Cancer survivors' preference for follow-up care providers: a cross-sectional study from the population-based PROFILES-registry.

BACKGROUND: The best practice for the organization of follow-up care in oncology is under debate, due to growing numbers of cancer survivors. Understanding survivors' preferences for follow-up care is elementary for designing patient-centred care. Based on data from prostate cancer and melanoma survivors, this study aims to identify: 1) preferences for follow-up care providers, for instance the medical specialist, the oncology nurse or the general practitioner; 2) characteristics associated with these preferences and 3) the preferred care provider to discuss cancer-related problems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Survivors diagnosed with prostate cancer (N = 535) and melanoma (N = 232) between 2007 and 2013 as registered in The Netherlands Cancer Registry returned a questionnaire (response rate was 71% and 69%, respectively). A latent class cluster model analysis was used to define preferences and a multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to identify survivor-related characteristics associated with these preferences. RESULTS: Of all survivors, 29% reported no preference, 40% reported a preference for the medical specialist, 20% reported a preference for both the medical specialist and the general practitioner and 11% reported a preference for both the medical specialist and the oncology nurse. Survivors who were older, lower/intermediate educated and women were more likely to have a preference for the medical specialist. Lower educated survivors were less likely to have a preference for both the medical specialist and the general practitioner. Overall, survivors prefer to discuss diet, physical fitness and fatigue with the general practitioner, and hereditary and recurrence with the medical specialist. Only a small minority favored to discuss cancer-related problems with the oncology nurse. CONCLUSION: Survivors reported different preferences for follow-up care providers based on age, education level, gender and satisfaction with the general practitioner, showing a need for tailored follow-up care in oncology. The results indicate an urgency to educate patients about transitions in follow-up care.

[Sweet syndrome in underlying malignancy]. / Syndroom van Sweet bij onderliggende maligniteit.

Sweet syndrome, also known as acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis, was diagnosed in two patients. Patient A, a 68-year-old man, had had chronic lymphatic leukaemia for four years, with a recent relapse. Patient B, a 58-year-old man, had been diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma four years earlier. Both patients presented with general discomfort, high fever, neutrophilic leukocytosis and diffuse, non-tender maculopapular exanthema, partly blanching on applied pressure, and vesicles spread over the body. Patient A had clinical signs of a septic shock. In both patients, histological examination confirmed clinical suspicion of Sweet syndrome and both had a good response on prednisone. In patient B, progression of renal cell carcinoma was found more than a half year later. It is important to recognise the varied clinical picture of the rare disorder that is Sweet syndrome because it can lead to severe clinical illness, especially in patients with an underlying malignancy.

The effect of treatment on quality of life in psoriasis patients.

Psoriasis is a chronic skin disease with substantial impact on patients' social and relational ways of living and subsequently on their quality of life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis treated with short contact dithranol treatment, UVB phototherapy or inpatient dithranol treatment. HRQoL was evaluated in an open randomized multicentre study by appliance of the Dutch short form of the Sickness Impact Profile and the Psoriasis Disability Index; 250 patients were included. Successful short contact dithranol treatment and UVB phototherapy both led to a comparable improvement in HRQoL immediately after treatment until the end of the follow-up (maximum 1 year). Inpatients experienced a more impaired HRQoL and showed no significant improvement in HRQoL directly following treatment. At the end of the study HRQoL became comparable for all treatment groups. All three treatments led to substantial improvement in HRQoL; however, patients treated by short contact treatment or UVB showed a better HRQoL than inpatients.