No abstract

16027 Background: As a result of the improvement in oncological treatments, MPCA could arise as a more frequent problem in Public Health. The purpose of this retrospective review was to estimate both the incidence and medical features of MPCA pts treated at the Instituto Oncológico Henry Moore (IOHM). Methods: We analyzed 17,100 medical charts from our database since 1987 and identified 378 MPC (2,21%). Then we retrieved data over the last eight years (1997–2005). Those pts with at least two second primary tumors were included in this analysis. They were categorized as synchronous (second tumor diagnosis within the first six months from the first one) and metachronous (all the remaining). Pts with skin cancer different from melanoma were excluded. Results: One hundred and seventy eight (M:73; F:105) out of 8,500 cancer pts (2.09%) had at least two primary cancers. Median age was 59, 64 and 68 yo at the moment of the first, second and third diagnosis, respectively. In 138 (78%) pts, the diagnosis of the second cancer was suspected by clinical findings, while in 40 (22%) pts, it was discovered because of medical screening in an otherwise asymptomatic pt. (See Table below) The most frequent site combination was breast-breast (n = 21). A total of 57 pts (32%) had a family history of oncologic diseases. With a median follow-up of 31 mo (range: 0,57–311) after the second cancer diagnosis, 127 pts are still alive (71,35%) and 51 (28,65%) are dead. Conclusions: In the last eight years, 178 (2.09%) pts had developed MPC, being breast, prostate, colon and lung the most frequent (first and later) localizations, and breast-breast the most frequent site combination. The so-called “screening effect” seems to have a low impact on the studied population. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

No abstract

6596 Background: The oncological day hospital (ODH) at IOHM carries out 80 chemotherapies per day with 6 certified oncological nurses as staff. Human resources allocation in oncology has not been formally studied in relation to treatment risks. The objective of this paper is to present a risk assessment model for the rational allocation for human resources in the ODH using the KGD scale. Methods: The KGD scale was designed through a retrospective evaluation of more than 15,000 treatments (Tx). Between November 1st and December 1st, 2012, this instrument was validated with all new patients (Pt) beginning Tx at IOHM. The KGD scale evaluates risk according to: Five Pt characteristics (Elderly, Polymedicated, Without symptom control, Neuropsychiatric problems, Presence or absence of family members); Four Tx characteristics (New drugs, Complex protocol, High risk of acute toxicity, Infrequently used) and workplace context(New personnel, Holiday absences, With or without close medical support). The KGD scale was determined for each Tx and applied as follows: Low Risk (0-3 points): two nurses in the ODH, supervision is at the patient’s request and the chemotherapy can be administered at the beginning or end of the workday; Intermediate Risk (4-5 points): three nurses in the ODH, supervision is mandatory and the treatment can take place at any time in the workday; High Risk(6 or more points): four nurses in the ODH, supervision must be constant and the Tx must take place in the middle of the workday. The chemotherapy outcome was observed. Results: One hundred and thirty patients were admitted. Sex fem 74 (59%), male 56 (41%): age: 49y (range 22-87). Diagnosis: breast 40, colon: 21, lung: 16, ovaries:11, lymphoma: 11, testis:7, sarcoma: 5 ; others: 19 KGD risk assessment: Low Risk 25 pts (19 %); Intermediate Risk 77 pts (59%); High Risk 28 pts (21%). There were no complications in any of the 312 chemotherapy treatments administered to this cohort. Conclusions: 1) The KGD scale has shown to be a useful aid in the treatment risk assessment. 2) Use of the KGD scale allows for an efficient personnel allocation at the ODH according the Tx risk 3) The academic qualification of the nurses staff are mandatory to control the risk.

No abstract