Management of Skin Toxicity Related to the Use of Imatinib Mesylate (STI571, Glivec™) for Advanced Stage Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours

Skin toxicity is a common side-effect of treatment with imatinib mesylate (STI571, Glivec™) in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) and chronic myeloid leukaemia. The optimal duration of treatment with imatinib mesylate in GIST has not yet been established, as durable remissions have been observed in patients. It is, therefore, important to develop strategies to deal with common side-effects of what may be a long-term treatment. Here we report the case of a patient with advanced GIST who developed a cutaneous drug reaction secondary to imatinib mesylate and the various management options that may be employed depending upon the severity of the toxicity. The case and literature are discussed

Pretest expectations strongly influence interpretation of abnormal laboratory results and further management

Contains fulltext : 89631.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Abnormal results of diagnostic laboratory tests can be difficult to interpret when disease probability is very low. Although most physicians generally do not use Bayesian calculations to interpret abnormal results, their estimates of pretest disease probability and reasons for ordering diagnostic tests may--in a more implicit manner--influence test interpretation and further management. A better understanding of this influence may help to improve test interpretation and management. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine the influence of physicians' pretest disease probability estimates, and their reasons for ordering diagnostic tests, on test result interpretation, posttest probability estimates and further management. METHODS: Prospective study among 87 primary care physicians in the Netherlands who each ordered laboratory tests for 25 patients. They recorded their reasons for ordering the tests (to exclude or confirm disease or to reassure patients) and their pretest disease probability estimates. Upon receiving the results they recorded how they interpreted the tests, their posttest probability estimates and further management. Logistic regression was used to analyse whether the pretest probability and the reasons for ordering tests influenced the interpretation, the posttest probability estimates and the decisions on further management. RESULTS: The physicians ordered tests for diagnostic purposes for 1253 patients; 742 patients had an abnormal result (64%). Physicians' pretest probability estimates and their reasons for ordering diagnostic tests influenced test interpretation, posttest probability estimates and further management. Abnormal results of tests ordered for reasons of reassurance were significantly more likely to be interpreted as normal (65.8%) compared to tests ordered to confirm a diagnosis or exclude a disease (27.7% and 50.9%, respectively). The odds for abnormal results to be interpreted as normal were much lower when the physician estimated a high pretest disease probability, compared to a low pretest probability estimate (OR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.07-0.52, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation and management of abnormal test results were strongly influenced by physicians' estimation of pretest disease probability and by the reason for ordering the test. By relating abnormal laboratory results to their pretest expectations, physicians may seek a balance between over- and under-reacting to laboratory test results

Blood test ordering for unexplained complaints in general practice: the VAMPIRE randomised clinical trial protocol. [ISRCTN55755886]

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) frequently order blood tests when they see patients presenting with unexplained complaints. Due to the low prevalence of serious pathology in general practice, the risk of false-positive test results is relatively high. This may result in unnecessary further testing, leading to unfavourable effects such as patient anxiety, high costs, somatisation and morbidity. A policy of watchful waiting is expected to lower both the number of patients to be tested and the risk of false-positive test results, without missing serious pathology. However, many general practitioners experience barriers when trying to postpone blood testing by watchful waiting. The objectives of this study are (1) to determine the accuracy of blood tests in patients presenting with unexplained complaints in terms of detecting pathology, (2) to determine the accuracy of a watchful waiting strategy and (3) to determine the effects of a quality improvement strategy to promote the postponement of blood test ordering by GPs for patients with unexplained complaints. DESIGN: General practices are randomised over three groups. Group 1 is instructed to order blood tests immediately, group 2 to apply a watchful waiting policy and group 3 also to postpone testing, but supported by our quality improvement strategy. The trial consists of two sub-studies: a diagnostic study at patient level (group 1 versus groups 2 and 3) and a quality improvement study at GP level (group 2 versus group 3). The diagnostic strategy to be used involves of both customary and innovative tests. The quality improvement strategy consists of two small-group meetings and a practice outreach visit. Patient follow-up ends at 12 months after the initial consultation. Primary outcome measures are the accuracy and added value of blood tests for detecting pathology, the effect of a 4-week postponement of test ordering on the blood test characteristics and the quantity of tests ordered. Secondary outcome measures are the course of complaints, quality of life, satisfaction with care, anxiety of patients and practitioners, determinants of physicians' behaviour, health care utilisation and costs. DISCUSSION: The innovative aspect of this trial is that it combines a clinical-epidemiological study and a quality of care study

Physicians Report Barriers to Deliver Best Practice Care for Asplenic Patients: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Background: Current management of asplenic patients is not in compliance with best practice standards, such as defined by the British Committee for Standards in Haematology. To improve quality of care, factors inhibiting best practice care delivery need to be identified first. With this study, we aimed to identify and quantify physicians' barriers to adhere to best practice management of asplenic patients in the Netherlands. Methods and Principal Findings: A cross-sectional survey, preceded by multiple focus group discussions, was performed among Dutch physicians responsible for prevention of infections in asplenic patients, including specialists ( of Internal medicine and Surgery) and general practitioners (GPs). Forty seven GPs and seventy three hospital specialists returned the questionnaire, yielding response rates of 47% and 36,5% respectively. Physicians reported several barriers to deliver best practice. For both GPs and specialists, the most frequently listed barriers were: poor patient knowledge (> 80% of hospital specialists and GPs) and lack of clarity about which physician is responsible for the management of asplenic patients (50% of Internists, 46% of Surgeons, 55% of GPs). Both GPs and hospital specialists expressed to experience a lack of mutual trust: specialists were uncertain whether the GP would follow their advice given on patient discharge (33-59%), whereas half of GPs was not convinced that specialists' discharge letters contained the correct recommendations. Almost all physicians (> 90%) indicated that availability of a national guideline would improve adherence to best practice, especially if accessible online. Conclusion: This study showed that, in accordance with reports on international performance, care delivery for asplenic patients in the Netherlands is suboptimal. We identified and quantified perceived barriers by physicians that prevent adherence to post-splenectomy guidelines for the first time. Better transmural collaboration and better informed patients are likely to improve the quality of care of the asplenic patient population. A national, online-available guideline is urgently require

Assessment of splenic function

Hyposplenic patients are at risk of overwhelming post-splenectomy infection (OPSI), which carries mortality of up to 70%. Therefore, preventive measures are warranted. However, patients with diminished splenic function are difficult to identify. In this review we discuss immunological, haematological and scintigraphic parameters that can be used to measure splenic function. IgM memory B cells are a potential parameter for assessing splenic function; however, more studies are necessary for its validation. Detection of Howell–Jolly bodies does not reflect splenic function accurately, whereas determining the percentage of pitted erythrocytes is a well-evaluated method and seems a good first-line investigation for assessing splenic function. When assessing spleen function, 99mTc-labelled, heat-altered, autologous erythrocyte scintigraphy with multimodality single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)-CT technology is the best approach, as all facets of splenic function are evaluated. In conclusion, although scintigraphic methods are most reliable, they are not suitable for screening large populations. We therefore recommend using the percentage of pitted erythrocytes, albeit suboptimal, as a first-line investigation and subsequently confirming abnormal readings by means of scintigraphy. More studies evaluating the value of potentially new markers are needed