Martin Eichler1, Stephan Richter2, Peter Hohenberger3, Bernd Kasper4, Dimosthenis Andreou5, Vitali Heidt6, Martin Bornhäuser2,7, Jochen Schmitt7,8, Markus K Schuler2,9. 1. Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany, martin.eichler@uniklinikum-dresden.de. 2. Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany. 3. Division of Surgical Oncology and Thoracic Surgery, Mannheim University Medical Center, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Interdisciplinary Tumor Center, Sarcoma Unit, University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany. 5. Department of General Orthopedics and Tumor Orthopedics, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany. 6. The Scientific Institute of Office-Based Hematologists and Oncologists, Cologne, Germany. 7. National Center for Tumor Diseases, Dresden, Germany. 8. Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 9. Department of Oncology, Helios Hospital Emil von Behring, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sarcoma treatment is a complex and multidisciplinary process. Little is known about the actual status of sarcoma care in Germany. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated: (1) on an institutional level, which physician diagnosed and treated sarcomas; (2) whether guidelines and tumor board recommendations were routinely implemented; and (c) access to which diagnosis and treatment options was regarded as problematic. We also examined factors that were associated with access problems. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was employed among German sarcoma physicians between June 2017 and February 2018 with convenience sampling. RESULTS: Two hundred fourteen physicians participated; 46% were oncologists and 27% surgeons, 38% worked in hospitals of maximum care, 34% were office based and 27% worked in other hospitals, 68% of all of the physicians consulted established guidelines, and 93% presented their patients in multidisciplinary tumor boards. The most common access problems were: isolated limb perfusion (39%), deep-wave hyperthermia (33%), and FDG-PET (27%), and 42% reported no access problems at all. Those physicians who treat more than 100 patients per year reported "no access problems" more frequently compared to centers with lower patient numbers (vs. 0-10 patients, OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.61; vs. 11-100 patients, OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Access to multidisciplinary tumor boards seems to be largely guaranteed in the participants of our survey. The use of guidelines could be further implemented and expanded. The number of treated patients appears to be a significant factor to avoid access problems to treatment options.
BACKGROUND:Sarcoma treatment is a complex and multidisciplinary process. Little is known about the actual status of sarcoma care in Germany. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated: (1) on an institutional level, which physician diagnosed and treated sarcomas; (2) whether guidelines and tumor board recommendations were routinely implemented; and (c) access to which diagnosis and treatment options was regarded as problematic. We also examined factors that were associated with access problems. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was employed among German sarcoma physicians between June 2017 and February 2018 with convenience sampling. RESULTS: Two hundred fourteen physicians participated; 46% were oncologists and 27% surgeons, 38% worked in hospitals of maximum care, 34% were office based and 27% worked in other hospitals, 68% of all of the physicians consulted established guidelines, and 93% presented their patients in multidisciplinary tumor boards. The most common access problems were: isolated limb perfusion (39%), deep-wave hyperthermia (33%), and FDG-PET (27%), and 42% reported no access problems at all. Those physicians who treat more than 100 patients per year reported "no access problems" more frequently compared to centers with lower patient numbers (vs. 0-10 patients, OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.61; vs. 11-100 patients, OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Access to multidisciplinary tumor boards seems to be largely guaranteed in the participants of our survey. The use of guidelines could be further implemented and expanded. The number of treated patients appears to be a significant factor to avoid access problems to treatment options.
Authors: Martin Eichler; Dimosthenis Andreou; Henriette Golcher; Leopold Hentschel; Stephan Richter; Peter Hohenberger; Bernd Kasper; Daniel Pink; Jens Jakob; Hany Ashmawy; Simone Hettmer; Armin Tuchscherer; Matthias Grube; Vitali Heidt; Christina Jentsch; Jessica Pablik; Eva Wardelmann; Karl-Friedrich Kreitner; Ulrich Kneser; Carolin Tonus; Pauline Wimberger; Olaf Schoffer; Peter Reichardt; Markus Wartenberg; Maria Eberlein-Gonska; Martin Bornhäuser; Jochen Schmitt; Markus K Schuler Journal: Oncol Res Treat Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 2.825