While pain is highly prevalent in cancer patients and its management is universally challenging, it is more commonly undertreated in the developing world. Southeastern European countries have limited resources and manpower to allocate for delivery of effective care for cancer-related pain. The purpose of this study was to explore the practice methods and the barriers to effective pain management in Southeastern Europe.We conducted a Web-based survey using a specially designed questionnaire among physicians practicing in member countries of the Balkan Union of Oncology (BUON).A representative from each of the member countries of BUON (including Armenia and Georgia) and close to 100 physicians from 8 countries responded. The majority (89%) of respondents were medical oncologists and had been practising for 10 years on average. For pain assessment, only 35.4% of the physicians used a formal pain scale. Of the respondents 34.1% were not able to reach the optimal doses of narcotic medications while managing cancer pain, mostly due to concerns about toxicity, such as constipation and nausea. Most physicians listed their inability to consult sub-specialists to seek assistance for improving pain management cases as one of the major difficulties in day-to- day clinical practice, along with lack of time.The limitations faced by our respondents seem to be related mostly to the shortcomings of the respective health care systems, along with the need for more experience and knowledge about the titration of pain medications and dealing with toxicities.
Gastric cancer is a major health burden worldwide and is one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. The average 5-year survival rate is less than 20% and prognosis is very dramatic. It remains difficult to cure, primarily because most patients present with advanced. Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) is a stage IV of gastric cancer and has been regarded as a lethal condition, and these patients have considered receiving systemic chemotherapy or palliative therapy. However, no standard treatment for PC has been proposed and surgery or chemotherapy alone has no beneficial effect on survival. Currently many researchers have demonstrated progress in the use of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in combination with heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis, but how HIPEC influence on the tumor growth or angiogenic factors, which are involved in metastases/recurrence of cancer not understandable. Therefore, in this review, we try to hypothesize that removal of the primary tumor combined with HIPEC procedure may improve survival in patient's though decrease the angiogenic and tumor growth factors (TGF, VEGF, EGFR).
For several decades, highly refined cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are used to prevent and manage various types of cardiac pathology, which have saved the lives of many patients. Cardiac implantable electronic devices help maintain and improve the quality of life by regulating the heart rate, terminating life-threatening arrhythmias, and improving systolic function, including pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices. Regardless of the benefits received after its implantation, in some cases, serious complication has appeared, such as CIED infections, associated with severe morbidity, mortality, financial expenses and changes in the quality of life. Exactly, in this article will be addressed the issues of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of this condition, which will help specialists to properly assess the problem and to find a way to effectively solve it.
Background: Castleman's disease (CD), a rare condition of uncertain etiology, involves a massive proliferation of lymphoid tissues. We described 31 years patient with CD who presented with diffuse adenopathy involving the inguinal, paratracheal, retroperitoneal, axillary, and pelvic regions. Case presentation: Case report describing presentation, workup, management, and clinical course of a patient with Castleman's disease. The patient was treated with chemotherapeutic agents (Cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, Vincristine) and monoclonal antibodies (Rituximab). Conclusions: This case represents the CD involving an HIV-positive patient. Patients with HIV are at high risk for the development of Castleman’s disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and Kaposi sarcoma, regular medical surveillance is recommended.
Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has become the treatment of choice for resectable peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) and improved the survival of these patients. The situation changes if PC recurs and repeated CRS with HIPEC is considered. The patient selection and outcome of the repeated approach has not been well described. We analyzed our cohort and share the experiences. Ninety-three CRS/HIPEC procedures, performed in 85 patients during the period 2001–2013, were examined in a retrospective analysis. Type of primary, ECOG status, peritoneal cancer index (PCI), completeness of cytoreduction (CC), duration of hospitalization, postoperative morbidity, mortality, and disease-free/overall survival were reviewed. Six patients (7 %) underwent a second CRS/HIPEC (median interval between the two procedures: 26 months, range 8–61) including two patients with mesotheliomas, one patient with ovarian adenocarcinoma, one patient with leiomyosarcoma of uterus, one patient with colon adenocarcinoma, and one patient with appendiceal adenocarcinoma. The last two patients underwent a third CRS/HIPEC, 25 and 36 months, after the second procedure. The median PCI was 14 (range, 4–26) during the first and 20 (range, 7–39) during the second CRS/HIPEC of these patients. Completeness of cytoreduction score of 0 (CC-0) was achieved in all first procedures and in 67 % of second procedures (CC-0; n = 4 and CC-1; n = 2). A CC-0 score was possible in both of the third procedures. The mean operating time was 444 min (range, 198–642) and 427 min (range, 239–617) during the first and the second procedure. Median intensive care unit (ICU) was 2 days, and hospital stay after second CRS/HIPEC was 17 days (range, 7–50). The 30-day morbidity after repeated CRS/HIPEC was 33 % (16 % for grade III–IV complications), and there was no 30-day mortality neither after the second nor after the third CRS/HIPEC. Median disease-free interval between first CRS/HIPEC and peritoneal recurrence was 17 months (range, 8–30). Median disease-free survival of 18 months (range, 4–33) was achieved after the second CRS/HIPEC. After a median follow-up of 74 months (range, 39–151), all patients are alive with disease (n = 5) or disease free (n = 1) under chemotherapy. In experienced centers, repeated CRS/HIPEC can be performed with safety. Patient selection and correct timing is of particular importance in achieving control of the disease. Repeated CRS/HIPEC should be considered as treatment option for selected patients with recurrent PC.