Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies and Malignancy Screening: A Survey of Current Practices Amongst Canadian Neurologists and Rheumatologists.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Muscle & Nerve Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-28 DOI:10.1002/mus.28463
Maria Jekielek, Rosane Nisenbaum, Ophir Vinik, Charles D Kassardjian
{"title":"Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies and Malignancy Screening: A Survey of Current Practices Amongst Canadian Neurologists and Rheumatologists.","authors":"Maria Jekielek, Rosane Nisenbaum, Ophir Vinik, Charles D Kassardjian","doi":"10.1002/mus.28463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction/aims: </strong>Although the need for malignancy screening in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) is generally accepted, data to guide the choice and timing of investigations are limited. Our aim was to characterize the gaps and uncertainties amongst Canadian neurologists and rheumatologists with respect to malignancy screening in IIM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online survey consisting of 18 multiple-choice questions related to malignancy screening practices was distributed to adult neurologists and rheumatologists practising in Canada, and survey responses were described and compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 69 participants, the majority (95.7%) performed malignancy screening. However, there was variability in practice including delegation and choice of screening tests, influence of patient-specific factors, and timing of repeat testing relative to original testing. Only 18.2% of respondents were confident in their malignancy screening practices. The most significant perceived knowledge gap was lack of consensus or guidelines on choice and frequency of malignancy screening (92.8%). Compared with neurologists, rheumatologists saw a higher number of IIM patients per year (72.5% vs. 41.4% reported five or more, p = 0.009), were more likely to consider patient risk factors and order more investigations, while neurologists were more likely to repeat testing.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Variability and knowledge gaps exist amongst neurologists and rheumatologists with regard to malignancy screening in IIM patients. The identified variability and lack of confidence may lead to lack of standardization of care, and potentially either under- or over-investigating of IIM patients for malignancy. Further research is required to better understand the optimal choice of tests and timing of repeat investigations.</p>","PeriodicalId":18968,"journal":{"name":"Muscle & Nerve","volume":" ","pages":"502-508"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12338006/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Muscle & Nerve","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.28463","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction/aims: Although the need for malignancy screening in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) is generally accepted, data to guide the choice and timing of investigations are limited. Our aim was to characterize the gaps and uncertainties amongst Canadian neurologists and rheumatologists with respect to malignancy screening in IIM.

Methods: An online survey consisting of 18 multiple-choice questions related to malignancy screening practices was distributed to adult neurologists and rheumatologists practising in Canada, and survey responses were described and compared between groups.

Results: Of 69 participants, the majority (95.7%) performed malignancy screening. However, there was variability in practice including delegation and choice of screening tests, influence of patient-specific factors, and timing of repeat testing relative to original testing. Only 18.2% of respondents were confident in their malignancy screening practices. The most significant perceived knowledge gap was lack of consensus or guidelines on choice and frequency of malignancy screening (92.8%). Compared with neurologists, rheumatologists saw a higher number of IIM patients per year (72.5% vs. 41.4% reported five or more, p = 0.009), were more likely to consider patient risk factors and order more investigations, while neurologists were more likely to repeat testing.

Discussion: Variability and knowledge gaps exist amongst neurologists and rheumatologists with regard to malignancy screening in IIM patients. The identified variability and lack of confidence may lead to lack of standardization of care, and potentially either under- or over-investigating of IIM patients for malignancy. Further research is required to better understand the optimal choice of tests and timing of repeat investigations.

特发性炎性肌病和恶性肿瘤筛查:加拿大神经科医生和风湿病学家当前实践的调查。
简介/目的:虽然特发性炎症性肌病(IIM)需要进行恶性肿瘤筛查被普遍接受,但指导选择和调查时机的数据有限。我们的目的是描述加拿大神经学家和风湿病学家在IIM恶性肿瘤筛查方面的差距和不确定性。方法:向加拿大的成年神经科医生和风湿科医生发放了一份由18道选择题组成的与恶性肿瘤筛查实践相关的在线调查,并对调查结果进行了描述和组间比较。结果:69名参与者中,大多数(95.7%)进行了恶性肿瘤筛查。然而,在实践中存在变异性,包括授权和筛选试验的选择,患者特异性因素的影响,以及相对于原始测试的重复测试的时间。只有18.2%的受访者对自己的恶性肿瘤筛查做法有信心。最重要的认知差距是缺乏关于恶性肿瘤筛查的选择和频率的共识或指南(92.8%)。与神经科医生相比,风湿病医生每年有更多的IIM患者(72.5% vs. 41.4%报告5个或更多,p = 0.009),更有可能考虑患者的危险因素并要求更多的调查,而神经科医生更有可能重复检测。讨论:神经学家和风湿病学家在IIM患者恶性肿瘤筛查方面存在差异和知识差距。确定的可变性和缺乏信心可能导致缺乏标准化的护理,并可能导致对IIM患者恶性肿瘤的调查不足或过度。需要进一步的研究来更好地了解测试的最佳选择和重复调查的时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Muscle & Nerve
Muscle & Nerve 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
287
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Muscle & Nerve is an international and interdisciplinary publication of original contributions, in both health and disease, concerning studies of the muscle, the neuromuscular junction, the peripheral motor, sensory and autonomic neurons, and the central nervous system where the behavior of the peripheral nervous system is clarified. Appearing monthly, Muscle & Nerve publishes clinical studies and clinically relevant research reports in the fields of anatomy, biochemistry, cell biology, electrophysiology and electrodiagnosis, epidemiology, genetics, immunology, pathology, pharmacology, physiology, toxicology, and virology. The Journal welcomes articles and reports on basic clinical electrophysiology and electrodiagnosis. We expedite some papers dealing with timely topics to keep up with the fast-moving pace of science, based on the referees'' recommendation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信