Impact of Lung Cancer Treatment on Cognitive Functioning.

The impact of oncologic treatment for (non)-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC and SCLC, respectively) on cognition is relevant when deciding which treatment is the most preferable option, especially when curation is not possible. A systematic search of Medline and EMBASE for studies on the effect of treatment on cognition in patients with lung cancer was performed. A total of 39 longitudinal articles were included. Study populations were heterogeneous with regards to stage and treatment type. In the 7 studies concerning SCLC, the median age of patients was between 59 and 68 years. Eighty-six percent of these studies had a loss to follow-up > 10%. Six studies used objective tests to assess cognition. Objective measurements showed a negative effect on attention, memory, and fluency after treatment. Thirty-three studies concerning NSCLC were included. The mean age of patients was between 53 and 77 years. Seventy percent of these studies included patients with stage III and IV NSCLC. Over one-half of the studies had a high rate of loss to follow-up. Eighty-eight percent used objective scales to assess cognitive functioning. Subjective decline of cognitive functioning up to 11.1% was experienced, with recovery at 4 to 6 months. Objective measurement of attention showed improvement over the course of chemotherapy. In SCLC, there is a significant negative effect on attention, memory, and fluency. In NSCLC, the longer term impact of treatment on both subjective and objective cognitive functioning appears limited. Thus, there is no evidence directing treatment choice for NSCLC based on longer term cognitive deficits. Further research is needed to precisely assess the impact of lung cancer treatment on cognition.

Structured pharmaceutical analysis of the Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing is an effective method for final-year medical students to improve polypharmacy skills: a randomized controlled trial.

Medical students may not be adequately trained to prescribe appropriately to older adults with polypharmacy. This study addressed how to teach students to minimize inappropriate polypharmacy. Final-year medical students (N = 106) from two Dutch schools of medicine participated in this randomized controlled trial with a pre/posttest design. The Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing (STRIP) was used as the intervention. This medication review tool consists of five steps and is part of the Dutch multidisciplinary guideline on polypharmacy. Step two is a structured pharmaceutical analysis of drug use, assessed using six questions regarding undertreatment, ineffective treatment, overtreatment, potential adverse effects, contraindications or interactions, and dose adjustments. It is used in combination with the Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment and the Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions checklists. Students were asked to optimize the medication lists of real people, making use, or not, of the STRIP. The number of correct or potentially harmful decisions that the students made when revising the lists was determined by comparison with expert consensus. Students who used the STRIP had better scores than control students; they made more correct decisions (9.3 vs 7.0, 34%; P < .001, correlation coefficient (r) = 0.365) and fewer potentially harmful decisions (3.9 vs 5.6, -30%; P < .001, r = 0.386). E-learning did not have a different effect from that of non-E-learning methods. Students were satisfied with the method. The STRIP method is effective in helping final-year medical students improve their prescribing skills.