Search

Compared to non-smokers, smokers have reduced effects of cancer treatment, and increased risk of treatment-related toxicity. Quitting smoking can improve treatment effects and reduce side effects. This study reports on the potential impact of a smoking cessation program on smoking cessation rates among patients in cancer treatment. Cancer patients 18 years and older who smoked, with survival prognosis ≥12 months, not suffering dementia or other mental illness, and who were referred to cancer treatment at six Norwegian hospitals were invited to participate. The study took place from 2017 to 2020 and used a pre-test-posttest non-equivalent control group design. The intervention group received structured smoking cessation guidance based on Motivational Interviewing combined with cost-free nicotine replacement products, while the control group received standard smoking cessation treatment. Self-reported smoking status were registered at baseline and at 6 months' follow up. 76% of patients smoked at baseline and 44% at follow-up in the intervention group, correspondingly 72% and 49% in the control group. In an analysis of differences in within-person change, the reduction in the intervention group was 13 percentage points larger (95% CI = (0.25, −0.005), p = 0.041). Adjusting for gender, age, education, labour market participation and partnership status did not attenuate the estimated effect (18 percentage point difference, 95% CI = (−0.346, −0.016), p = 0.032). Demographic factors and dropout rate differed somewhat between the groups with a higher dropout rate in the intervention group, 54% vs. 51%, respectively). Offering a structured smoking cessation program based on Motivational Interviewing and cost-free nicotine replacement products to cancer patients can increase cessation rates in comparison to standard smoking cessation care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To ensure that all citizens have equal access to high-quality cancer diagnosis and care, the EU4Health Programme, Europe's Beating Cancer Plan, and Horizon Europe's Cancer Mission propose Comprehensive Cancer Infrastructures in every European Union Member State. It is therefore important to establish the basic principles for high-performing cancer networks and a methodology for evaluating their quality and effectiveness. This article describes methods and standards/indicators for network evaluation found in literature, gives a comparative overview of the new OECI European Cancer Network Quality standards, and proposes principles for evaluating the performance of Comprehensive Cancer Networks as a basis for continuous improvement. We performed a scoping literature review on methods and standards/indicators for care-network evaluation. We then compared the OECI set with literature findings, categorised standards that were similar, reflected on standards that were different, and deduced principles for quality standards for cancer networks. Of 1002 articles identified, 17 reported on evaluation methods and/or (mostly) qualitative indicators. Sixteen studies described indicators/standards for evaluating care networks, critical success factors or desirable outcomes. Of the 54 present OECI standards, 32 had a literature equivalent. No literature equivalent was found for 22 standards, especially on those related to the combination of care and research. The proposed OECI evaluation methods (survey, document review, and interviews) were all reported in the literature. From the conformity of these results, we deduced 8 principles for standards evaluating the effectiveness of Comprehensive Cancer Networks. Research on the evaluation of the effectiveness of care networks is scarce. Evaluation methods vary and are often single time-point assessments. The OECI set contributes to establishing clear principles and standards to evaluate the effectiveness of Comprehensive Cancer Networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prevalence of peripheral neuropathy (PN) has been studied in patients undergoing treatment with taxanes, platinums and vinca alkaloids. The prevalence is unknown in the general oncological cancer population, characterized by advanced age, comorbidities and heterogeneous treatments. A cross-sectional survey was administered to all adult patients, attending outpatient services at three Danish departments of oncology. The survey contained the EORTC-CIPN20, the EORTC-QLQ-C30, the GAD7 and PHQ9 questionnaires. A high PN symptom score was defined as a summary score ≥30 points on the CIPN20. P-values were adjusted for multiple testing. With an overall response rate of 83% (2839 patients), prevalence of PN was 17% overall, varying from 6 to 33% between diagnosis groups. A high score was more common among females (19 vs. 14%, p =.008), smokers (21 vs. 15%, p =.04), patients living alone (21 vs. 15%, p =.002) and patients using cannabis (29 vs. 15%, p <.001), as well as patients suffering from diabetes (26 vs. 16%, p <.001), cardiac heart disease (27 vs. 16%, p <.001), arthritis (32 vs. 15%, p <.001) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (25 vs. 16%, p =.01). High score patients were also older (69ys vs 67ys, p =.048) and more likely experiencing polypharmacy (OR = 3.38 [95% CI, 2.64;4.35]). Patients with a high CIPN20 symptom score scored worse on all EORTC QLQ-C30 function and symptom scales. The mean adjusted C30 SumScore difference was −18.66 ([95% CI, −20.31; −17.02], p <.001). Symptoms of PN are experienced widely across cancer groups in the oncology setting. PN symptoms were associated with clinically relevant worse health-related quality of life and with patient-related factors as living alone, various comorbidities, polypharmacy, and cannabis use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]