RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Recognising a tumour predisposition syndrome (TPS) in patients with childhood cancer is of significant clinical relevance, as it affects treatment, prognosis and facilitates genetic counselling. Previous studies revealed that only half of the known TPSs are recognised during standard paediatric cancer care. In current medical practice it is impossible to refer every patient with childhood cancer to a clinical geneticist, due to limited capacity for routine genetic consultation. Therefore, we have developed a screening instrument to identify patients with childhood cancer with a high probability of having a TPS. The aim of this study is to validate the clinical screening instrument for TPS in patients with childhood cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a prospective nationwide cohort study including all newly diagnosed patients with childhood cancer in the Netherlands. The screening instrument consists of a checklist, two- and three-dimensional photographic series of the patient. 2 independent clinical geneticists will assess the content of the screening instrument. If a TPS is suspected based on the instrument data and thus further evaluation is indicated, the patient will be invited for full genetic consultation. A negative control group consists of 20% of the patients in whom a TPS is not suspected based on the instrument; they will be randomly invited for full genetic consultation. Primary outcome measurement will be sensitivity of the instrument. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical Ethical Committee of the Academic Medical Centre stated that the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act does not apply to this study and that official approval of this study by the Committee was not required. The results will be offered for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at International Conferences on Oncology and Clinical Genetics. The clinical data gathered in this study will be available for all participating centres. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR5605.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Genéticas Congénitas/diagnóstico , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Neoplasias/genética , Adolescente , Lista de Verificación , Niño , Preescolar , Femenino , Predisposición Genética a la Enfermedad , Humanos , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Masculino , Neoplasias/etiología , Países Bajos , Fotograbar , Estudios Prospectivos , Proyectos de Investigación , SíndromeRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Results of the first randomized trial comparing on-demand versus planned-relaparotomy strategy in patients with severe peritonitis (RELAP trial) indicated no clear differences in primary outcomes. We now report the full economic evaluation for this trial, including detailed methods, nonmedical costs, further differentiated cost calculations, and robustness of different assumptions in sensitivity analyses. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted from a societal perspective alongside a randomized controlled trial in 229 patients with severe secondary peritonitis and an acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE)-II score >or=11 from two academic and five regional teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. After the index laparotomy, patients were randomly allocated to an on-demand or a planned-relaparotomy strategy. Primary resource-utilization data were used to estimate mean total costs per patient during the index admission and after discharge until 1 year after the index operation. Overall differences in costs between the on-demand relaparotomy strategy and the planned strategy, as well as relative differences across several clinical subgroups, were evaluated. RESULTS: Costs were substantially lower in the on-demand group (mean, 65,768 euro versus 83,450 euro per patient in the planned group; mean absolute difference, 17,682 euro; 95% CI, 5,062 euro to e29,004 euro). Relative differences in mean total costs per patient (approximately 21%) were robust to various alternative assumptions. Planned relaparotomy consistently generated more costs across the whole range of different courses of disease (quick recovery and few resources used on one end of the spectrum; slow recovery and many resources used on the other end). This difference in costs between the two surgical strategies also did not vary significantly across several clinical subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The reduction in societal costs renders the on-demand strategy a more-efficient relaparotomy strategy in patients with severe peritonitis. These differences were found across the full range of healthcare resources as well as across patients with different courses of disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN51729393.
Asunto(s)
Laparotomía/economía , Peritonitis/cirugía , Reoperación/economía , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , APACHE , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Costos y Análisis de Costo/métodos , Costos de la Atención en Salud , Recursos en Salud/economía , Recursos en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Países Bajos , Peritonitis/fisiopatología , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Dutch College of General Practitioners' guidelines specify that antibiotics should only be used for severe cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, GPs tend to administer antibiotics rather than a short course of steroid treatment regardless of severity. AIM: The aim of this study was to determine how GPs use current guidelines in treating exacerbations of COPD, in particular whether short courses of oral steroids and antibiotics are prescribed in accordance with the Dutch guidelines for COPD. DESIGN OF STUDY: Retrospective analysis of medical records. SETTING: Primary healthcare centres. METHOD: Medical records of patients registered at four primary healthcare centres in the Netherlands were retrospectively analysed for the period March 2001-March 2003. RESULTS: Of 35,589 patients, 1.3% were registered as having a diagnosis of COPD. In 2 years, 47% of the patients had no exacerbation, 35% had one or two exacerbations, and 18% had three or more exacerbations. Of 536 exacerbations, GPs prescribed a short course of oral steroids in 30% of cases, antibiotics in 29%, steroids combined with an antibiotic in 23%, and no oral steroid course or antibiotic was prescribed in 18%. Prescriptions for patients with three or more exacerbations differed significantly from those for patients with one or two exacerbations. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment is often not in accordance with current guidelines; in particular, antibiotics are prescribed more often than recommended.