1
|
Cabrera M, Ryan D, Erlewyn-Lajeunesse M, Levin M, Martínez-Cañavate A, Villaizán Pérez C, Angier E, Trujillo J, Cárdenas-Rebollo JM, Reali L. Global assessment of the knowledge and confidence in managing allergic disorders among primary care pediatricians across Europe: An EAACI task force report. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2024; 35:e14116. [PMID: 38581158 DOI: 10.1111/pai.14116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/29/2024] [Accepted: 03/02/2024] [Indexed: 04/08/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pediatricians are often the first point of contact for children in Primary Care (PC), but still perceive gaps in their allergy knowledge. We investigated self-perceived knowledge gaps and educational needs in pediatricians across healthcare systems in Europe so that future educational initiatives may better support the delivery of allergy services in PC. METHOD A multinational survey was circulated to pediatricians who care for children and adolescents with allergy problems in PC by the EAACI Allergy Educational Needs in Primary Care Pediatricians Task Force from February to March 2023. A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess the level of agreement with questionnaire statements. Thirty surveys per country were the cut-off for inclusion and statistical analysis. RESULTS In this study, 1991 respondents were obtained from 56 countries across Europe and 210 responses were from countries with a cut-off below 30 participants per country. Primary care pediatricians (PCPs) comprised 74.4% of the respondents. The majority (65.3%) were contracted to state or district health services. 61.7% had awareness of guidelines for onward allergy referral in their countries but only 22.3% were aware of the EAACI competencies document for allied health professionals for allergy. Total sample respondents versus PCPs showed 52% and 47% of them have access to allergy investigations in their PC facility (mainly specific IgE and skin prick tests); 67.6% and 58.9% have access to immunotherapy, respectively. The main barrier to referral to a specialist was a consideration that the patient's condition could be diagnosed and treated in this PC facility, (57.8% and 63.6% respectively). The main reasons for referral were the need for hospital assessment, and partial response to first-line treatment (55.4% and 59.2%, 47% and 50.7%, respectively). Learning and assessment methods preference was fairly equally divided between Traditional methods (45.7% and 50.1% respectively) and e-learning 45.5% and 44.9%, respectively. Generalist physicians (GPs) have the poorest access to allergy investigations (32.7%, p = .000). The majority of the total sample (91.9%) assess patients with allergic pathology. 868 (43.6%) and 1117 (46.1%), received allergy training as undergraduates and postgraduates respectively [these proportions in PCPs were higher (45% and 59%), respectively]. PCPs with a special interest in allergology experienced greater exposure to allergy teaching as postgraduates. GPs received the largest amount of allergy teaching as undergraduates. Identifying allergic disease based on clinical presentation, respondents felt most confident in the management of eczema/atopic dermatitis (87.4%) and rhinitis/asthma (86.2%), and least confident in allergen immunotherapy (36.9%) and latex allergy (30.8%). CONCLUSION This study exploring the confidence of PCPs to diagnose, manage, and refer patients with allergies, demonstrated knowledge gaps and educational needs for allergy clinical practice. It detects areas in need of urgent improvement especially in latex and allergen immunotherapy. It is important to ensure the dissemination of allergy guidelines and supporting EAACI documents since the majority of PCPs lack awareness of them. This survey has enabled us to identify what the educational priorities of PCPs are and how they would like to have them met.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Cabrera
- Hospital Los Madroños, Brunete, Spain
| | - D Ryan
- The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | | | - M Levin
- University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
| | | | | | - E Angier
- University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lago V, Fotopoulou C, Chiantera V, Minig L, Gil-Moreno A, Cascales-Campos PA, Jurado M, Tejerizo A, Padilla-Iserte P, Malune ME, Di Donna MC, Marina T, Sanchez-Iglesias JL, Chiva L, Olloqui A, Matute L, García-Granero A, Cárdenas-Rebollo JM, Domingo S. Indications and practice of diverting ileostomy after colorectal resection and anastomosis in ovarian cancer cytoreduction. Gynecol Oncol 2020; 158:603-607. [PMID: 32571682 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.05.047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/11/2020] [Accepted: 05/27/2020] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the factors related with diverting ileostomy performance after colorectal resection and anastomosis, in advanced ovarian cancer cytoreductive surgery. METHODS We have previously demonstrated the risk factors associated with anastomotic leak after colorectal anastomosis: Advanced age at surgery, low serum albumin level, additional bowel resections, manual anastomosis and distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge. However, use of diverting ileostomy is strongly variable and depends on individual surgeon preferences and training. Eight hospitals participated in this retrospective study. Data of 695 patients operated for ovarian cancer with primary colorectal anastomosis were included (January 2010-June 2018). Fourteen pre-/intraoperatively defined variables were identified and analysed as justification factors for use of diverting ileostomy. RESULTS The rate of diverting ileostomy in the entire cohort was 19.13% (133/695; range within individual centers 4.6-24.32%). Previous treatment with bevacizumab [OR 2.8 (1.3-6.1); p=0.01]; additional bowel resections [OR 3.0 (1.8-5.1); p<0.001]; extended operating time [OR 1.005 (1.003-1.006); p<0.001] and intra-operative red blood transfusion [OR 2.7 (1.4-5.3); p<0.001] were found to be independently associated with diverting ileostomy performance. Assuming a 7% AL rate cut-off, up to 51.8% of DI presented an AL risk below 7% and might have been spared. CONCLUSIONS The risk factors that drive the gynecologic oncology surgeons to perform a diverting ileostomy, seem to differ from the actual risk factors that we have identified to be associated with postoperative anastomotic leak. Broader awareness of the risk factors that contribute to a higher perioperative risk profile, will facilitate a better risk stratification process and possibly avoid unnecessary stoma formation in ovarian cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- V Lago
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospital La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
| | - C Fotopoulou
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - V Chiantera
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
| | - L Minig
- Department of Gynecology, CEU Cardenal Herrera University, Valencia, Spain
| | - A Gil-Moreno
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| | - P A Cascales-Campos
- Department of General Surgery, Virgen de la Arrixaca Clinic and University Hospital, Murcia, Spain
| | - M Jurado
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Clinic of Navarra, Madrid and Navarre, Spain
| | - A Tejerizo
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain
| | - P Padilla-Iserte
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospital La Fe, Valencia, Spain
| | - M E Malune
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - M C Di Donna
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
| | - T Marina
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospital La Fe, Valencia, Spain
| | - J L Sanchez-Iglesias
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain
| | - L Chiva
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Clinic of Navarra, Madrid and Navarre, Spain
| | - A Olloqui
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain
| | - L Matute
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospital La Fe, Valencia, Spain
| | - A García-Granero
- Department of General Surgery, University Hospital Son Espases, Palma de Mallorca, Spain; Department of Human Embryology and Anatomy, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain
| | - J M Cárdenas-Rebollo
- Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, CEU San Pablo University, Madrid, Valencia, Spain
| | - S Domingo
- Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospital La Fe, Valencia, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Chen-Zhao X, Hernando O, López M, Sánchez E, Montero A, García-Aranda M, Ciérvide R, Valero J, Alonso R, Cárdenas-Rebollo JM, Vicente E, Quijano Y, Cubillo A, Álvarez R, Prados S, Plaza C, García J, Zucca D, Fernández-Letón P, Rubio C. A prospective observational study of the clinical and pathological impact of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) as a neoadjuvant strategy of chemoradiation in pancreatic cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 2020; 22:1499-1505. [PMID: 31974820 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-020-02287-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2019] [Accepted: 01/01/2020] [Indexed: 01/30/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S) To improve the curative resection rates and prognoses, a variety of neoadjuvant (NA) strategies have been explored in PDAC. In our institution, non-metastatic PDACs have been treated with a NA intent with induction multiagent chemotherapy and SBRT. The primary endpoint was to increase R0 resection rate. The secondary endpoints were the analysis of the clinical tolerance, the pathological response, the local control (LC) and the OS. MATERIALS/METHODS All consecutive patients with non-metastatic PDAC underwent SBRT as part of the NA strategy were included. A total dose of 40-62 Gy were delivered in 5-10 fractions. Surgery was performed after SBRT and restaging. RESULTS Since February 2014 to December 2018, 45 patients were enrolled. Thirty-two patients underwent surgery (71.1%), 10 out of 15 were initially unresectable disease patients (66.75%). R0 resection rate was 93% (30 patients) and pN0 status was achieved in 20 patients (60.6%). Tumour regression grade (TRG): 12 patients with complete response or marked response (TRG 0-1: 37.5%), 16 patients with moderate response (TRG 2: 50%) and four patients with poor response (TRG 3: 12.5%). The median follow-up was 16.2 m (range 6.6-59.6 m) since diagnosis. The LC rate achieved was very high (95.5%). Actuarial 12 and 24 m OS was 67.4% and 35.9% respectively. No grade 3 or higher toxicity related to SBRT was observed. CONCLUSION The results are encouraging, suggesting that SBRT has a significant role in the management of these patients and further studies will be necessary to prove these findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- X Chen-Zhao
- Radiation Oncology, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro-Puerta del Sur, Madrid, Spain.
| | - O Hernando
- Radiation Oncology, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro-Puerta del Sur, Madrid, Spain
| | - M López
- Radiation Oncology, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro-Puerta del Sur, Madrid, Spain
| | - E Sánchez
- Radiation Oncology, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro-Puerta del Sur, Madrid, Spain
| | - A Montero
- Radiation Oncology, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro-Puerta del Sur, Madrid, Spain
| | - M García-Aranda
- Radiation Oncology, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro-Puerta del Sur, Madrid, Spain
| | - R Ciérvide
- Radiation Oncology, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro-Puerta del Sur, Madrid, Spain
| | - J Valero
- Radiation Oncology, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro-Puerta del Sur, Madrid, Spain
| | - R Alonso
- Radiation Oncology, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro-Puerta del Sur, Madrid, Spain
| | - J M Cárdenas-Rebollo
- Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, CEU San Pablo University, Madrid, Spain
| | - E Vicente
- General and Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro, Madrid, Spain
| | - Y Quijano
- General and Gastrointestinal Surgery, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro, Madrid, Spain
| | - A Cubillo
- Medical Oncology, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro, Madrid, Spain
| | - R Álvarez
- Medical Oncology, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro, Madrid, Spain
| | - S Prados
- Gastroenterology, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro, Madrid, Spain
| | - C Plaza
- Anatomical Pathology, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro, Madrid, Spain
| | - J García
- Medical Physics, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro-Puerta del Sur, Madrid, Spain
| | - D Zucca
- Medical Physics, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro-Puerta del Sur, Madrid, Spain
| | - P Fernández-Letón
- Medical Physics, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro-Puerta del Sur, Madrid, Spain
| | - C Rubio
- Radiation Oncology, University Hospital HM Sanchinarro-Puerta del Sur, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|