The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of chemotherapy delivered at a cancer centre with chemotherapy given at a community hospital. The services were compared in terms of safety, preference for location, satisfaction and resource use. Patients were randomly allocated to two groups. One group received their first two cycles of chemotherapy at a community hospital; the other group received theirs at the cancer centre. The patients then crossed over to receive their next two cycles of chemotherapy at outreach or the cancer centre and then chose where they wanted to receive the remaining two cycles of their chemotherapy. Data were collected about patient preference, anxiety and depression, satisfaction and chemotherapy-related toxicity. Forty-two patients were randomized to the study: 38, 31 and 28 patients completed cycles two, four and final chemotherapies respectively. Thirty-one patients reached the end of the crossover period, of which 30 chose the outreach location for the remainder of their chemotherapy treatments. There was strong evidence that patients were more satisfied with outreach location for ease of access and also the environment. Recommendation from this study was that a permanent outreach chemotherapy service to community hospitals be established.
Summary
Existing studies indicate the importance of the communication that takes place within specific nursing procedures, but a body of knowledge in this area has yet to be developed.
This study explores the verbal communication that took place when nurses were administering cytotoxic chemotherapy in a specialized gynaecological oncology unit.
Most interactions were initiated by the nurses and concentrated on information giving.
Detailed, clear and precise explanations were provided, reflecting the highly technical nature of the procedure.
The nurses rarely made any assessment of the patients' understanding of the situation, their preconceptions, or their feelings.
It is suggested that there is a need to structure and improve the emotional, supportive, and information‐giving techniques employed by nurses.
1059 Background: We conducted a phase II multi-institutional trial of gefitinib and docetaxel as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The primary objectives were to determine the clinical benefit rate (defined as the proportion of patients who experienced confirmed complete response or partial response or who had stable disease for at least 24 weeks) and the toxicity profile of the combination treatment. Methods: All patients had histologically confirmed breast cancer with metastatic disease. They may have received adjuvant chemotherapy, but no prior docetaxel or prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients received gefitinib 250 mg once daily and docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, until tumor progression, toxicity or other reasons for discontinuation. Results: Between April 2003 and September 2004, 33 patients were enrolled at 11 participating institutions. Patients received a median of 5 cycles of treatment. The clinical benefit rate was 51.5% (95% CI: 33.5% - 69.2%). There was 1 confirmed complete response and 12 confirmed partial responses, and the overall objective response rate was 39.4% (95% CI: 22.9% - 57.9%). Four patients had stable disease for = 24 weeks. The median duration of clinical benefit was 10.9 months (95% CI: 6.0 - 17.6 months). The most common reason for study discontinuation was disease progression (16 patients), followed by toxicity (10 patients). Toxicities were mainly attributable to docetaxel, including = grade 3 neutropenia in 43% of patients. Conclusion: The combination of gefitinib and docetaxel is an active regimen in patients with previously untreated metastatic breast cancer. Further work is needed to determine which subset of patients with breast cancer will benefit from gefitinib. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.