Search

Introduction: The Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations include a commitment to "leave no one behind" as a universal goal. To achieve this in geriatric oncology (GO) worldwide, it is important to understand the current state of GO at an international level. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) has several National Representatives (NRs) who act as SIOG's delegates in their respective countries. The NRs took part in this international survey exploring the state of GO practice, identifying barriers and solutions., Materials and Methods: The NRs answered open-ended questions by email from February 2020 to October 2022. The questionnaire domains included the demographic information of older adults for their countries, and the NRs' opinions on whether GO is developing, what the barriers are to developing GO, and proposed actions to remove these barriers. The demographic data of each country reported in the survey was adjusted using literature and database searches., Results: Twenty-one of thirty countries with NRs (70%) participated in this questionnaire study: 12 European, four Asian, two North American, two South American, and one Oceanian. The proportion of the population aged ≥75 years varied from 2.2% to 15.8%, and the average life expectancy also varied from 70 years to 86 years. All NRs reported that GO was developing in their country; four NRs (18%) reported that GO was well developed. Although all NRs agreed that geriatric assessment was useful, only three reported that it was used day-to-day in their countries' clinical practice (14%). The major barriers identified were the lack of (i) evidence to support GO use, (ii) awareness and interest in GO, and (iii) resources (time, manpower, and funding). The major proposed actions were to (i) provide new evidence through clinical trials specific for GO patients, (ii) stimulate awareness through networking, and (iii) deliver educational materials and information to healthcare providers and medical students., Discussion: This current survey has identified the barriers to GO and proposed actions that could remove them. Broader awareness seems to be essential to implementing GO. Additional actions are needed to develop GO within countries and can be supported through international partnerships., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All the contributing authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This prospective, single-arm, pragmatic implementation study evaluated the feasibility of a nurse-led symptom-screening program embedded in routine oncology post-treatment outpatient clinics by assessing (1) the acceptance rate for symptom distress screening (SDS), (2) the prevalence of SDS cases, (3) the acceptance rate for community-based psychosocial support services, and (4) the effect of referred psychosocial support services on reducing symptom distress., Methods: Using the modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r), we screened patients who recently completed cancer treatment. Patients screening positive for moderate-to-severe symptom distress were referred to a nurse-led community-based symptom-management program involving stepped-care symptom/psychosocial management interventions using a pre-defined triage system. Reassessments were conducted at 3-months and 9-months thereafter. The primary outcomes included SDS acceptance rate, SDS case prevalence, intervention acceptance rate, and ESAS-r score change over time., Results: Overall, 2988/3742(80%) eligible patients consented to SDS, with 970(32%) reporting ≥1 ESAS-r symptom as moderate-to-severe (caseness). All cases received psychoeducational material, 673/970(69%) accepted psychosocial support service referrals. Among 328 patients completing both reassessments, ESAS-r scores improved significantly over time (p < 0.0001); 101(30.8%) of patients remained ESAS cases throughout the study, 112(34.1%) recovered at 3-month post-baseline, an additional 72(22%) recovered at 9-month post-baseline, while 43(12.2%) had resumed ESAS caseness at 9-month post-baseline., Conclusion: Nurse-led SDS programs with well-structured referral pathways to community-based services and continued monitoring are feasible and acceptable in cancer patients and may help in reducing symptom distress. We intend next to develop optimal strategies for SDS implementation and referral within routine cancer care services., (© 2023 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Developed as an antidiabetic drug, recent evidence suggests that several sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), especially canagliflozin and dapagliflozin, may exhibit in vitro and in vivo anticancer activities in selected cancer types, including an inhibition of tumor growth and induction of cell death. When used in combination with chemotherapy or radiotherapy, SGLT2i may offer possible synergistic effects in enhancing their treatment efficacy while alleviating associated side effects. Potential mechanisms include a reduction of glucose uptake into cancer cells, systemic glucose restriction, modulation of multiple signaling pathways, and regulation of different gene and protein expression. Furthermore, preliminary clinical findings have reported potential anticancer properties of canagliflozin and dapagliflozin in patients with liver and colon cancers respectively, with reference to decreases in their tumor marker levels. Given its general tolerability and routine use in diabetes management, SGLT2i may be a good candidate for drug repurposing in cancer treatment and as adjunct to conventional therapies. While current evidence reveals that only certain SGLT2i appear to be effective against selected cancer types, further studies are needed to explore the antitumor abilities of each SGLT2i in various cancers. Moreover, clinical trials are called for to evaluate the safety and feasibility of introducing SGLT2i in the treatment regimen of patients with specific cancers, and to identify the preferred route of drug administration for targeted delivery to selected tumor sites., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Aims/introduction: There is uncertainty about the direct medical costs of type 2 diabetes patients with cancers., Materials and Methods: A population-based retrospective cohort of 99,915 type 2 diabetes patients from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority between 2006 and 2017 was assembled. A total of 16,869 patients who had an initial cancer diagnosis after type 2 diabetes diagnosis were matched with 83,046 patients without cancer (controls) using a matching ratio of up to one-to-five propensity score-matching method. Patients were divided into four categories according to life expectancy. Healthcare service utilization and direct medical costs during the index year, subsequent years and mortality year were compared between patients with and without cancer in each category., Results: Medical costs of cancer patients in the index year ranged from $US27,533 for patients who died in <1 year to $US11,303 for those survived >3 years. Cancer patients had significantly greater expenditures than controls in the index year (all P < 0.001) and subsequent years ($US4,569 vs $US4,155, P < 0.001). Cancer patients also had greater costs in the year of death, and the difference was significant for patients who survived >3 years after the index year ($US32,558 vs $US28,260). For patients in both groups, patients who survived >3 years had significantly lower costs than those who died in <1 year. Costs incurred in the mortality year were greater than those in the index year and subsequent years. Hospitalization accounted for >90% of the medical costs for both groups in the mortality year., Conclusions: Type 2 diabetes patients with cancers incurred greater medical costs in the diagnosis, ensuing and mortality years than type 2 diabetes patients without cancers., (© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Diabetes Investigation published by Asian Association for the Study of Diabetes (AASD) and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)