Search

Patients newly diagnosed with cancer often seek information prior to being seen by a specialist. Little is known about the type of information desired and the sources used. We asked how patients find information about their new cancer diagnoses to improve information provision. An anonymous seven-question survey was provided to new patients in the surgical and medical oncology clinics at a comprehensive cancer center from February 2021 to June 2021. Of 503 consecutive patients, 405 (81%) returned surveys; 49% female, 57% aged 51-75 y, and 71% Caucasian. Many (74%) sought information before their visit. Most (57%) relied on prior medical providers and 77% reported them as a trusted source. Nearly 80% of patients used at least one nonvalidated resource; 21% friends and relatives, 20% nongovernment or hospital resources, and 12% social media. Importantly, 23% found conflicting information. Respondents desired information on cancer treatment (58%), alternative therapies (35%), and nutrition and supplements (31%). Patients with cancer trust information from medical providers but seek information from a variety of sources that can provide conflicting information. These data support encouraging patients to use validated sources, providing robust organization-based resources, and engaging patients on topics such as alternative therapies and nutrition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Introduction: A child's risk of developing cancer from radiation exposure associated with computed tomography (CT) imaging is estimated to be as high as 1/500. Chest CT (CCT), often as part of a “pan-scan,” is increasingly performed after blunt trauma in children. We hypothesized that routine CCT for the initial evaluation of blunt injured children does not add clinically useful information beyond chest radiograph (CXR) and rarely changes management. Methods: Pediatric (<15 y) trauma team evaluations over 6 y at an academic Level I trauma center were reviewed. Demographic data, injuries, imaging, and management were identified for all patients undergoing CT. Effective radiation dose in milliSieverts (mSv) was calculated using age-adjusted scales. Results: Fifty-seven of 174 children (33%) undergoing CT imaging had a CCT; 55 (97%) of these had a CXR. Pathology was identified in significantly fewer CXRs compared with CCTs (51% versus 83%, P < 0.001). All 7/57 (12%) emergent or urgent chest interventions were based on information from CXR. In 53 children (93%), the CCT was ordered as part of a pan-scan, resulting in a radiation dose of 37.69 ± 7.80 mSv from initial CT scans. Radiation dose was significantly greater from CCT than from CXR (8.7 ± 1.1 mSv versus 0.017 ± 0.002 mSv, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Clinically useful information found on CCT had good correlation to information obtained from CXR and did not change patient management, however, did add significantly to the radiation exposure of initial imaging. We recommend selective use of CCT, particularly in the presence of an abnormal mediastinal silhouette on CXR after a significant deceleration injury. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]