412 research outputs found

    Trans-arterial radioembolization in intermediate-advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analyses.

    Get PDF
    Published onlineJournal ArticleThis is the final version of the article. Available from Impact Journals via the DOI in this record.Trans-arterial radioembolization (TARE) is a recognized, although not explicitly recommended, experimental therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).A systematic literature review was performed to identify published studies on the use of TARE in intermediate and advanced stages HCC exploring the efficacy and safety of this innovative treatment.Twenty-one studies reporting data on overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP), were included in a meta-analysis. The pooled post-TARE OS was 63% (95% CI: 56-70%) and 27% (95% CI: 21-33%) at 1- and 3-years respectively in intermediate stage HCC, whereas OS was 37% (95% CI: 26-50%) and 13% (95% CI: 9-18%) at the same time intervals in patients with sufficient liver function (Child-Pugh A-B7) but with an advanced HCC because of the presence of portal vein thrombosis. When an intermediate and advanced case-mix was considered, OS was 58% (95% CI: 48-67%) and 17% (95% CI: 12-23%) at 1- and 3-years respectively. As for TTP, only four studies reported data: the observed progression probability was 56% (95% CI: 41-70%) and 73% (95% CI: 56-87%) at 1 and 2 years respectively. The safety analysis, focused on the risk of liver decompensation after TARE, revealed a great variability, from 0-1% to more than 36% events, influenced by the number of procedures, patient Child-Pugh stage and treatment duration.Evidence supporting the use of radioembolization in HCC is mainly based on retrospective and prospective cohort studies. Based on this evidence, until the results of the ongoing randomized trials become available, radioembolization appears to be a viable treatment option for intermediate-advanced stage HCC.The present study was funded by ASBM Srl through an unrestricted grant to CERGAS, Bocconi University, Via Roentgen 1, 20136 Milan, Italy

    Mobile health divide between clinicians and patients in cancer care: results from a cross-sectional international survey

    Get PDF
    Background: Mobile technologies are increasingly being used to manage chronic diseases, including cancer, with the promise of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of care. Among the myriad of mobile technologies in health care, we have seen an explosion of mobile apps. The rapid increase in digital health apps is not paralleled by a similar trend in usage statistics by clinicians and patients. Little is known about how much and in what ways mobile health (mHealth) apps are used by clinicians and patients for cancer care, what variables affect their use of mHealth, and what patients’ and clinicians’ expectations of mHealth apps are. Objective: This study aimed to describe the patient and clinician population that uses mHealth in cancer care and to provide recommendations to app developers and regulators to generally increase the use and efficacy of mHealth apps. Methods: Through a cross-sectional Web-based survey, we explored the current utilization rates of mHealth in cancer care and factors that explain the differences in utilization by patients and clinicians across the United States and 5 different countries in Europe. In addition, we conducted an international workshop with more than 100 stakeholders and a roundtable with key representatives of international organizations of clinicians and patients to solicit feedback on the survey results and develop insights into mHealth app development practices. Results: A total of 1033 patients and 1116 clinicians participated in the survey. The proportion of cancer patients using mHealth (294/1033, 28.46%) was far lower than that of clinicians (859/1116, 76.97%). Accounting for age and salary level, the marginal probabilities of use at means are still significantly different between the 2 groups and were 69.8% for clinicians and 38.7% for patients using the propensity score–based regression adjustment with weighting technique. Moreover, our analysis identified a gap between basic and advanced users, with a prevalent use for activities related to the automation of processes and the interaction with other individuals and a limited adoption for side-effect management and compliance monitoring in both groups. Conclusions: mHealth apps can provide access to clinical and economic data that are low cost, easy to access, and personalized. The benefits can go as far as increasing patients’ chances of overall survival. However, despite its potential, evidence on the actual use of mobile technologies in cancer care is not promising. If the promise of mHealth is to be fulfilled, clinician and patient usage rates will need to converge. Ideally, cancer apps should be designed in ways that strengthen the patient-physician relationship, ease physicians’ workload, be tested for validity and effectiveness, and fit the criteria for reimbursement

    Mobile health divide between clinicians and patients in cancer care:Results from a cross-sectional international survey

    Get PDF
    Background: Mobile technologies are increasingly being used to manage chronic diseases, including cancer, with the promise of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of care. Among the myriad of mobile technologies in health care, we have seen an explosion of mobile apps. The rapid increase in digital health apps is not paralleled by a similar trend in usage statistics by clinicians and patients. Little is known about how much and in what ways mobile health (mHealth) apps are used by clinicians and patients for cancer care, what variables affect their use of mHealth, and what patients’ and clinicians’ expectations of mHealth apps are. Objective: This study aimed to describe the patient and clinician population that uses mHealth in cancer care and to provide recommendations to app developers and regulators to generally increase the use and efficacy of mHealth apps. Methods: Through a cross-sectional Web-based survey, we explored the current utilization rates of mHealth in cancer care and factors that explain the differences in utilization by patients and clinicians across the United States and 5 different countries in Europe. In addition, we conducted an international workshop with more than 100 stakeholders and a roundtable with key representatives of international organizations of clinicians and patients to solicit feedback on the survey results and develop insights into mHealth app development practices. Results: A total of 1033 patients and 1116 clinicians participated in the survey. The proportion of cancer patients using mHealth (294/1033, 28.46%) was far lower than that of clinicians (859/1116, 76.97%). Accounting for age and salary level, the marginal probabilities of use at means are still significantly different between the 2 groups and were 69.8% for clinicians and 38.7% for patients using the propensity score–based regression adjustment with weighting technique. Moreover, our analysis identified a gap between basic and advanced users, with a prevalent use for activities related to the automation of processes and the interaction with other individuals and a limited adoption for side-effect management and compliance monitoring in both groups. Conclusions: mHealth apps can provide access to clinical and economic data that are low cost, easy to access, and personalized. The benefits can go as far as increasing patients’ chances of overall survival. However, despite its potential, evidence on the actual use of mobile technologies in cancer care is not promising. If the promise of mHealth is to be fulfilled, clinician and patient usage rates will need to converge. Ideally, cancer apps should be designed in ways that strengthen the patient-physician relationship, ease physicians’ workload, be tested for validity and effectiveness, and fit the criteria for reimbursement
    • …
    corecore