Radiotherapy for Oncologic Emergencies on Weekends: Examining Reasons for Treatment and Patterns of Practice at a Canadian Cancer Centre
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: Radiotherapy for oncologic emergencies is an important aspect of the management of cancer patients. These emergencies-which include malignant spinal cord compression, brain metastases, superior vena cava obstruction, and uncontrolled tumour hemorrhage -may require treatment outside of hospital hours, particularly on weekends and hospital holidays. To date, there remains no consensus among radiation oncologists regarding the indications and appropriateness of radiotherapy treatment on weekends, and treatment decisions remain largely subjective. The main aim of the present study was to document the incidence and indications for patients receiving emergency treatment on weekends or scheduled hospital holidays at a single institution. The secondary aim was to investigate the compliance of such treatment with the institution's quality assurance policies, both local and provincial. METHODS: From September 1, 2002, to September 30, 2004, patients being treated over weekends (defined as commencing at 6 pm on a Friday and concluding at 8 am of the next scheduled workday) and hospital holidays were retrospectively identified using the Oncology Patient Information System scheduling module. Relevant patient data-including patient age, sex, primary cancer site, specific radiation field, rationale for treatment, referring hospital, total treatment dose, radiation dose fractionation, inpatient or outpatient status, and duration of treatment-were collected and subsequently analyzed. Comparison to local policy was performed subjectively. RESULTS: Over the 2-year period, 161 patients were prescribed urgent radiotherapy over a weekend or on a hospital holiday. Of this cohort, 68% were treated on both Saturday and Sunday, 22% on Saturday alone, and 10% on Sunday alone. Most patients presented with lung (31%), prostate (18%), and breast cancer (17%). The top reasons for referral for emergency weekend treatment included spinal cord compression (56%), brain metastases (15%), and superior vena cava obstruction (6%). Most of the indications for treatment generally followed the quality assurance policies implemented both locally and provincially. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated over a weekend or on a hospital holiday were generally found to be treated with appropriate intent. Most treatment indications within this study both complied with provincial policy and showed a pattern of care similar to that seen in other studies in the literature. Local policy appears to be robust; however, policy improvements may allow for more cohesiveness across radiation oncologists in patterns of care in this important group of patients. Comparisons with practice at other institutions would be valuable and also a key step in developing sound guidelines for all members of the radiotherapy community to follow.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».