1.Unmet Need for Palliative Care in Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Populations
Yi-Lun WANG ; Wan-Ju LEE ; Tsung-Yen CHANG ; Shih-Hsiang CHEN ; Chia-Chi CHIU ; Yi-Wen HSIAO ; Yu-Chuan WEN ; Tang-Her JAING
Clinical Pediatric Hematology-Oncology 2025;32(1):19-22
Background:
Delivering a poor prognosis to patients and their families is critically challenging in pediatric populations. The application of palliative care (PC) provides a bridge between accepting the occurrence of mortality and offering lifelong support.However, little is known about the specifics of PC. This study aims to explore the unmet need for PC in pediatric populations.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of mortality cases in the Department of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. Statistical tests, including Chi-square and Student’s t-tests, were applied to determine the differences between early and late intervention groups in terms of the timing of PC introduction.
Results:
During the study period, 41 patients were included. Their median age was 11.8 years (IQR, 7.6-15.9). The majority of the disease statuses were refractory or relapsing (R/R). The incidence of memento application was significantly higher in the early intervention group (47.6% vs. 10%, P=0.0081). Vital signs variations tended to be end-of-life (EoL) indicators in this study.
Conclusion
The early introduction of PC encourages families to accompany their beloved child. EoL signs in the pediatric population include vital sign variations. With the presence of relevant EoL signs, clinical physicians can apply PC earlier to meet the needs.
2.Unmet Need for Palliative Care in Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Populations
Yi-Lun WANG ; Wan-Ju LEE ; Tsung-Yen CHANG ; Shih-Hsiang CHEN ; Chia-Chi CHIU ; Yi-Wen HSIAO ; Yu-Chuan WEN ; Tang-Her JAING
Clinical Pediatric Hematology-Oncology 2025;32(1):19-22
Background:
Delivering a poor prognosis to patients and their families is critically challenging in pediatric populations. The application of palliative care (PC) provides a bridge between accepting the occurrence of mortality and offering lifelong support.However, little is known about the specifics of PC. This study aims to explore the unmet need for PC in pediatric populations.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of mortality cases in the Department of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. Statistical tests, including Chi-square and Student’s t-tests, were applied to determine the differences between early and late intervention groups in terms of the timing of PC introduction.
Results:
During the study period, 41 patients were included. Their median age was 11.8 years (IQR, 7.6-15.9). The majority of the disease statuses were refractory or relapsing (R/R). The incidence of memento application was significantly higher in the early intervention group (47.6% vs. 10%, P=0.0081). Vital signs variations tended to be end-of-life (EoL) indicators in this study.
Conclusion
The early introduction of PC encourages families to accompany their beloved child. EoL signs in the pediatric population include vital sign variations. With the presence of relevant EoL signs, clinical physicians can apply PC earlier to meet the needs.
3.Unmet Need for Palliative Care in Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Populations
Yi-Lun WANG ; Wan-Ju LEE ; Tsung-Yen CHANG ; Shih-Hsiang CHEN ; Chia-Chi CHIU ; Yi-Wen HSIAO ; Yu-Chuan WEN ; Tang-Her JAING
Clinical Pediatric Hematology-Oncology 2025;32(1):19-22
Background:
Delivering a poor prognosis to patients and their families is critically challenging in pediatric populations. The application of palliative care (PC) provides a bridge between accepting the occurrence of mortality and offering lifelong support.However, little is known about the specifics of PC. This study aims to explore the unmet need for PC in pediatric populations.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of mortality cases in the Department of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. Statistical tests, including Chi-square and Student’s t-tests, were applied to determine the differences between early and late intervention groups in terms of the timing of PC introduction.
Results:
During the study period, 41 patients were included. Their median age was 11.8 years (IQR, 7.6-15.9). The majority of the disease statuses were refractory or relapsing (R/R). The incidence of memento application was significantly higher in the early intervention group (47.6% vs. 10%, P=0.0081). Vital signs variations tended to be end-of-life (EoL) indicators in this study.
Conclusion
The early introduction of PC encourages families to accompany their beloved child. EoL signs in the pediatric population include vital sign variations. With the presence of relevant EoL signs, clinical physicians can apply PC earlier to meet the needs.
4.Unmet Need for Palliative Care in Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Populations
Yi-Lun WANG ; Wan-Ju LEE ; Tsung-Yen CHANG ; Shih-Hsiang CHEN ; Chia-Chi CHIU ; Yi-Wen HSIAO ; Yu-Chuan WEN ; Tang-Her JAING
Clinical Pediatric Hematology-Oncology 2025;32(1):19-22
Background:
Delivering a poor prognosis to patients and their families is critically challenging in pediatric populations. The application of palliative care (PC) provides a bridge between accepting the occurrence of mortality and offering lifelong support.However, little is known about the specifics of PC. This study aims to explore the unmet need for PC in pediatric populations.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of mortality cases in the Department of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. Statistical tests, including Chi-square and Student’s t-tests, were applied to determine the differences between early and late intervention groups in terms of the timing of PC introduction.
Results:
During the study period, 41 patients were included. Their median age was 11.8 years (IQR, 7.6-15.9). The majority of the disease statuses were refractory or relapsing (R/R). The incidence of memento application was significantly higher in the early intervention group (47.6% vs. 10%, P=0.0081). Vital signs variations tended to be end-of-life (EoL) indicators in this study.
Conclusion
The early introduction of PC encourages families to accompany their beloved child. EoL signs in the pediatric population include vital sign variations. With the presence of relevant EoL signs, clinical physicians can apply PC earlier to meet the needs.
5.Protective loop ileostomy or colostomy? A risk evaluation of all common complications
Yi-Wen YANG ; Sheng-Chieh HUANG ; Hou-Hsuan CHENG ; Shih-Ching CHANG ; Jeng-Kai JIANG ; Huann-Sheng WANG ; Chun-Chi LIN ; Hung-Hsin LIN ; Yuan-Tzu LAN
Annals of Coloproctology 2024;40(6):580-587
Purpose:
Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice.
Methods:
Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared.
Results:
There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542).
Conclusion
We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.
6.Protective loop ileostomy or colostomy? A risk evaluation of all common complications
Yi-Wen YANG ; Sheng-Chieh HUANG ; Hou-Hsuan CHENG ; Shih-Ching CHANG ; Jeng-Kai JIANG ; Huann-Sheng WANG ; Chun-Chi LIN ; Hung-Hsin LIN ; Yuan-Tzu LAN
Annals of Coloproctology 2024;40(6):580-587
Purpose:
Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice.
Methods:
Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared.
Results:
There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542).
Conclusion
We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.
7.Protective loop ileostomy or colostomy? A risk evaluation of all common complications
Yi-Wen YANG ; Sheng-Chieh HUANG ; Hou-Hsuan CHENG ; Shih-Ching CHANG ; Jeng-Kai JIANG ; Huann-Sheng WANG ; Chun-Chi LIN ; Hung-Hsin LIN ; Yuan-Tzu LAN
Annals of Coloproctology 2024;40(6):580-587
Purpose:
Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice.
Methods:
Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared.
Results:
There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542).
Conclusion
We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.
8.Protective loop ileostomy or colostomy? A risk evaluation of all common complications
Yi-Wen YANG ; Sheng-Chieh HUANG ; Hou-Hsuan CHENG ; Shih-Ching CHANG ; Jeng-Kai JIANG ; Huann-Sheng WANG ; Chun-Chi LIN ; Hung-Hsin LIN ; Yuan-Tzu LAN
Annals of Coloproctology 2024;40(6):580-587
Purpose:
Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice.
Methods:
Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared.
Results:
There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542).
Conclusion
We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.
9.Protective loop ileostomy or colostomy? A risk evaluation of all common complications
Yi-Wen YANG ; Sheng-Chieh HUANG ; Hou-Hsuan CHENG ; Shih-Ching CHANG ; Jeng-Kai JIANG ; Huann-Sheng WANG ; Chun-Chi LIN ; Hung-Hsin LIN ; Yuan-Tzu LAN
Annals of Coloproctology 2024;40(6):580-587
Purpose:
Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice.
Methods:
Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared.
Results:
There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542).
Conclusion
We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.
10.Management of ulcerative colitis in Taiwan: consensus guideline of the Taiwan Society of Inflammatory Bowel Disease updated in 2023
Hsu-Heng YEN ; Jia-Feng WU ; Horng-Yuan WANG ; Ting-An CHANG ; Chung-Hsin CHANG ; Chen-Wang CHANG ; Te-Hsin CHAO ; Jen-Wei CHOU ; Yenn-Hwei CHOU ; Chiao-Hsiung CHUANG ; Wen-Hung HSU ; Tzu-Chi HSU ; Tien-Yu HUANG ; Tsung-I HUNG ; Puo-Hsien LE ; Chun-Che LIN ; Chun-Chi LIN ; Ching-Pin LIN ; Jen-Kou LIN ; Wei-Chen LIN ; Yen-Hsuan NI ; Ming-Jium SHIEH ; I-Lun SHIH ; Chia-Tung SHUN ; Tzung-Jiun TSAI ; Cheng-Yi WANG ; Meng-Tzu WENG ; Jau-Min WONG ; Deng-Chyang WU ; Shu-Chen WEI
Intestinal Research 2024;22(3):213-249
Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract and is characterized by alternating periods of inflammation and remission. Although UC incidence is lower in Taiwan than in Western countries, its impact remains considerable, demanding updated guidelines for addressing local healthcare challenges and patient needs. The revised guidelines employ international standards and recent research, emphasizing practical implementation within the Taiwanese healthcare system. Since the inception of the guidelines in 2017, the Taiwan Society of Inflammatory Bowel Disease has acknowledged the need for ongoing revisions to incorporate emerging therapeutic options and evolving disease management practices. This updated guideline aims to align UC management with local contexts, ensuring comprehensive and context-specific recommendations, thereby raising the standard of care for UC patients in Taiwan. By adapting and optimizing international protocols for local relevance, these efforts seek to enhance health outcomes for patients with UC.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail