Current state of sarcoma care in Germany

• Verfasst von: Eichler, Martin [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Hohenberger, Peter [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Kasper, Bernd [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Current state of sarcoma care in Germany
• Titelzusatz: results of an online survey of physicians
• Verf.angabe: Martin Eichler, Stephan Richter, Peter Hohenberger, Bernd Kasper, Dimosthenis Andreou, Vitali Heidt, Martin Bornhäuser, Jochen Schmitt, Markus K. Schuler
• E-Jahr: 2019
• Jahr: September 11, 2019
• Umfang: 10 S.
• Fussnoten: Gesehen am 19.02.2020
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Oncology research and treatment
• Ort Quelle: Basel : Karger, 2014
• Jahr Quelle: 2019
• Band/Heft Quelle: 42(2019), 11, Seite 589-598
• ISSN Quelle: 2296-5262
• DOI: doi:10.1159/000502758
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• K10plus-PPN: 1690387203

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.