印度腹膜表面恶性肿瘤学会(ISPSM)的一项全国性调查:临床医生对高温腹腔内化疗和加压腹腔内气溶胶化疗的实践模式、态度和知识。

IF 1.4 Q4 ONCOLOGY
Pleura and Peritoneum Pub Date : 2020-08-31 eCollection Date: 2020-09-01 DOI:10.1515/pp-2020-0120
Sampige Prasanna Somashekhar, Kumar C Rohit, S V S Deo, Kyatsandra Rajagopal Ashwin
{"title":"印度腹膜表面恶性肿瘤学会(ISPSM)的一项全国性调查:临床医生对高温腹腔内化疗和加压腹腔内气溶胶化疗的实践模式、态度和知识。","authors":"Sampige Prasanna Somashekhar,&nbsp;Kumar C Rohit,&nbsp;S V S Deo,&nbsp;Kyatsandra Rajagopal Ashwin","doi":"10.1515/pp-2020-0120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Perception of cytoreductive surgery (CRS), hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for treating peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) differ widely among physicians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This on-site survey performed during a major oncology congress in 2019 evaluated the current opinion, perceptions, knowledge and practice of HIPEC and PIPAC among oncologists in India.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 147 respondents (gynecologists (30%), surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons (64%), and medical oncologists (6%)). Whereas most respondents considered CRS and HIPEC an appropriate therapeutic option, 25% would not recommend CRS and HIPEC. The main barriers to referral to an expert center were inaccessibility to such a center (37.8%), non-inclusion of CRS and HIPEC in clinical practice guidelines (32.4%), and a high morbidity/mortality (21.6%). Variations were found in the various practice patterns of CRS/HIPEC like eligibility criteria, HIPEC protocols and safety measures. Although PIPAC awareness as a novel therapeutic option was high, only a limited number of centers offered PIPAC, mainly because of non-access to technology and missing training opportunities (76.2%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lack of widespread acceptance, poor accessibility and low utilization presents a significant challenge for HIPEC and PIPAC in India. There is a need to raise the awareness of curative and palliative therapeutic options for PSM. This might be achieved by the creation of expert centers, specialized training curricula and of a new sub-speciality in oncology.</p>","PeriodicalId":20231,"journal":{"name":"Pleura and Peritoneum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/pp-2020-0120","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Practice patterns, attitudes, and knowledge among clinicians regarding hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: a national survey by Indian society of peritoneal surface malignancies (ISPSM).\",\"authors\":\"Sampige Prasanna Somashekhar,&nbsp;Kumar C Rohit,&nbsp;S V S Deo,&nbsp;Kyatsandra Rajagopal Ashwin\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/pp-2020-0120\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Perception of cytoreductive surgery (CRS), hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for treating peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) differ widely among physicians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This on-site survey performed during a major oncology congress in 2019 evaluated the current opinion, perceptions, knowledge and practice of HIPEC and PIPAC among oncologists in India.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 147 respondents (gynecologists (30%), surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons (64%), and medical oncologists (6%)). Whereas most respondents considered CRS and HIPEC an appropriate therapeutic option, 25% would not recommend CRS and HIPEC. The main barriers to referral to an expert center were inaccessibility to such a center (37.8%), non-inclusion of CRS and HIPEC in clinical practice guidelines (32.4%), and a high morbidity/mortality (21.6%). Variations were found in the various practice patterns of CRS/HIPEC like eligibility criteria, HIPEC protocols and safety measures. Although PIPAC awareness as a novel therapeutic option was high, only a limited number of centers offered PIPAC, mainly because of non-access to technology and missing training opportunities (76.2%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Lack of widespread acceptance, poor accessibility and low utilization presents a significant challenge for HIPEC and PIPAC in India. There is a need to raise the awareness of curative and palliative therapeutic options for PSM. This might be achieved by the creation of expert centers, specialized training curricula and of a new sub-speciality in oncology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pleura and Peritoneum\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/pp-2020-0120\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pleura and Peritoneum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/pp-2020-0120\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pleura and Peritoneum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/pp-2020-0120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:医生对治疗腹膜表面恶性肿瘤(PSM)的细胞减少手术(CRS),高温腹腔内化疗(HIPEC)和加压腹腔内气溶胶化疗(PIPAC)的看法存在很大差异。方法:在2019年一次重要的肿瘤学大会期间进行的现场调查评估了印度肿瘤学家目前对HIPEC和PIPAC的看法、看法、知识和实践。结果:调查对象147人,其中妇科医生占30%,外科肿瘤科和胃肠外科医生占64%,内科肿瘤科医生占6%。虽然大多数受访者认为CRS和HIPEC是适当的治疗选择,但25%的受访者不推荐CRS和HIPEC。转诊到专家中心的主要障碍是无法进入专家中心(37.8%)、CRS和HIPEC未纳入临床实践指南(32.4%)和高发病率/死亡率(21.6%)。在CRS/HIPEC的各种实践模式中发现了差异,如资格标准,HIPEC协议和安全措施。虽然PIPAC作为一种新的治疗选择的认知度很高,但只有少数中心提供PIPAC,主要是因为无法获得技术和缺少培训机会(76.2%)。结论:HIPEC和PIPAC在印度缺乏广泛的接受度,可及性差,利用率低,这是HIPEC和PIPAC面临的重大挑战。有必要提高对PSM的治愈性和姑息性治疗选择的认识。这可以通过建立专家中心、专业培训课程和肿瘤学的一个新的亚专业来实现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Practice patterns, attitudes, and knowledge among clinicians regarding hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: a national survey by Indian society of peritoneal surface malignancies (ISPSM).

Practice patterns, attitudes, and knowledge among clinicians regarding hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: a national survey by Indian society of peritoneal surface malignancies (ISPSM).

Practice patterns, attitudes, and knowledge among clinicians regarding hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy: a national survey by Indian society of peritoneal surface malignancies (ISPSM).

Objectives: Perception of cytoreductive surgery (CRS), hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) for treating peritoneal surface malignancies (PSM) differ widely among physicians.

Methods: This on-site survey performed during a major oncology congress in 2019 evaluated the current opinion, perceptions, knowledge and practice of HIPEC and PIPAC among oncologists in India.

Results: There were 147 respondents (gynecologists (30%), surgical oncologists and gastrointestinal surgeons (64%), and medical oncologists (6%)). Whereas most respondents considered CRS and HIPEC an appropriate therapeutic option, 25% would not recommend CRS and HIPEC. The main barriers to referral to an expert center were inaccessibility to such a center (37.8%), non-inclusion of CRS and HIPEC in clinical practice guidelines (32.4%), and a high morbidity/mortality (21.6%). Variations were found in the various practice patterns of CRS/HIPEC like eligibility criteria, HIPEC protocols and safety measures. Although PIPAC awareness as a novel therapeutic option was high, only a limited number of centers offered PIPAC, mainly because of non-access to technology and missing training opportunities (76.2%).

Conclusions: Lack of widespread acceptance, poor accessibility and low utilization presents a significant challenge for HIPEC and PIPAC in India. There is a need to raise the awareness of curative and palliative therapeutic options for PSM. This might be achieved by the creation of expert centers, specialized training curricula and of a new sub-speciality in oncology.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
23
审稿时长
9 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信