high (59%). Almost all patients (96%) received the treatment that would have been proposed to their French counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: There were notable medical advantages for foreign patients who come to France for their oncologic treatment despite important familial consequences. Patients' geographical origin did not have an influence on medical decisions.

Varicella post-exposure management for pediatric oncology patients.

INTRODUCTION: The objective was to evaluate health care providers' (HCP) adherence to and efficacy of varicella post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) recommendations. It was an observational, prospective, multicenter study set in Ile-de-France, France. METHODS: All children under 18 with a cancer diagnosis, currently or within 3months of receiving cancer treatment, regardless of varicella zoster virus (VZV) serostatus or previous personal history of varicella, were eligible. Study participants with significant exposure were reviewed prospectively for PEP indications. Main outcome measures were the percentage of exposure situations for which HCP were guideline-compliant, the proportion of available VZV serostatuses and the incidence of breakthrough varicella after different PEP approaches. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients from 15 centers were enrolled after 52 exposure episodes. Median age at exposure was 5 years (range, 1-15). Exposure within the household led to 38% of episodes. Prophylactic treatment consisted in specific anti-VZV immunoglobulins (V-ZIG) (n=19) or in oral aciclovir (n=15). No prophylactic treatment was given for 18 patients (in compliance, n=16). In compliance with guidelines, 17 patients received V-ZIG, 11 did not develop varicella (65%, [95% CI, 39-90%]); 15 received aciclovir, 13 did not develop varicella (87%, [95% CI, 67-100%]). Breakthrough varicella occurred in 11 patients, with simple clinical course in all cases; in 8/47 (17%) episodes when PEP was guideline-compliant versus 3/5 (60%) when not. DISCUSSION: Recommendations have been respected and are efficient. PEP needs to be standardized and a study carried out to define the optimal approach. Anti-VZV immunization of seronegative family members should be encouraged.