Patient Involvement: A New Source of Stress in Health Care Work?

Patients have become increasingly well informed with higher expectations to be involved in decision-making processes regarding their care and treatment. However, few studies have examined the impact of patient involvement on health care providers’ partnership-building communication. The aim of this study was to measure and explore the self-reported effects of patient involvement on the work of physicians and nurses. A questionnaire survey was distributed among cardiology staff in 12 Swedish hospitals (N = 488, response rate 67%). The sample was comprised of registered nurses (RNs, n = 303), licensed practical nurses (LPNs, n = 132), and physicians (MDs, n = 53). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine seven questionnaire statements concerning implications of patient involvement for one’s clinical work. Regression analyses were used to examine factors associated with staff’s partnership-building communication. Analysis confirmed two distinct factors accounting for 57% of the total variance, representing both negative—“Hassles”—and positive—“Uplifts”—aspects of patient involvement. Regression analyses revealed that only positive aspects (i.e., uplifts) of patient involvement predicted staff behavior aimed at involving patients. Working with actively involved patients may be a source of stress, both negative and positive, for health care professionals. By developing work routines for involving patients in their care, health care workplaces may help health care professionals to buffer the negative effects, and enhance the positive effects, of that stress.     

Maximizing Breast Cancer Therapy with Awareness of Potential Treatment-Related Blood Disorders

In this review we summarize the impact of the various modalities of breast cancer therapy coupled with intrinsic patient factors on incidence of subsequent treatment-induced myelodysplasia and acute myelogenous leukemia (t-MDS/AML). It is clear that risk is increased for patients treated with radiation and chemotherapy at younger ages. Radiation is associated with modest risk, whereas chemotherapy, particularly the combination of an alkylating agent and an anthracycline, carries higher risk and radiation and chemotherapy combined increase the risk markedly. Recently, treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), but not pegylated G-CSF, has been identified as a factor associated with increased t-MDS/AML risk. Two newly identified associations may link homologous DNA repair gene deficiency and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment to increased t-MDS/AML risk. When predisposing factors, such as young age, are combined with an increasing number of potentially leukemogenic treatments that may not confer large risk singly, the risk of t-MDS/AML appears to increase. Patient and treatment factors combine to form a biological cascade that can trigger a myelodysplastic event. Patients with breast cancer are often exposed to many of these risk factors in the course of their treatment, and triple-negative patients, who are often younger and/or BRCA positive, are often exposed to all of them. It is important going forward to identify effective therapies without these adverse associated effects and choose existing therapies that minimize the risk of t-MDS/AML without sacrificing therapeutic gain.

Implications for Practice

Breast cancer is far more curable than in the past but requires multimodality treatment. Great care must be taken to use the least leukemogenic treatment programs that do not sacrifice efficacy. Elimination of radiation and anthracycline/alkylating agent regimens will be helpful where possible, particularly in younger patients and possibly those with homologous repair deficiency (HRD). Use of colony-stimulating factors should be limited to those who truly require them for safe chemotherapy administration. Further study of a possible leukemogenic association with HRD and the various forms of colony-stimulating factors is badly needed.

     

T3、T4期结直肠癌淋巴结转移危险因素分析

目的探讨T3、T4期结直肠癌患者淋巴结转移危险因素,为临床诊疗提供参考。方法回顾性分析2008年1月至2017年12月在空军军医大学西京消化病医院行结直肠癌根治术的1112例T3、T4期结直肠癌患者的临床病理资料,分析淋巴结转移状态与临床病理因素及肿瘤标志物的相关性,应用logistic多因素回归法分析淋巴结转移的相关危险因素。结果单因素分析结果显示,性别、年龄、肿瘤部位分层的结直肠癌患者间淋巴结转移率差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05),淋巴结转移率在不同肿瘤长径[<5 cm和≥5 cm分别为37.75%(211/559)、52.26%(289/553),χ^2=23.666,P<0.01]、大体类型[浸润、溃疡、蕈伞、隆起分别为37.04%(20/54)、47.52%(432/909)、34.33%(23/67)、69.51%(57/82),χ^2=13.787,P=0.003]、分化程度[高、中、低分化分别为34.11%(102/299)、49.00%(317/647)、48.80%(81/166),χ^2=19.771,P<0.01]、错配修复缺陷(dMMR)[是和否分别为26.34%(64/243)、50.17%(436/869),χ^2=43.996,P<0.01]、神经侵犯[是和否分别为48.17%(421/874)、33.20%(79/238),χ^2=16.954,P<0.01]、脉管侵犯[是和否分别为79.16%(338/427)、23.65%(162/685),χ^2=327.493,P<0.01]以及术前癌胚抗原(CEA)[阳性(≥5 mg/ml)和阴性(<5 mg/ml)分别为52.87%(249/471)、39.16%(251/641),χ^2=20.162,P<0.01]和CA199[阳性(≥35 U/ml)和阴性(<35 U/ml)分别为59.33%(124/209)、41.64%(376/903),χ^2=21.465,P<0.01]分层患者间差异均有统计学意义。logistic多因素回归分析显示,脉管侵犯和术前CA199阳性是T3、T4期结直肠癌患者淋巴结转移独立危险因素(OR=13.006,95%CI 9.329~17.276,P<0.01;OR=2.194,95%CI 1.513~3.181,P<0.01),dMMR阳性是淋巴结转移的保护性因素(OR=0.279,95%CI 0.190~0.411,P<0.01)。结论脉管侵犯是T3、T4期结直肠癌患者淋巴结转移的主要危险因素。术前肿瘤标志物CA199的检测可以作为预测T3、T4期结直肠癌患者淋巴结转移状态的指标,一定程度上可为诊疗方案的制订提供参考。