scholarly journals Time to Diagnosis and Treatment with Palliative Radiotherapy among Inuit Patients with Cancer from the Arctic Territory of Nunavut, Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Chan ◽  
K. Linden ◽  
C. McGrath ◽  
J. Renaud ◽  
P. Doering ◽  
...  
2015 ◽  
Vol 112 (S1) ◽  
pp. S92-S107 ◽  
Author(s):  
R D Neal ◽  
P Tharmanathan ◽  
B France ◽  
N U Din ◽  
S Cotton ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (9) ◽  
pp. 2170-2177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Otto ◽  
Jean-Marc Comtois ◽  
Ashot Sargsyan ◽  
Alexandria Dulchavsky ◽  
Ilan Rubinfeld ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mari Thomas ◽  
Marie Scully

Microangiopathic hemolytic anemia (MAHA) in patients with cancer requires urgent diagnosis and treatment. MAHA associated with thrombocytopenia, suggests a thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA), where there is thrombus formation affecting small or larger vessels. It may be directly related to the underlying malignancy (either the initial presentation or with progressive disease); to its treatment or it may be a separate incidental diagnosis. Although less common, it is vital to differentiate incidental thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura (TTP) or atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome (aHUS) in cancer patients presenting with a TMA as quickly as possible, as they have different treatment strategies, and prompt initiation of treatment has a critical impact on outcome. In the oncology patient, widespread microvascular metastases or extensive bone marrow involvement can cause MAHA and thrombocytopenia. A disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) picture may be precipitated by sepsis or driven by the cancer itself. Cancer therapies may cause a TMA either by dose-dependent toxicity, or an idiosyncratic immune-mediated reaction after development of drug-dependent antibodies. Many of the causes of TMA seen in the oncology patient do not respond to plasma exchange and, where feasible, treatment of the underlying malignancy is important in controlling both cancer-TMA and DIC driven by the disease. The potential for drug-induced TMA should be considered and any putative causal agent stopped. We will discuss the differential diagnosis and treatment of MAHA in patients with cancer using clinical cases to highlight management principles.


2020 ◽  
Vol 87 (8) ◽  
pp. 641-643
Author(s):  
Nishant Verma ◽  
Sudipto Bhattacharya

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (15) ◽  
pp. 2902-2907 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Barnes ◽  
John Hanson ◽  
Catherine M. Neumann ◽  
Cheryl L. Nekolaichuk ◽  
Eduardo Bruera

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the satisfaction and information needs of primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding communication with radiation oncologists (ROs), with respect to patients who receive palliative radiotherapy (RT). A selected objective was to evaluate the agreement between PCPs’ expectations and the content of the RO letter sent after completion of RT. PCPs’ knowledge of the role of palliative RT and their awareness of available patient support services were also determined. METHODS: The PCPs of patients discharged from the Cross Cancer Institute after receiving palliative RT were surveyed using a mail-out questionnaire. Questions regarding communication, RT knowledge, and awareness of support services were asked. The corresponding RO letter was reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 148 PCPs were identified and were mailed questionnaires, with 114 (77%) responding. Overall, 80% (87 of 109) of PCPs found the RO letter to be useful in patient management. However, there was poor (< 53%) agreement between PCPs’ expectations and the actual content of the RO letter. Knowledge of the indications and effectiveness of palliative RT was limited, with PCPs obtaining a median score of 4 of a possible 8. Only 27% (31 of 114) of PCPs were aware of all five of the patient support services listed. CONCLUSION: Results show that although the majority of PCPs found the RO letter useful, they believed that the letter lacked important information while containing unnecessary details. Communication between PCPs and ROs needs improvement, especially considering that PCPs seem to have limited knowledge of palliative RT.


Author(s):  
Niaz Haque ◽  
Amer Raza ◽  
Robin McGoey ◽  
Brian Boulmay ◽  
Lisa Diethelm ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 483-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul D. Brown ◽  
Manmeet S. Ahluwalia ◽  
Osaama H. Khan ◽  
Anthony L. Asher ◽  
Jeffrey S. Wefel ◽  
...  

An estimated 20% of patients with cancer will develop brain metastases. Approximately 200,000 individuals in the United States alone receive whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) each year to treat brain metastases. Historically, the prognosis of patients with brain metastases has been poor; however, with new therapies, this is changing. Because patients are living longer following the diagnosis and treatment of brain metastases, there has been rising concern about treatment-related toxicities associated with WBRT, including neurocognitive toxicity. In addition, recent clinical trials have raised questions about the use of WBRT. To better understand this rapidly changing landscape, this review outlines the treatment roles and toxicities of WBRT and alternative therapies for the management of brain metastases.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document