Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 6.718
Filter
1.
JNCI Cancer Spectr ; 8(3)2024 Apr 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38825338

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Industry payments to US cancer centers are poorly understood. METHODS: US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers were identified (n = 51). Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers from 2014 to 2021 were obtained from Open Payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). Given our focus on cancer centers, we measured the subset of industry payments related to cancer drugs specifically and the subset of NIH funding from the NCI. RESULTS: Despite a pandemic-related decline in 2020-2021, cancer-related industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased from $482 million in 2014 to $972 million in 2021. Over the same period, NCI research grant funding increased from $2 481  million to $2 724  million. The large majority of nonresearch payments were royalties and licensing payments. CONCLUSION: Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased substantially more than NCI funding in recent years but were also more variable. These trends raise concerns regarding the influence and instability of industry payments.


Subject(s)
Cancer Care Facilities , Drug Industry , National Cancer Institute (U.S.) , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Research Support as Topic , United States , Humans , National Cancer Institute (U.S.)/economics , Drug Industry/economics , Drug Industry/trends , Research Support as Topic/trends , Research Support as Topic/economics , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , Cancer Care Facilities/economics , Conflict of Interest/economics , Antineoplastic Agents/economics , Neoplasms/economics
2.
Multimedia | Multimedia Resources | ID: multimedia-13174

ABSTRACT

O INCA de Portas Abertas irá apresentar o Instituto, a atuação de profissionais de diferentes áreas do INCA e de seus alunos dos cursos técnicos, programas de residência, mestrado e doutorado, divulgando relevantes informações sobre saúde e oncologia para profissionais e estudantes que possuem interesse nos programas de ensino da instituição.


Subject(s)
Cancer Care Facilities , Hospitals, Teaching , Neoplasms
3.
PLoS One ; 19(5): e0303157, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38722943

ABSTRACT

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the overall satisfaction with oncological care, including barriers to care, and identified its associated predictors among adult cancer patients in Vietnam. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we enrolled 300 adult cancer patients receiving inpatient care at a large urban oncological hospital between June and July 2022. Multivariable linear regression analyses examined associations between patient experiences and overall satisfaction ratings with cancer care. RESULTS: The mean overall satisfaction with oncological care was 8.82 out of 10, with 98.0% recommending this facility to their friends and family. In an adjusted model, being female (ß = 0.29, 95%CI: 0.04, 0.53), endorsing satisfaction with patient-nurse communication (ß = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.13, 0.53), patient-doctor communication (ß = 0.40, 95%CI: 0.11, 0.70), and psychoeducation about oncological medication management (ß = 0.30, 95%CI: 0.14, 0.45) were positively associated with overall ratings. In contrast, individuals with delays in treatment scheduling reported lower overall satisfaction with oncological care (ß = -0.38, 95%CI: -0.64, -0.13). Patients perceived health system, social/environmental, and individual barriers to care: worries about income loss due to attending treatment (43.3%); fear, depression, anxiety, and distress (36.8%); concerns about affordability of treatment (36.7%) and transportation problems (36.7%); and excessive waiting times for appointments (28.8%). CONCLUSION: This study showed high overall patient satisfaction with cancer care quality. Patient-centered communication strategies and psychoeducation about oncological medication management may be targeted to further enhance the cancer inpatient experience. Raising awareness about treatment options and services, and integrating mental health awareness into oncological care may ameliorate patient distress and facilitate greater satisfaction with oncological treatment processes.


Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Patient Satisfaction , Humans , Female , Male , Vietnam , Middle Aged , Patient Satisfaction/statistics & numerical data , Neoplasms/therapy , Neoplasms/psychology , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Aged , Cancer Care Facilities , Health Services Accessibility
4.
J Nucl Med ; 65(Suppl 1): 54S-63S, 2024 May 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38719233

ABSTRACT

In recent decades, researchers worldwide have directed their efforts toward enhancing the quality of PET imaging. The detection sensitivity and image resolution of conventional PET scanners with a short axial field of view have been constrained, leading to a suboptimal signal-to-noise ratio. The advent of long-axial-field-of-view PET scanners, exemplified by the uEXPLORER system, marked a significant advancement. Total-body PET imaging possesses an extensive scan range of 194 cm and an ultrahigh detection sensitivity, and it has emerged as a promising avenue for improving image quality while reducing the administered radioactivity dose and shortening acquisition times. In this review, we elucidate the application of the uEXPLORER system at the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, including the disease distribution, patient selection workflow, scanning protocol, and several enhanced clinical applications, along with encountered challenges. We anticipate that this review will provide insights into routine clinical practice and ultimately improve patient care.


Subject(s)
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography , Whole Body Imaging , Humans , Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography/methods , Whole Body Imaging/methods , Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Tertiary Care Centers , Cancer Care Facilities , Image Processing, Computer-Assisted/methods
5.
BMC Cancer ; 24(1): 647, 2024 May 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38802773

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is an important indicator of the quality of healthcare. Pain is one of the most common symptoms among cancer patients that needs optimal treatment; rather, it compromises the quality of life of patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the levels and associated factors of satisfaction with cancer pain treatment among adult patients at cancer centers found in Northern Ethiopia in 2023. METHODS: After obtaining ethical approval, a multi-center cross-sectional study was conducted at four cancer care centers in northern Ethiopia. The data were collected using an interviewer-administered structured questionnaire that included the Lubeck Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (LMSQ). The severity of pain was assessed by a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10 with a pain score of 0 = no pain, 1-3 = mild pain, 4-6 = moderate pain, and 7-10 = severe pain Binary logistic regression analysis was employed, and the strength of association was described in an adjusted odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval. RESULT: A total of 397 cancer patients participated in this study, with a response rate of 98.3%. We found that 70.3% of patients were satisfied with their cancer pain treatment. Being married (AOR = 5.6, CI = 2.6-12, P < 0.001) and being single (never married) (AOR = 3.5, CI = 1.3-9.7, P = 0.017) as compared to divorced, receiving adequate pain management (AOR = 2.4, CI = 1.1-5.3, P = 0.03) as compared to those who didn't receive it, and having lower pain severity (AOR = 2.6, CI = 1.5-4.8, P < 0.001) as compared to those who had higher level of pain severity were found to be associated with satisfaction with cancer pain treatment. CONCLUSION: The majority of cancer patients were satisfied with cancer pain treatment. Being married, being single (never married), lower pain severity, and receiving adequate pain management were found to be associated with satisfaction with cancer pain treatment. It would be better to enhance the use of multimodal analgesia in combination with strong opioids to ensure adequate pain management and lower pain severity scores.


Subject(s)
Cancer Pain , Patient Satisfaction , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Male , Female , Ethiopia/epidemiology , Cancer Pain/drug therapy , Cancer Pain/psychology , Middle Aged , Adult , Patient Satisfaction/statistics & numerical data , Pain Management/methods , Surveys and Questionnaires , Quality of Life , Aged , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Neoplasms/psychology , Young Adult , Pain Measurement , Cancer Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent
6.
Curr Oncol ; 31(5): 2376-2392, 2024 04 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38785458

ABSTRACT

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) offer a diverse array of potential applications within medical research and clinical practice. In comparative research, they can serve as tools for delineating the trajectories of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) across various cancer types. We undertook a secondary data analysis of a cohort of 1498 hospitalized cancer patients from 13 German cancer centers. We assessed the Physical and Mental Component Scores (PCS and MCS) of the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey at baseline (t0), 6 (t1), and 12 months (t2), using multivariable generalized linear regression models. At baseline, the mean PCS and MCS values for all cancer patients were 37.1 and 44.3 points, respectively. We observed a significant improvement in PCS at t2 and in MCS at t1. The most substantial and significant improvements were noted among patients with gynecological cancers. We found a number of significant differences between cancer types at baseline, t1, and t2, with skin cancer patients performing best across all time points and lung cancer patients performing the worst. MCS trajectories showed less pronounced changes and differences between cancer types. Comparative analyses of HRQoL scores across different cancer types may serve as a valuable tool for enhancing health literacy, both among the general public and among cancer patients themselves.


Subject(s)
Hospitalization , Neoplasms , Quality of Life , Humans , Female , Male , Germany , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/psychology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Adult , Data Analysis , Cancer Care Facilities , Secondary Data Analysis
8.
Sci Rep ; 14(1): 12356, 2024 05 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38811661

ABSTRACT

Assessing unmet needs is crucial to achieving quality care and patient satisfaction. Between September and December 2021, we assessed unmet supportive care needs in a consecutive sample of adult survivors of childhood cancer at KHCC (King Hussien Cancer Center). Two hundred and ninety-seven adult survivors of childhood cancer completed the study questionnaire. The average needs score across all domains was 24.80 (SD = 19.65), with the financial domain scoring the highest 30.39 (SD = 31.95) and sexuality scoring the lowest 7.67 (SD = 19.67). Using a multivariate linear regression model, female gender was independently associated with significantly high scores in all need domains (p < 0.001), except for sexuality. Monthly income, comorbidities, socioeconomic challenges, time since diagnosis, and age at diagnosis have emerged as predictors of needs in many domains. Mean quality of life (QoL) was significantly and inversely associated with the mean score in multiple domains: psychological (p < 0.001), sexuality (p = 0.038), financial (p < 0.001), and overall needs (p = 0.004). Following a content analysis of qualitative data, educational difficulties, and work-related challenges were identified as other unmet needs. Cancer experiences during childhood significantly influence supportive care needs in adulthood. There is a need for more tailored studies assessing different populations of cancer survivors and avoiding the one-size-fits-all survivorship care.


Subject(s)
Cancer Survivors , Neoplasms , Quality of Life , Humans , Male , Female , Cancer Survivors/psychology , Adult , Neoplasms/psychology , Neoplasms/therapy , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult , Middle East/epidemiology , Adolescent , Child , Middle Aged , Cancer Care Facilities , Health Services Needs and Demand
9.
Support Care Cancer ; 32(5): 321, 2024 May 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38691178

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous impact on the experiences of patients across all health disciplines, especially those of cancer patients. The study aimed to understand the experiences of cancer patients who underwent surgery during the first two waves of the pandemic at Guy's Cancer Centre, which is a large tertiary cancer centre in London. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was adopted for this study. Firstly, a survey was co-designed by the research team and a patient study group. Patients who underwent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic were invited to take part in this survey. Results were analysed descriptively. Three discussion groups were then conducted to focus on the main themes from the survey findings: communication, COVID-19 risk management and overall experience. These discussion groups were transcribed verbatim and underwent a thematic analysis using the NVivo software package. RESULTS: Out of 1657 patients invited, a total of 250 (15%) participants took part in the survey with a mean age of 66 (SD 12.8) and 52% females. The sample was representative of a wide range of tumour sites and was reflective of those invited to take part. Overall, the experience of the cancer patients was positive. They felt that the safety protocols implemented at the hospital were effective. Communication was considered key, and patients were receptive to a change in the mode of communication from in-person to virtual. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the immense challenges faced by our Cancer Centre, patients undergoing surgery during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic had a generally positive experience with minimal disruptions to their planned surgery and ongoing care. Together with the COVID-19 safety precautions, effective communication between the clinical teams and the patients helped the overall patient experience during their surgical treatment.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Male , London , Neoplasms/surgery , Aged , Middle Aged , Surveys and Questionnaires , Cancer Care Facilities/organization & administration , Communication , Aged, 80 and over , Adult
10.
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol ; 150(5): 250, 2024 May 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38727842

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: In 2018, the first guideline-based quality indicators (QI) for vulvar cancer were implemented in the data-sheets of certified gynaecological cancer centres. The certification process includes guideline-based QIs as a fundamental component. These indicators are specifically designed to evaluate the level of care provided within the centres. This article aims to give an overview of the developing process of guideline based-QIs for women with vulvar cancer and presents the QIs results from the certified gynaecological cancer centres. METHODS: The QIs were derived in a standardized multiple step process during the update of the 2015 S2k guideline "Diagnosis, Therapy, and Follow-Up Care of Vulvar Cancer and its Precursors" (registry-number: no. 015/059) and are based on strong recommendations. RESULTS: In total, there are eight guideline-based QIs for vulvar cancer. Four QIs are part of the certification process. In the treatment year 2021, 2.466 cases of vulvar cancer were treated in 177 centres. The target values in the centres for pathology reports on tumour resection and lymphadenectomy as well as sentinel lymph nodes have increased since the beginning of the certification process and have been above 90% over the past three treatment years (2019-2021). DISCUSSION: QIs based on strong guideline recommendations, play a crucial role in measuring and allowing to quantify essential aspects of patient care. By utilizing QIs, centres are able to identify areas for process optimization and draw informed conclusions. Over the years the quality of treatment of vulvar cancer patients measured by the QIs was improved. The certification system is continuously reviewed to enhance patient care even further by using the outcomes from QIs revaluation.


Subject(s)
Quality Indicators, Health Care , Vulvar Neoplasms , Female , Humans , Vulvar Neoplasms/therapy , Vulvar Neoplasms/diagnosis , Quality Indicators, Health Care/standards , Germany , Certification/standards , Cancer Care Facilities/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards
11.
PLoS One ; 19(5): e0301378, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38771827

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In Ghana, breast cancer remains the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer deaths among women. The cost of treating cancer is huge and poses a great challenge for patients, their families, and health care systems. While comprehensive studies have been conducted on the economic burden of cancers in developed economies such as the EU and the US, there are limited studies in Africa, and Ghana, in particular. This study quantitatively assessed Ghana's direct and indirect costs of breast cancer treatment. METHODS: Primary data were collected using a questionnaire administered to 217 breast cancer patients at the Korle-Bu and Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospitals, Ghana's two leading hospitals, and Sweden Ghana Medical Centre. Direct and indirect costs were computed using the Cost-of-Illness Approach. Quantitative analysis was done using multivariate linear regression. RESULTS: The findings showed that the breast cancer patients studied paid a median amount of Ghana cedis (GHC) 31,021.0 (IQR; 25,262.5-42,147.0), approximating USD 5,500.2 (IQR: 4,477.0-7,469.2 USD) for their treatment within one year of active treatment in 2019. About 61.9% (95% CI: 61.8-62.0%) of this cost was direct cost, while the remaining 38.1% (95% CI: 38.0-38.1%) was indirect cost. Patients who sought care from public facilities for breast cancer paid a median amount of GHC 29,606.3 (USD 5,249.3), while those who sought care from private facilities paid GHC 55,071.2 (USD 9,744.4). Findings from the multivariate linear regression indicate that being married/cohabiting, divorced/separated and having tertiary level education predicted higher cost of breast cancer treatment while patients on retirement and patients in the middle stage (Stage II) of breast cancer diagnoses were associated with lower cost of breast cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of breast cancer treatment poses a significant burden on patients and their families. There is a need for increased public funding for breast cancer treatment to reduce the huge economic burden its treatment poses for patients and their families.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Humans , Ghana/epidemiology , Female , Breast Neoplasms/economics , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Middle Aged , Adult , Aged , Cost of Illness , Health Care Costs , Surveys and Questionnaires , Cancer Care Facilities/economics
12.
Can J Surg ; 67(3): E206-E213, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38692680

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although robotic surgery has several advantages over other minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques for rectal cancer surgery, the uptake in Canada has been limited owing to a perceived increase in cost and lack of training. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of access to robotic surgery in a Canadian setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving consecutive adults undergoing surgical resection for rectal cancer between 2017 and 2020. The primary exposure was access to robotic surgery. Outcomes included MIS utilization, short-term outcomes, total cost of care, and quality of surgical resection. We completed univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: We included 171 individuals in this cohort study (85 in the prerobotic period and 86 in the robotic period). The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics. A higher proportion of individuals underwent successful MIS in the robotic phase (86% v. 46%, p < 0.001). Other benefits included a shorter mean length of hospital stay (5.1 d v. 9.2 d, p < 0.001). The quality of surgical resection was similar between groups. The total cost of care was $16 746 in the robotic period and $18 808 in the prerobotic period (mean difference -$1262, 95% confidence interval -$4308 to $1783; p = 0.4). CONCLUSION: Access to robotic rectal cancer surgery increased successful completion of MIS and shortened hospital stay, with a similar total cost of care. Robotic rectal cancer surgery can enhance patient outcomes in the Canadian setting.


Subject(s)
Rectal Neoplasms , Robotic Surgical Procedures , Humans , Robotic Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Robotic Surgical Procedures/economics , Retrospective Studies , Rectal Neoplasms/surgery , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Aged , Canada , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Cancer Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data
13.
JAMA Netw Open ; 7(5): e249474, 2024 May 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38696166

ABSTRACT

Importance: The National Cancer Institute comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) lack spatial and temporal evaluation of their self-designated catchment areas. Objective: To identify disparities in cancer stage at diagnosis within and outside a CCC's catchment area across a 10-year period using spatial and statistical analyses. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional, population-based study conducted between 2010 and 2019 utilized cancer registry data for the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel CCC (SKCCC). Eligible participants included patients with cancer in the contiguous US who received treatment for cancer, a diagnosis of cancer, or both at SKCCC. Patients were geocoded to zip code tabulation areas (ZCTAs). Individual-level variables included sociodemographic characteristics, smoking and alcohol use, treatment type, cancer site, and insurance type. Data analysis was performed between March and July 2023. Exposures: Distance between SKCCC and ZCTAs were computed to generate a catchment area of the closest 75% of patients and outer zones in 5% increments for comparison. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was cancer stage at diagnosis, defined as early-stage, late-stage, or unknown stage. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine associations of catchment area with stage at diagnosis. Results: This study had a total of 94 007 participants (46 009 male [48.94%] and 47 998 female [51.06%]; 30 195 aged 22-45 years [32.12%]; 4209 Asian [4.48%]; 2408 Hispanic [2.56%]; 16 004 non-Hispanic Black [17.02%]; 69 052 non-Hispanic White [73.45%]; and 2334 with other or unknown race or ethnicity [2.48%]), including 47 245 patients (50.26%) who received a diagnosis of early-stage cancer, 19 491 (20.73%) who received a diagnosis of late-stage cancer , and 27 271 (29.01%) with unknown stage. Living outside the main catchment area was associated with higher odds of late-stage cancers for those who received only a diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.10-2.05) or only treatment (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.28-1.61) at SKCCC. Non-Hispanic Black patients (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.23) and those with Medicaid (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.46-1.86) and no insurance at time of treatment (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.79-2.51) also had higher odds of receiving a late-stage cancer diagnosis. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of CCC data from 2010 to 2019, patients residing outside the main catchment area, non-Hispanic Black patients, and patients with Medicaid or no insurance had higher odds of late-stage diagnoses. These findings suggest that disadvantaged populations and those living outside of the main catchment area of a CCC may face barriers to screening and treatment. Care-sharing agreements among CCCs could address these issues.


Subject(s)
Cancer Care Facilities , Catchment Area, Health , Neoplasm Staging , Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Male , Middle Aged , Cross-Sectional Studies , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Cancer Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , Catchment Area, Health/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Healthcare Disparities/statistics & numerical data , United States , Registries
14.
Arch Microbiol ; 206(6): 250, 2024 May 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38722362

ABSTRACT

The widespread evolution of phenotypic resistance in clinical isolates over the years, coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic onset, has exacerbated the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance. This study aimed to explore changes in bacterial infection patterns and antimicrobial resistance during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study involved the periods before and during COVID-19: the pre-pandemic and pandemic eras. The surveillance results of bacterial isolates causing infections in cancer patients at an Egyptian tertiary oncology hospital were retrieved. The Vitek®2 or Phoenix systems were utilized for species identification and susceptibility testing. Statistical analyses were performed comparing microbiological trends before and during the pandemic. Out of 2856 bacterial isolates, Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) predominated (69.7%), and Gram-positive bacteria (GPB) comprised 30.3% of isolates. No significant change was found in GNB prevalence during the pandemic (P = 0.159). Elevated rates of Klebsiella and Pseudomonas species were demonstrated during the pandemic, as was a decrease in E. coli and Acinetobacter species (P < 0.001, 0.018, < 0.001, and 0.046, respectively) in hematological patients. In surgical patients, Enterobacteriaceae significantly increased (P = 0.012), while non-fermenters significantly decreased (P = 0.007). GPB species from either hematological or surgical wards exhibited no notable changes during the pandemic. GNB resistance increased in hematological patients to carbapenems, amikacin, and tigecycline and decreased in surgical patients to amikacin and cefoxitin (P < 0.001, 0.010, < 0.001, < 0.001, and 0.016, respectively). The study highlights notable shifts in the microbial landscape during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in the prevalence and resistance patterns of GNB in hematological and surgical wards.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents , COVID-19 , Drug Resistance, Bacterial , SARS-CoV-2 , Tertiary Care Centers , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Tertiary Care Centers/statistics & numerical data , Egypt/epidemiology , Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Neoplasms , Microbial Sensitivity Tests , Bacterial Infections/epidemiology , Bacterial Infections/microbiology , Bacterial Infections/drug therapy , Gram-Negative Bacteria/drug effects , Gram-Negative Bacteria/isolation & purification , Bacteria/drug effects , Bacteria/isolation & purification , Bacteria/classification , Gram-Positive Bacteria/drug effects , Gram-Positive Bacteria/isolation & purification , Cancer Care Facilities , Pandemics
15.
BMJ Open ; 14(4): e082930, 2024 Apr 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38594187

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Although demand and supply of cancer care have been rapidly increasing in recent decades, there is a lack of systemic quality measurement for cancer hospitals in China. This study aimed to develop a set of core indicators for measuring quality of care for cancer hospitals in China. DESIGN: The development of quality indicators was based on a literature review and a two-round modified Delphi survey. The theoretical framework and initial indicators were identified through the comprehensive literature review, and the selection of quality indicators relied on experts' consensus on the importance and feasibility of indicators by the modified Delphi process. In addition, indicator weight was identified using the analytical hierarchical process method and percentage weight method. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A panel of leading experts including oncologists, cancer care nurses, quality management experts from various regions of China were invited to participate in the two-round modified Delphi process from October to December 2020. A total of 25 experts completed the two-round modified Delphi process. RESULTS: The experts reached consensus on a set of 47 indicators, comprising 17 structure indicators, 19 process indicators and 11 outcome indicators. Experts gave much higher weight to outcome indicators (accounting for 53.96% relative weight) than to structure (16.34%) and process (29.70%) indicators. In addition, experts also showed concerns and gave suggestions on data availability of specific outcome indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Drawing on the comprehensive literature review and the modified Delphi process, this study developed a core set of quality indicators that can be used to evaluate quality performance of cancer hospitals. This is helpful in supporting quality cancer care in China and will provide new insights into the systemic measurement of cancer care internationally.


Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Humans , Cancer Care Facilities , Delphi Technique , Quality of Health Care , China , Neoplasms/therapy
16.
Cancer Prev Res (Phila) ; 17(4): 133-140, 2024 Apr 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38562091

ABSTRACT

This article describes some of the key prevention services in the Leon Berard Comprehensive Cancer Center (CLB) Lyon, France, which are based on clinical prevention services, outreach activities, and collaboration with professional and territorial health communities. In addition, research is embedded at all stages of the prevention continuum, from understanding cancer causes through to the implementation of prevention interventions during and after cancer. Health promotion activities in the community and dedicated outpatient primary cancer prevention services for individuals at increased risk have been implemented. The CLB's experience illustrates how prevention can be integrated into the comprehensive mission of cancer centers, and how in turn, the cancer centers may contribute to bridging the current fragmentation between cancer care and the different components of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. With increasing cancer incidence, the shift toward integrated prevention-centered cancer care is not only key for improving population health, but this may also provide a response to the shortage of hospital staff and overcrowding in cancer services, as well as offer opportunities to reduce carbon emissions from cancer care.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care , Neoplasms , Humans , Neoplasms/prevention & control , France/epidemiology , Cancer Care Facilities
17.
Cancer Rep (Hoboken) ; 7(4): e2055, 2024 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38577715

ABSTRACT

AIM: Sleep disorders are common in cancer patients and have negative consequences for patient well-being and treatment outcomes. This study aimed to investigate sleep quality and related factors in Vietnamese middle-aged cancer patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 246 middle-aged in-patient cancer patients at Vietnam National Cancer Hospital (VNCH) from 1/2021 to 7/2021. Sleep was measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), with a cutoff of 5. RESULTS: The results showed a male/female ratio of 0.85 with an average age of 52. The five most prevalent cancer types were breast, colorectal, lung, and esophagus-stomach cancer, primarily in the late stage and treated with chemotherapy. The prevalence of sleep disturbances was 58.5%. The mean PSQI score was 7.5, with sleep duration and latency of 5.4 h and 1 h, respectively. Approximately 44% of participants reported poor sleep quality, nearly 9% had daytime dysfunction, and 10.6% used sleep medication. The multivariate logistic regression results indicate that people with depression were 8.89 times more likely to have poor sleep than those without depression (95% CI:2.63-28.27, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Sleep problems are common among middle-aged people with cancer in Vietnam, especially individuals with depression. It is necessary to have more effective approaches to sleep management for cancer patients with limited resources.


Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Sleep Wake Disorders , Middle Aged , Humans , Male , Female , Cross-Sectional Studies , Vietnam/epidemiology , Cancer Care Facilities , Sleep , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Sleep Wake Disorders/epidemiology , Sleep Wake Disorders/etiology
18.
BMC Cancer ; 24(1): 539, 2024 Apr 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38679710

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is no updated national data regarding the real impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on delaying diagnosis and treatment among patients with lung, and head, and neck cancers in Brazil. This study aimed to analyze the COVID-19 pandemic impact on cancer diagnosis and clinical outcomes among lung, head, and neck cancer patients assisted in a tertiary cancer center in Southeastern Brazil, as well as to analyze these patients' pretreatment clinical features. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of patients with lung or head and neck cancer assisted in a tertiary cancer center in southeastern Brazil between January/2019 and December/2021. To assess statistical differences among groups [i.e., cohort 2019 versus (vs.) 2020 and 2019 vs. 2021] chi-square test was used with a 5% significance level and 90% power for sample size calculation. Differences among baseline clinical features and sociodemographic characteristics were evaluated either by T-test for two samples or Fisher's or Pearson's chi-square test (for quantitative or qualitative variables). All utilized tests had a 5% significance level. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-two patients were included, 332 with lung and 320 with head and neck cancer; it was observed a significant decrease in oncologic treatment recommendations and increase in palliative care recommendation for patients with lung cancer, despite similar stages at diagnosis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, more pain symptoms were reported at the first Oncology assessment for patients with head and neck cancer (p < 0.05). Compared to 2019, head and neck cancer patients diagnosed in 2021 presented a worse initial performance status (p = 0.008). There was a statistically significant increase in survival for patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer in 2021 when compared to 2019 (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights low survival rates for patients with lung and head and neck cancer in Brazil, even before the pandemic started, as consequence of advanced diseases at diagnosis at the public health system and clinical degrading features. Additionally, there was an increase incidence in both lung cancer and head and neck cancer despite no differences in clinical stage. This reflects how fragile is the public healthcare system even before facing an acute public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, the total impact on public health may follow for many years.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Head and Neck Neoplasms , Lung Neoplasms , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Brazil/epidemiology , Head and Neck Neoplasms/epidemiology , Head and Neck Neoplasms/therapy , Head and Neck Neoplasms/virology , Male , Female , Retrospective Studies , Middle Aged , Aged , Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology , Lung Neoplasms/therapy , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adult , Palliative Care , Aged, 80 and over , Delayed Diagnosis/statistics & numerical data , Cancer Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data
19.
J Geriatr Oncol ; 15(4): 101771, 2024 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38615579

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The heterogeneity in health and functional ability among older patients makes the management of cancer a unique challenge. The Geriatric Oncology Program at the University of Maryland Baltimore Washington Medical Center (BWMC) was created to optimize cancer management for older patients. This study aimed to assess the benefits of the implementation of such a program at a community-based academic cancer center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed patients aged ≥80 years presenting to the Geriatric Oncology Program between 2017 and 2022. A multidisciplinary team of specialists collectively reviewed each patient using geriatric-specific domains and stratified each patient into one of three management groups- Group 1: those deemed fit to receive standard oncologic care (SOC); Group 2: those recommended to receive optimization services prior to reassessment for SOC; and Group 3: those deemed to be best suited for supportive care and/or hospice care. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 233 patients, of which 76 (32.6%) received SOC, 43 (18.5%) were optimized, and 114 (49.0%) received supportive care or hospice referral. Among the optimized patients, 69.8% were deemed fit for SOC upon re-evaluation following their respective optimization services. The Canadian Study of Health and Aging-Clinical Frailty Scale (CSHA-CFS) score was implemented in 2019 (n = 90). Patients receiving supportive/hospice care only had an average score of 5.8, while the averages for those in the optimization and SOC groups were 4.6 and 4.1, respectively (p ≤0.001). Patients receiving SOC had the longest average survival of 2.71 years compared to the optimization (2.30 years) and supportive care groups (0.93 years) (p ≤0.001). For all patients that underwent surgical interventions post-operatively, 23 patients (85%) were discharged home and four (15%) were discharged to a rehabilitation facility. DISCUSSION: The present study demonstrates the profound impact that the complexities in health status and frailty among older individuals can have during cancer management. The Geriatric Oncology Program at BWMC maximized treatment outcomes for older adults through the provision of SOC therapies and optimization services, while also minimizing unnecessary interventions on an individual patient-centric level.


Subject(s)
Geriatric Assessment , Geriatrics , Medical Oncology , Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Aged, 80 and over , Male , Neoplasms/therapy , Patient Care Team/organization & administration , Academic Medical Centers , Cancer Care Facilities/organization & administration , Frailty/therapy
20.
JAMA Netw Open ; 7(4): e248739, 2024 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38683608

ABSTRACT

Importance: While an overwhelming majority of patients diagnosed with cancer express willingness to participate in clinical trials, only a fraction will enroll onto a research protocol. Objective: To identify critical barriers to trial enrollment to translate findings into actionable practice changes that increase cancer clinical trial enrollment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study included designated site contacts at oncology practices with teams who were highly involved with the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Community Oncology Research Institute (ACORI) clinical trials activities, all American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-ACCC collaboration pilot sites, and/or sites providing care to at least 25% African American and Hispanic residents. To determine participation trends among health care practices in oncology-focused research, identify barriers to clinical trial implementation and operation, and establish unmet needs for cancer clinics interested in trial participation, a 34-question survey was designed. Survey questions were defined within 3 categories: cancer center demographic characteristics, clinical trial characteristics, and referral practices. The survey was distributed through email and was open from June 20 through October 5, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participation in and barriers to conducting oncology trials in different community oncology settings. Results: The survey was distributed to 100 cancer centers, with completion by 58 centers (58%) across 25 states. Fifty-two centers (88%) reported that they conduct therapeutic clinical trials, of which 33 (63%) were from urban settings, 11 (21%) were from suburban settings, and 8 (15%) were from rural settings. Only 25% of rural practices (2 of 8) offered phase 1 trials, compared with 67% of urban practices (22 of 33) (P = .01). Respondents noted challenges in conducting research, including patient recruitment (27 respondents [52%]), limited staffing (27 [52%]), and nonrelevant trials for their patient population (25 [48%]). Among sites not offering therapeutic trials, barriers to research conduct included limited infrastructure, funding, and staffing. Most centers (46 of 58 [79%]) referred patients to outside centers for clinical trial enrollment, particularly in the context of late-stage disease and/or disease progression. Only 17 of these sites (37%) had established protocols for patient follow-up subsequent to outside referral. Conclusions and Relevance: In this national survey study of barriers to clinical trial implementation, most sites offered therapeutic trials, but there were significant disparities in trial availability across care settings. Furthermore, fundamental deficiencies in trial support infrastructure limited research activity, including within programs currently conducting research as well as at sites interested in future clinical research opportunities. These results identify crucial unmet needs for oncology clinics to effectively offer clinical trials to patients seeking care.


Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Surveys and Questionnaires , Neoplasms/therapy , Patient Selection , Community Health Centers/statistics & numerical data , United States , Cancer Care Facilities/statistics & numerical data , Female
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...