View clinical trials related to Oncology.
Filter by:This registry will allow to evaluate the correlation of the incidence and evolution of associated symptoms of infection of COVID-19 with the biological and clinical parameters in patients followed in Oncology during the COVID-19 pandemic.
To evaluate the incidence of patients with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2, performed in the preoperative screening for patients treated at the institution
Since emerging in December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has developed into an unprecedented global pandemic. The causative pathogen, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has the potential to cause a wide range of clinical syndromes, from fever, dyspnoea and cough to respiratory failure and cardiac injury necessitating critical care support. A number of patients have a more indolent clinical course and can be safely managed in the community. Characterising the clinical course of Covid-19 infection in the oncology population and distinguishing this from other acute oncology presentations which can mimic Covid-19 is a key unmet research need. Current standard of care for monitoring patients at high risk of chemotherapy associated neutropenic sepsis involves asking them to contact their cancer centre when they feel unwell or develop a fever. No standard of care for monitoring ambulatory Covid-19 patients has yet been established. We hypothesise that using wearable biosensors to detect patients who exhibit 'red flags' for sepsis or deterioration due to Covid-19 may allow earlier assessment and intervention. There is no current evidence for wearable biosensors in ambulatory patients receiving chemotherapy, and there is no existing research into this proposed use of biosensors in patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 infection. In order to justify performing a randomised controlled study comparing standard of care with biosensor driven monitoring it is important to establish the tolerability and validity of these devices. We aim to collect patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) on tolerability and assess the reliability of data transmission to a central data collection server. We will also perform an initial analysis of physiological data and correlation with clinical events
The spread of cancer to the spine is referred to as spine metastasis. Spine metastases are a common complication of cancer and are frequently associated with significant back pain. This study is being done to help improve treatment for back pain caused by spinal metastases by comparing the effectiveness of two standard treatments. These two treatments include radiation therapy (RT) alone versus radiation therapy combined with radiofrequency ablation, with or without vertebral augmentation (PVA/RFA). In addition to RT or RT with PVA/RFA, will be continued with current pain medications.
EVIDENCE is a non interventional, French, multicenter study. Patients will be screened by local severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunoassay in their oncology department (rapid diagnostic test (RDT) or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)). In patients with positive local SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay, a centralized SARS-CoV-2 ELISA will be performed in order to double check the immune response of all patients considered immune by local immunoassay.
As long term totally implantable central venous access (TIVAPS) was increasingly needed in cancer patient, some modified techniques were introduced to improved the outcome and safety of the port implantation. In this modified technique, the prioritization were the safety and stability of catheter and port placement. Catheter was inserted to the cephalic vein in the deltopectoral groove, in which connected to the port pocket implanted in the anteromedial thorax. Connection was done by percutaenous and Seldinger technique by introducing a special trocar to ensure safety. Long term outcome was satisfactorily good by this technique without and major and minor events.
Healthcare associated infections linked to the use of indwelling medical devices increase hospital morbidity, mortality and the Intensive Care treatment costs. The essential strategy for mitigating these consequences are prompt source identifcation and control, with appropriate antimicrobial therapy initiation as soon as possible. Removing the source is one of the golden rule for infection control. Early identification of the responsible germs is the other major guiding element for the appropriate anti-infectious treatment. Despite multiple detection/identification methods, there are no clear recommendations for biofilm identification in clinical practice. The gold standard method is bacterial/fungal culturing, with disadvantages related to late results, especially for slow growing, fastidious germs or related to the existence of uncultivable strains. In order to obtain more sensitive, specific results and to increase the chances of better biofilm characterization, in the present study the investigators compare biofilm identification results obtained by standard cultivation methods with those by DNA amplification and next generation gene sequencing. The studied biofilm is associated to four criticallly ill oncological patients indwelling devices (endotracheal tube, central venous catheter, arterial catheter and urinary catheter).
The aim of the study is to assess psychological distress and co-morbidity as well as relevant sociodemographic, anthropometric, medical and functional data in patients treated at the Outpatient Clinic for Oncological Rehabilitation at the Department of Physical Medicine, Rehabilitation and Occupational Medicine at the Medical University of Vienna.
This is an open-label, multi-center, multi-national, non-randomized rollover study designed to allow continued access to napabucasin for patients who have participated in a Boston Biomedical-sponsored study and are being treated with napabucasin (monotherapy or combination) and who are deriving continued clinical benefit in the parent study at the time of closure.
Documenting cancer stage is the most important determinant of treatment approach and survival for cancer patients. However, oncologists do not routinely document a patient's cancer stage in the structured field in electronic health records. This quality improvement pilot study evaluated the impact of sending an email to physicians at a cancer center of a large academic hospital with individualized data on their rates of cancer stage documentation using a structured field. The investigators assessed patient-level documentation and physician-level rates of staging documentation over 15 months including a three-month pre-period, a six-month pilot phase and a six-month follow-up period. The investigators also estimated staging documentation rates separately for each physician's new versus established patients.