Search

Abstract Background Hospitalisation resulting from complications of systemic therapy and radiotherapy places a substantial burden on the patient, society, and healthcare system. To formulate preventive strategies and enhance patient care, it is crucial to understand the connection between complications and the need for subsequent hospitalisation. This review aimed to assess the existing literature on complications related to systemic and radiotherapy treatments for cancer, and their impact on hospitalisation rates. Methods Data was obtained via electronic searches of the PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Google Scholar online databases to select relevant peer-reviewed papers for studies published between January 1, 2000, and August 30, 2023. We searched for a combination of keywords in electronic databases and used a standard form to extract data from each article. The initial specific interest was to categorise the articles based on the aspects explored, especially complications due to systemic and radiotherapy and their impact on hospitalisation. The second interest was to examine the methodological quality of studies to accommodate the inherent heterogeneity. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023462532). Findings Of 3289 potential articles 25 were selected for inclusion with ~ 34 million patients. Among the selected articles 21 were cohort studies, three were randomised control trials (RCTs) and one study was cross-sectional design. Out of the 25 studies, 6 studies reported ≥ 10 complications, while 7 studies reported complications ranging from 6 to 10. Three studies reported on a single complication, 5 studies reported at least two complications but fewer than six, and 3 studies reported higher numbers of complications (≥ 15) compared with other selected studies. Among the reported complications, neutropenia, cardiac complications, vomiting, fever, and kidney/renal injury were the top-most. The severity of post-therapy complications varied depending on the type of therapy. Studies indicated that patients treated with combination therapy had a higher number of post-therapy complications across the selected studies. Twenty studies (80%) reported the overall rate of hospitalisation among patients. Seven studies revealed a hospitalisation rate of over 50% among cancer patients who had at least one complication. Furthermore, two studies reported a high hospitalisation rate (> 90%) attributed to therapy-repeated complications. Conclusion The burden of post-therapy complications is emerging across treatment modalities. Combination therapy is particularly associated with a higher number of post-therapy complications. Ongoing research and treatment strategies are imperative for mitigating the complications of cancer therapies and treatment procedures. Concurrently, healthcare reforms and enhancement are essential to address the elevated hospitalisation rates resulting from treatment-related complications in cancer patients.

The literature review evaluates the rehabilitation measures in the country's oncological institutions, assesses regulations in other countries, and scientific publications related to the rehabilitation of cancer patients. Studies were analysed using electronic databases PubMed, Medline, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science, e-Library, RSL. Over 47,900 sources were found, of which 50 papers over the past ten years were selected and included in the article. The criteria for inclusion were the rehabilitation of cancer patients, stages of rehabilitation, pre-rehabilitation, nutritional support, psychological assistance, and quality of patients’ life. Considering the urgency of the problem, WHO 2017 took the initiative and adopted the Rehabilitation 2030 program, which provides expanding global access to high-quality rehabilitation as an essential health service for people with non-communicable diseases. According to summarized data, rehabilitation is based on the following principles: stage-by-stage process, consistency, complexity, and individual approach. The stages of medical rehabilitation of cancer patients include pre-rehabilitation; stage I – a period of specialized treatment; stage II – rehabilitation in a hospital setting after discharge; and stage III – early and late rehabilitation periods. An analysis of the situation in Tajikistan showed that in oncology-related institutions, rehabilitation of cancer patients is carried out within the framework of existing protocols for individual nosology, where a set of measures for the stages of rehabilitation is not sufficiently developed. A practical assessment of the effectiveness of rehabilitation is not set up. The stereotype about limiting the use of physiotherapy and sanatorium-resort treatment for cancer patients persists. There are no regulations for comprehensive rehabilitation of cancer patients. The need to optimize treatment results, prolong the survival of patients with various functional disorders, and improve the quality of life dictates the necessity for the development and systematic implementation of comprehensive rehabilitation of cancer patients.

Abstract Background Since the biological material that remains after diagnostic and therapeutic procedures plays crucial role in biobank research, this study aims to explore cancer patients’ views on the donation of biospecimens for research purposes. Methods 548 oncology patients from two hospitals with oncology treatment units in Poznan, Poland, completed an anonymous, self-administered pen-and-paper questionnaire. Results Although only 43.4% of patients had heard of biobanks, 93.1% declared themselves willing to donate. 71.1% of patients believed that doctors should ask patients to donate, and 60.9% that this should be done before the medical procedure. While 65% of patients were willing to donate any type of tissue that remained after a medical procedure, blood, saliva and hair were indicated most frequently. 40.5% of patients would donate their entire body after death and 21% would refuse. Patients’ support for biobanks was mainly driven by the desire to support science, help advance cancer research and altruism. Some respondents expected health information or medical treatment. The most common barriers for donation were physical distance, repeated examinations, concerns over the privacy and confidentiality of data and the commercial or unethical use of samples. Patients’ attitudes toward biobank donation seemed to be associated with age, education level, declared religiousness, a family history of genetically determined diseases and whether they were a blood donor. Conclusions Although cancer patients’ lack of biobank awareness had no effect on their affirmative attitudes towards biobank research, there is a need to further increase patients’ support and overcome possible barriers that might hinder their willingness to donate.