Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Prognostication in Metastatic Solid Tumours: Medical Community General Knowledge
  1. Rita Gameiro-Santos1,
  2. Isabel G Fernandes1 and
  3. Paulo Luz2
  1. 1Medical Oncology, Centro Hospitalar Barreiro-Montijo, Barreiro, Portugal
  2. 2Medical Oncology, Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Algarve, Faro, Portugal
  1. Correspondence to Dr Rita Gameiro-Santos, CHBM, Barreiro, Portugal; ritagameiros{at}gmail.com

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Oncology is going through the most intense and fastest innovation period in the history of medicine.1 For doctors from all specialties, it can be a challenge to keep up with all this new information. Basic knowledge of the prognosis of oncological diseases, particularly in the metastatic/palliative setting, can be crucial in decision making2 by the medical community, especially in the emergency department. It is important to avoid making decisions based on an unrealistic forecast, whether optimistic or pessimistic. To the best of our knowledge, there is no data on Portuguese doctors’ understanding of cancer prognosis.

We performed a basic analysis to assess the medical community’s general knowledge of the prognosis of the three most prevalent …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors RG-S conceived the presented idea. RG-S and IGF designed the method of the analysis. RG-S wrote the first proposal after PL verified the analytical methods and supervised the findings of this work. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.