Priporočila za obravnavo bolnikov s pljučnim rakom

No abstract.Ni abstrakta

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

Evidence synthesis to inform model-based cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostic tests: a methodological systematic review of health technology assessments

Background: Evaluations of diagnostic tests are challenging because of the indirect nature of their impact on patient outcomes. Model-based health economic evaluations of tests allow different types of evidence from various sources to be incorporated and enable cost-effectiveness estimates to be made beyond the duration of available study data. To parameterize a health-economic model fully, all the ways a test impacts on patient health must be quantified, including but not limited to diagnostic test accuracy. Methods: We assessed all UK NIHR HTA reports published May 2009-July 2015. Reports were included if they evaluated a diagnostic test, included a model-based health economic evaluation and included a systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy. From each eligible report we extracted information on the following topics: 1) what evidence aside from test accuracy was searched for and synthesised, 2) which methods were used to synthesise test accuracy evidence and how did the results inform the economic model, 3) how/whether threshold effects were explored, 4) how the potential dependency between multiple tests in a pathway was accounted for, and 5) for evaluations of tests targeted at the primary care setting, how evidence from differing healthcare settings was incorporated. Results: The bivariate or HSROC model was implemented in 20/22 reports that met all inclusion criteria. Test accuracy data for health economic modelling was obtained from meta-analyses completely in four reports, partially in fourteen reports and not at all in four reports. Only 2/7 reports that used a quantitative test gave clear threshold recommendations. All 22 reports explored the effect of uncertainty in accuracy parameters but most of those that used multiple tests did not allow for dependence between test results. 7/22 tests were potentially suitable for primary care but the majority found limited evidence on test accuracy in primary care settings. Conclusions: The uptake of appropriate meta-analysis methods for synthesising evidence on diagnostic test accuracy in UK NIHR HTAs has improved in recent years. Future research should focus on other evidence requirements for cost-effectiveness assessment, threshold effects for quantitative tests and the impact of multiple diagnostic tests

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

Priporočila za obravnavo bolnikov s pljučnim rakom

In 2019, the Recommendations for the management of patients with lung cancer were published bringing much-needed standardisation of diagnosis and treatment to improve survival of patients with lung cancer. Three years after the original Recommendations were published, the update of the Recommendations brings the most innovations in the chapter on systemic treatment of patients with lung cancer. This reflects the remarkable progress made in the field of understanding the oncogenesis and biology of lung cancer and thus the development of new drugs. The burden of lung cancer remains high, as lung cancer is still the most common cause of cancer related death in our country and worldwide. Lung cancer is responsible for one of five cancer-related deaths. Almost one third of patients with lung cancer do not receive any oncological treatment, either because of poor performance status, comorbidities or the extent of the disease. Half of the patients have metastatic disease at diagnosis, resulting in only small improvements in survival despite advances in the treatment of lung cancer patients. These data remind us that if we are to make major shifts in the management of lung cancer patients, we will need to take different approaches. The most promising seems to be the detection of early stages of lung cancer which offers the best treatment results. The Recommendations written here are guidelines for the management of patients with lung cancer. Only with comprehensive multidisciplinary treatment approach, the best outcome from the prognostically unfavourable disease can be offered.Leta 2019 so bila objavljena Priporočila za obravnavo bolnikov s pljučnim rakom, ki so v slovenski prostor vnesla prepotrebno poenotenje diagnostike in zdravljenja z namenom izboljšanja preživetja bolnikov s pljučnim rakom. Posodobitev Priporočil tri leta po izidu izvirnika prinaša največ novosti v poglavju o sistemskem zdravljenju bolnikov s pljučnim rakom. To kaže na izjemen napredek na področju razumevanja onkogeneze in biologije pljučnega raka ter s tem razvoja novih zdravil. Breme pljučnega raka ostaja veliko, saj je pljučni rak pri nas in v svetu še vedno najpogostejši vzrok smrti zaradi raka. Za vsako peto smrt zaradi raka je odgovoren pljučni rak. Skoraj tretjina bolnikov s pljučnim rakom ne prejme specifičnega onkološkega zdravljenja, bodisi zaradi slabega stanja zmogljivosti, spremljajočih bolezni ali obsega bolezni. Polovica bolnikov ima ob diagnozi razsejano bolezen, zaradi česar izboljšanje preživetja z malimi koraki sledi napredku v zdravljenju bolnikov s pljučnim rakom. Ti podatki nas opominjajo, da se bomo morali za velike premike v obravnavi bolnikov s pljučnim rakom lotiti drugačnih pristopov. Kot najbolj obetavno se ponuja zgodnje odkrivanje bolezni, ko so možnosti ozdravitve pljučnega raka najboljše. Zapisana Priporočila so usmeritev za obravnavo bolnikov s pljučnim rakom. Le s sodobnim multidisciplinarnim pristopom obravnave lahko bolniku ponudimo zdravljenje, ki mu omogoča najboljši izhod prognostično neugodne bolezni

Recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of patients with lung cancer

In 2019, the Recommendations for the management of patients with lung cancer were published bringing much-needed standardisation of diagnosis and treatment to improve survival of patients with lung cancer. Three years after the original Recommendations were published, the update of the Recommendations brings the most innovations in the chapter on systemic treatment of patients with lung cancer. This reflects the remarkable progress made in the field of understanding the oncogenesis and biology of lung cancer and thus the development of new drugs. The burden of lung cancer remains high, as lung cancer is still the most common cause of cancer related death in our country and worldwide. Lung cancer is responsible for one of five cancer-related deaths. Almost one third of patients with lung cancer do not receive any oncological treatment, either because of poor performance status, comorbidities or the extent of the disease. Half of the patients have metastatic disease at diagnosis, resulting in only small improvements in survival despite advances in the treatment of lung cancer patients. These data remind us that if we are to make major shifts in the management of lung cancer patients, we will need to take different approaches. The most promising seems to be the detection of early stages of lung cancer which offers the best treatment results. The Recommendations written here are guidelines for the management of patients with lung cancer. Only with comprehensive multidisciplinary treatment approach, the best outcome from the prognostically unfavourable disease can be offered