Search

Aim: The study aims to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer patients’ perceptions of the quality of their oncological treatment and care. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare delivery and oncological resources were repurposed, potentially leading to prolonged treatment and reduced access to innovative therapies and clinical trials. Still, little is known about how patients perceived the quality of their treatment. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in the spring of 2020 among cancer patients at the Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital and Rigshospitalet, Denmark. Patients were invited to complete an online questionnaire on clinical, socioeconomic, emotional, behavioural, and quality-related aspects of oncological cancer care. Patients who experienced reduced treatment quality and those who reported no or slight reductions were compared using multiple logistic regression, exploring the associations with patient characteristics, behaviours, and fear of cancer progression or recurrence. Results: A total of 2,040/5,372 patients experienced changes in their treatment plans during the pandemic, and 1,570/5,372 patients experienced reduced treatment quality, with 236 reporting a high degree of reduction. Patients with breast, head and neck, and upper gastrointestinal cancers were more likely to experience reduced treatment quality. Altered interactions with healthcare providers, along with isolation, lack of social support, and heightened fear of cancer progression, were significant risk factors for experiencing reduced cancer care quality. Interpretation: We identified subgroups of cancer patients needing targeted communication and care during health crises affecting cancer treatment. The findings underscore the importance of safeguarding the needs of vulnerable patient populations in future healthcare emergencies.

Introduction To support the implementation of advance care planning and serious illness conversations in haematology, a previously developed conversation intervention titled ‘Advance Consultations Concerning your Life and Treatment’ (ACT) was found feasible. This study aims to investigate the effect of ACT on the quality of end-of-life care in patients with haematological malignancy and their informal caregivers.Methods and analysis The study is a nationwide 2-arm cluster randomised trial randomising 40 physician–nurse clusters across seven haematological departments in Denmark to provide standard care or ACT intervention. A total of 400 patients with haematological malignancies and their informal caregivers will be included. The ACT intervention includes an ACT conversation that centres on discussing the patient’s prognosis, worries, hopes and preferences for future treatment. The intervention is supported by clinician training and supervision, preparatory materials for patients and informal caregivers, and system changes including dedicated ACT-conversation timeslots and templates for documentation in medical records.This study includes two primary outcomes: (1) the proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy within the last 30 days of death and (2) patients’ and informal caregivers’ symptoms of anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7) at 3 6, 9, 12 and 18 months follow-up. Mixed effects models accounting for clusters will be used.Ethics and dissemination The Declaration of Helsinki and the European GDPR regulations as practised in Denmark are followed through all aspects of the study. Findings will be made available to the participants, patient organisations, funding bodies, healthcare professionals and researchers at national and international conferences and through publication in peer-reviewed international journals.Registration details The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05444348). The Regional Ethics Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark (record no: 21067634) has decided that approval is not necessary as per Danish legislation. Study approval has been obtained from The Capital Region of Denmark Data Protection Agency (record no: P-2022-93).Trial registration number NCT05444348.

Background: Each new generation of mobile phone technology has triggered discussions about potential carcinogenicity from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Available evidence has been insufficient to conclude about long-term and heavy mobile phone use, limited by differential recall and selection bias, or crude exposure assessment. The Cohort Study on Mobile Phones and Health (COSMOS) was specifically designed to overcome these shortcomings. Methods: We recruited participants in Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK 2007–2012. The baseline questionnaire assessed lifetime history of mobile phone use. Participants were followed through population-based cancer registers to identify glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma cases during follow-up. Non-differential exposure misclassification was reduced by adjusting estimates of mobile phone call-time through regression calibration methods based on self-reported data and objective operator-recorded information at baseline. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma in relation to lifetime history of mobile phone use were estimated with Cox regression models with attained age as the underlying time-scale, adjusted for country, sex, educational level, and marital status. Results: 264,574 participants accrued 1,836,479 person-years. During a median follow-up of 7.12 years, 149 glioma, 89 meningioma, and 29 incident cases of acoustic neuroma were diagnosed. The adjusted HR per 100 regression-calibrated cumulative hours of mobile phone call-time was 1.00 (95 % CI 0.98–1.02) for glioma, 1.01 (95 % CI 0.96–1.06) for meningioma, and 1.02 (95 % CI 0.99–1.06) for acoustic neuroma. For glioma, the HR for ≥ 1908 regression-calibrated cumulative hours (90th percentile cut-point) was 1.07 (95 % CI 0.62–1.86). Over 15 years of mobile phone use was not associated with an increased tumour risk; for glioma the HR was 0.97 (95 % CI 0.62–1.52). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the cumulative amount of mobile phone use is not associated with the risk of developing glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma.

Summary: Background: Lymphedema affects one in six breast cancer survivors making it a global healthcare challenge. There is considerable debate about the efficacy of different treatments for lymphedema. We aimed to summarize the current evidence for treatments for lymphedema in breast cancer survivors. Methods: In this overview of systematic reviews with meta-analyses (SRMAs), five databases were searched for SRMAs of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting effects of medications, surgery, exercise, laser therapy, acupuncture, kinesio taping, or complex decongestive physiotherapy (CDP) for breast cancer-related lymphedema published from database inception up to March 7, 2023. Data extraction was performed for the SRMAs and RCTs, and SRMAs were appraised with AMSTAR2. Random effects meta-analyses of the RCTs provided estimates of the pooled effects sizes (Hedges’ g) for each treatment modality. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020184813. Findings: 1569 studies were identified by the search and eighteen SRMAs with 51 RCTs were included, investigating manual lymphatic drainage (MLD), compression pump, exercise, kinesio taping, laser, and acupuncture. Overall, the methodological quality of the SRMAs was low. SRMAs reached different conclusions for all treatment modalities, except for kinesio taping where the two SRMAs found no effect. The analysis of 40 RCTs with 1970 participants revealed a small effect across all interventions compared to any control (g = 0.20, p = 0.047, I2 = 0.79), corresponding to volume reductions of 119.7 ml (95% CI 135–104) and 88.0 ml (95% CI 99–77) in the intervention and control groups, respectively, and a small effect of exercise (g = 0.26, p = 0.022, I2 = 0.44). The between-group differences in volume reduction were small and did not reach statistical significance for any one treatment modality. Interpretation: Based on the available data, there is no evidence of superiority of any one treatment on volume reduction nor any solid research refuting these treatments. Thus, definitive conclusions to inform clinical practice about the efficacy of these treatments cannot be drawn. Due to poor-quality evidence, more research is needed to untangle the efficacy of each treatment component for different stages of lymphedema. Funding: Danish Cancer Society.