Search

Background: Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) represents one of the most common and debilitating effects in patients surviving after cancer treatments. Neurocognitive deficits are important causes of disability and burden in cancer survivors. The true magnitude of CRCI is difficult to define due to significant heterogeneity of literature data. At present, there is no agreement on the gold standard for detection and grading of CRCI in clinical trials, and there is a lack of clear knowledge of its pathophysiology., Objectives: In this review, we aim to discuss some perspectives for future research to pursue in order to cover the gaps in knowledge in the CRCI field., Methods: We focused our literature research on the following relevant issues: neuroradiological correlates of CRCI; objective neuropsychological evaluation and subjective complaint assessment and their correlation with objective measures; timing of assessment; and possible treatments., Results: The correct methodology for evaluating cognitive deficits induced by anti-tumor treatments still requires a definition based on quality scientific evidence, and literature data are currently scarce., Conclusions: This review highlights the need for further research to understand the causes and consequences of cancer-related cognitive impairment using standardized and sensitive measures of cognitive functions and the long-term effects of chemotherapy on cognitive functions and to develop effective interventions.

Background: The words "hope" and "cure" were used in a greater number of articles and sentences in narrative and editorial papers than in primary research. Despite concomitant improvements in cancer outcomes, the related reluctance to use these terms in more scientifically oriented original reports may reflect a bias worthy of future exploration. This study aims to survey a group of physicians and cancer patients regarding their perception and use of the word cure., Materials and Method: An anonymous online and print survey was conducted to explore Italian clinicians' (the sample includes medical oncologists, radiotherapists, and oncological surgeons) and cancer patients' approach to the perception and use of the word "cure" in cancer care. The participants received an email informing them of the study's purpose and were invited to participate in the survey via a linked form. A portion, two-thirds, of questionnaires were also administered to patients in the traditional paper form., Results: The survey was completed by 224 clinicians (54 oncologists, 78 radiotherapists, and 92 cancer surgeons) and 249 patients. The results indicate a favourable attitude for patients in favour of a new language ("cured" vs. "complete remission") of the disease experience., Conclusions: The use of the word cured is substantially accepted and equally shared by doctors and patients. Its use can facilitate the elimination of metaphoric implications and toxic cancer-related connotations registered in all cultures that discourage patients from viewing cancer as a disease with varied outcomes, including cure.