Understanding communication between patients and healthcare professionals regarding comprehensive biomarker testing in precision oncology: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Precision oncology, using comprehensive biomarker testing (cBT) to inform individual cancer diagnosis, prognosis and treatment, includes increasingly complex technology and clinical data sets. People impacted by cancer (patients and caregivers) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) face distinct challenges in navigating the cBT and personalized treatment landscape. This review summarizes evidence regarding cBT-related communication between people impacted by cancer and HCPs and identifies important avenues for future research in precision oncology. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using records published in PubMed during January 2017-August 2022, focusing on the breadth of topics on patient-HCP communication and knowledge resources used by HCPs as guidance in cBT-related communication. Data were extracted from records meeting inclusion criteria, and findings were summarized according to main topics. RESULTS: The search identified 287 unique records and data were extracted from 42 records, including nine from expert input. Most records originated from the United States included patients with different types of cancer, and oncologists were the main HCPs. Patients' motivation for undergoing cBT and receiving results was generally high in different settings. However, patients' understanding of cBT-related concepts was limited, and their knowledge and information preferences changed based on cBT implications and significance to family members. HCPs were valued by patients as a trusted source of information. Limited evidence was available on HCPs' information-seeking behavior and factors influencing cBT-related knowledge and confidence, often self-reported as insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: Patient education by knowledgeable and confident HCPs, information management and a caring patient-HCP relationship communicating continuity of care regardless of cBT results are crucial to empower patients and shared decision-making in precision oncology. More data on the process and structure of cBT-related communication, distinction between and characterization of different timepoints of patient-HCP interactions are needed.

Priapism in a Patient with Rectal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Priapism is a very rare complication of malignancy and is usually accompanied by locally advanced or widely metastatic disease. We describe a case of priapism arising in a 46-year-old male with localised rectal cancer that was responding to therapy. CASE PRESENTATION: This patient had just completed two weeks of neoadjuvant, long-course chemoradiation when he presented with persistent painful penile erection. Assessment and diagnosis were delayed for more than 60 h, and although a cause could not be determined from imaging, a near complete radiological response of the primary rectal cancer was seen. His symptoms were refractory to urologic intervention and were associated with extreme psychological distress. He re-presented shortly thereafter with extensively metastatic disease in the lungs, liver, pelvis, scrotum, and penis; additionally, multiple venous thromboses were identified, including in the dorsal penile veins. His priapism was not reversible and was associated with a considerable symptom burden for the remainder of his life. His malignancy did not respond to first-line palliative chemotherapy or radiation, and his clinical course was further complicated by obstructive nephropathy, ileus, and genital skin breakdown with a suspected infection. We initiated comfort measures, and he ultimately died in hospital less than five months after his initial presentation. CONCLUSION: Priapism in cancer is usually related to tumour infiltration of the penis and corporal bodies resulting in poor venous and lymphatic drainage. The management is palliative and can include chemotherapy, radiation, surgical shunting, and potentially penectomy; however, conservative penis-sparing therapy may be reasonable in patients with limited life expectancy.

A Comparison of Patients' and Physicians' Knowledge and Expectations Regarding Precision Oncology Tests.

(1) Background: As genomic testing is becoming a part of the mainstream oncology practice, it is vital to ensure that our patients fully understand the implications of these tests. This study aimed to compare the attitudes and expectations of cancer patients with those of their physicians regarding the role of biomarker testing in clinical decision making. (2) Methods: Two separate, complimentary, self-administered questionnaires for patients with cancer and their physicians, respectively, were collected in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Out of 117, 113 completed patient surveys were included in the statistical analysis, constituting a 96.4% response rate. These surveys were subsequently matched with those of their corresponding oncologists to determine the concordance rates. (3) Results: Overall, patients demonstrated a good understanding of general cancer biology (80.0%) and diagnostic processes (90.0%) associated with precision oncology. Most patients wanted their tumours to be tested to guide treatment, and the oncologists broadly shared these views (concordance 65.1%). However, there were discrepancies between the knowledge and expectations regarding the applications of test results on actual diagnosis and prognosis between patients and their oncologists (concordance 26.1% and 36.0%, respectively). While only 28.0% of patients thought they had enough knowledge to make informed decisions, the majority (68.0%) said they needed more information. (4) Conclusion: Our study shows that patients and cancer physicians do not always agree with the roles and applications of genomic tests, which could lead to misplaced expectations and poor health outcomes. More research is needed to devise strategies to improve education and communication to align these expectations and improve the quality of clinical decision making.

Cancer Groundshot: Building a Robust Cancer Control Platform in Addition To Launching the Cancer Moonshot.

Cancer Groundshot is a philosophy that calls for prioritization of strategies in global cancer control. The underlying principle of Cancer Groundshot is that one must ensure access to interventions that are already proven to work before focusing on the development of new interventions. In this article, we discuss the philosophy of Cancer Groundshot as it pertains to priorities in cancer care and research in low- and middle-income countries and the utility of technology in addressing global cancer disparities; we also address disparities seen in high-income countries. The oncology community needs to realign our priorities and focus on improving access to high-value cancer control strategies, rather than allocating resources primarily to the development of technologies that provide only marginal gains at a high cost. There are several "low-hanging fruit" actions that will improve access to quality cancer care in low- and middle-income countries and in high-income countries. Worldwide, cancer morbidity and mortality can be averted by implementing highly effective, low-cost interventions that are already known to work, rather than investing in the development of resource-intensive interventions to which most patients will not have access (i.e., we can use Cancer Groundshot to first save more lives before we focus on the "moonshots").

Comparison of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Echocardiography in Assessment of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Fabry Disease.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac hypertrophy in Fabry disease can be assessed using the left ventricular mass index (LVMI) with either echocardiography (LVMI-ECHO) or magnetic resonance imaging (LVMI-CMR). METHODS: A retrospective case series of patients with Fabry disease in Alberta involved a cross-sectional analysis of 32 patients and a longitudinal analysis of 14 of these patients with at least 4 serial CMR measurements. RESULTS: The cross-sectional analysis showed the mean LVMI-ECHO was 97.8 ± 26.0 g/m2, which was higher compared with LVMI-CMR at 81.1 ± 26.9 g/m2 with a mean bias of 16.7 g/m2 (P < 0.001). In the longitudinal analysis, LVMI-ECHO was higher, with an estimated marginal mean of 96.21 ± 6.13 (mean ± standard error of the mean [SEM]) compared with 71.18 ± 5.99 for LVMI-CMR (P < 0.01; generalized estimating equations). There was an association between an increase in LVMI-CMR over time with the presence of cardiac fibrosis, and patients treated with enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) had slower increases than those without therapy. LVMI-ECHO failed to detect these associations owing to the higher variability and tendency to overestimate the LVMI. CONCLUSIONS: We propose the preferred method for measuring LVMI is CMR in patients with Fabry disease.

Comparative study of the ocular efficacy and safety of diclofenac sodium (0.1%) ophthalmic solution with that of ketorolac tromethamine (0.5%) ophthalmic solution in patients with acute seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC) is the most common and most prevalent of allergic disorders which afflict the ocular surface. Of the several treatments available, ophthalmic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, are generally very safe and tolerable. AIM: The aim of this study is to compare the ocular efficacy and safety of diclofenac sodium (0.1%) ophthalmic solution with that of ketorolac tromethamine (0.5%) ophthalmic solution in patients with acute SAC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with signs and symptoms of SAC were evaluated in an open, randomized, parallel group study. The principle symptoms (ocular itching, burning, discharge, photophobia) and signs (ocular inflammation, lid edema, chemosis, conjunctival mucous, keratitis) were evaluated. STUDY DESIGN: Patients were randomized into two groups of 30 each. Patients in group A received one drop of diclofenac sodium 0.1% and patients in group B received ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% in both the eyes four times a day for fourteen days. Evaluations were performed at day 0, 3, 7 and 14 of the therapy. At each visit, the signs and symptoms were rated using a scale from 0-3 (mild-1, moderate-2 and severe-3). RESULTS: Significant clinical and statistical reductions in signs and symptoms from baseline were observed in both groups. Diclofenac sodium 0.1% was superior to ketorolac tromethamine 0.5% in reducing ocular itching (P < 0.05) and ocular inflammation (P < 0.05), at the final examination. CONCLUSION: Diclofenac sodium showed statistically significant better results at day 3 and 7 compared to ketorolac.