C8 INSTITUTIONAL VALIDATION OF THE JOINT ANMCO AND AIOM TUSCANY CLINICAL CARDIO–ONCOLOGY PATHWAY FOR THE CARDIOLOGY MANAGEMENT OF CANCER OUTPATIENTS

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Given the relevance and the growing complexity of the management of cardio–oncology (CO) outpatients, a common care pathway has been recently proposed by ANMCO and AIOM Tuscany. Materials and methods: The proposal: 1) defined 3 categories of patients to be entered into the pathway (A: known cardiac disease needing active oncology treatment; B: undergoing cancer treatments with potential cardiac toxicity; C: experiencing cardiac toxicity and/or worsening of cardiovascular risk profile); 2) proposed two standard request forms for oncology (ONCO) and hematology (HEM); 3) set the minimum requirements for a cardio–oncology path; 4) indicated follow–up strategies during and after oncological treatments. Given the short observation interval we focused on points 1 and 2. Medical records of all cancer patients for whom a CO examination was required were analized to check if proposed forms have been used and if cases fulfilled into appropriate categories. Observation period was retrospectively set to 1 year starting from October 2022. Minimum appropriateness threshold for each process index was set to 80%. Results A total of 480 requests for a CO visit were retrospectively identified, 322 out of 480 (67%) from medical oncology and 158 out of 480 (33%) from hematology units. Appropriate request form was used in 95% of cases (456 out of 480) with no difference between ONCO and HEM units. All patients but 20 (460 out of 480, 95.8%) fulfilled (at least) one of the 3 pre–defined categories with no difference between ONCO and HEM units. Categories distribution was: A group 25%, B group 60%, and C group 15%. Patients from medical oncology were more likely to belong to A and B groups while cases from hematology to B and C groups. Conclusions Our data indicate that minimum thresholds were met for both index 1 and 2 (with values that are approaching to 100%) so supporting the use of the proposed clinical CO pathway.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.