RESUMEN

Objetivo. Conocer el grado de satis-facción de los usuarios del Circuito de Diagnóstico Rápido del Cáncer (CDRC) así como la percepción de ansiedad. Método. Estudio transversal de una muestra de personas (n=294) atendidas de forma consecutiva en un CDRC de pulmón, mama y colon. La recogida de datos se realizó median-te cuestionario en la primera visita al CDRC y llamada telefónica al mes de la última visita al CDRC. El cuestionario contenía 23 preguntas que exploraban distintas dimensiones de satisfacción (accesibilidad, trato personal, información y coordinación), una sobre ansiedad percibida y una de satisfacción global. También se recogieron variables sociodemográficas, procedencia de la derivación y diagnóstico de cáncer. Resultados. La media de edad fue de 60,1 años (DE =1 2,9) con un 57,8% de mujeres. Fueron diagnosticados de cáncer el 34,4%. El grado de satis-facción global con la asistencia recibida en el CDRC fue de 9,3 (DE = 1,2) sobre 10. El 92,2% de los pacientes afirmó que el hecho de haber entrado en el CDRC le había ayudado a disminuir la ansiedad de todo el proceso. Según el diagnóstico final de cáncer o no, observamos diferencias significativas en las áreas de accesibilidad y trato. Los pacientes diagnosticados de cáncer estuvieron más satisfechos con el tiempo trascurrido entre la primera visita y el diagnóstico y entre el diagnóstico e inicio del tratamiento y valoraron mejor el trato de la enfermera gestora. Conclusiones. La satisfacción de los pacientes que entran en el CDRC es muy alta. Su evaluación complementa otros indicadores de eficacia del programa

Objective. Evaluation of patients' satisfaction with the Rapid Diagnosis and Treatment Programme for Cancer (RDTPC) and perception of anxiety Method. A cross-sectional study was performed on a sample (n = 294) of patients who subsequently were followed at the RDTPC for lung, breast and colon cancer. Data collection was carried out using a questionnaire administered to users during their first visit at the RDTPC and a tele-phone call one month after their last visit. The questionnaire included 23 items that explore different aspects of satisfaction (accessibility, personal treatment, information and coordination), one item on perceived anxiety and one on overall satisfaction. Socio-demographic variables, origin of referral and diagnosis of cancer were also collected. Results. The mean age was 60.1 years (SD=12.9); 57.8% were women. A total of 34.4%. were diagnosed of cancer. The level of overall satisfaction with the care received at the RDTPC was 9.3 (SD =1.2) out of 10 and 92.2% of patients reported that entering the RDTPC had helped them decrease their anxiety throughout the whole process. Depending on whether cancer was finally diagnosed or not, significant differences were observed in areas of accessibility and attention received. Patients diagnosed with cancer were more satisfied with the time period between the initial visit and diagnosis and between time of diagnosis and start of treatment. They also reported a higher satisfaction with the attention they received from the nurse in charge. Conclusions. The satisfaction of patients on the RDTPC is very high. Their assessment completes other indicators of the efficacy of the programme

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: This phase II study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of vinorelbine in combination with estramustine in patients with chemotherapy-naïve hormone-refractory prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients received vinorelbine (i.v. 25 mg/m2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks and estramustine (oral, 600 mg/m2) daily. Eligible patients were required to have progressive metastatic disease following the first hormonal manipulation. RESULTS: Of the 51 patients enrolled (median age = 69 years), 84% presented bone involvement and 75% had at least two organs involved at the time of study entry and 47 were evaluable for treatment efficacy. Prostate specific antigen (PSA) response (> or =50% decrease) which was the primary efficacy criterion was reported in 21 patients (41.2%) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in 20 patients (48.8%) in the per protocol (PP) population. Of the 7 patients with measurable disease, 2 achieved partial response. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.7 months (range: 1.9-8.6) and 14.3 months (range: 4.2-21.2), respectively. Grade 3-4 neutropenia was reported in 6.1% of patients and in 1% of cycles. The incidence of complicated neutropenia (febrile neutropenia reported in 1 patient and septic shock with severe neutropenia reported in 2 patients) was 5.8%. The most frequent grade 3-4 non-haematological events (% of patients > or =5%) included anorexia (10%), thrombosis/embolism (8%), vomiting and hypotension (6% each). There were 3 toxic deaths (5.9 %) resulting from pulmonary embolism, angina pectoris, and septic shock. The impact of combined chemotherapy on the quality-of-life (QL) of the patients was assessed between baseline and the first evaluation scheduled at 6 weeks indicated a marked reduction in pain while the rest of the symptoms remained stable. Overall, health status improved slightly over the treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that the combination of vinorelbine and estramustine is an active regimen in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer who had not been treated previously with chemotherapy. Main toxicities included complicated neutropenia even though the incidence of severe neutropenia was low. We observed a higher incidence of toxic deaths which could have been related to the regimen of estramustine used in the study.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

No disponible

Introduction. This phase II study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of vinorelbine in combination with estramustine in patients with chemotherapy- naïve hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Material and methods. Patients received vinorelbine (i.v. 25 mg/m2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks and estramustine (oral, 600 mg/m2) daily. Eligible patients were required to have progressive metastatic disease following the first hormonal manipulation. Results. Of the 51 patients enrolled (median age = 69 years), 84% presented bone involvement and 75% had at least two organs involved at the time of study entry and 47 were evaluable for treatment efficacy. Prostate specific antigen (PSA) response (≥50% decrease) which was the primary efficacy criterion was reported in 21 patients (41.2%) in the intent- to-treat (ITT) population and in 20 patients (48.8%) in the per protocol (PP) population. Of the 7 patients with measurable disease, 2 achieved partial response. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.7 months (range: 1.9-8.6) and 14.3 months (range: 4.2-21.2), respectively. Grade 3-4 neutropenia was reported in 6.1% of patients and in 1% of cycles. The incidence of complicated neutropenia (febrile neutropenia reported in 1 patient and septic shock with severe neutropenia reported in 2 patients) was 5.8%. The most frequent grade 3-4 non-haematological events (% of patients ≥5%) included anorexia (10%), thrombosis/embolism (8%), vomiting and hypotension (6% each). There were 3 toxic deaths (5.9 %) resulting from pulmonary embolism, angina pectoris, and septic shock. The imimpact of combined chemotherapy on the quality-oflife (QL) of the patients was assessed between baseline and the first evaluation scheduled at 6 weeks indicated a marked reduction in pain while the rest of the symptoms remained stable. Overall, health status improved slightly over the treatment period. Conclusions. This study confirmed that the combination of vinorelbine and estramustine is an active regimen in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer who had not been treated previously with chemotherapy. Main toxicities included complicated neutropenia even though the incidence of severe neutropenia was low. We observed a higher incidence of toxic deaths which could have been related to the regimen of estramustine used in the study

Asunto(s)