Search

Hintergrund Es existieren keine Studien zur Inanspruchnahme psychoonkologischer Angebote durch Weichteilsarkompatienten in Deutschland. Ziel war es deshalb, die Häufigkeit der Inanspruchnahme psychoonkologischer Angebote im Krankenhaus in dieser Gruppe zu ermitteln und damit assoziierte Faktoren zu untersuchen. Methode Die Kohortenstudie PROSa (Krankheitslast und Versorgungssituation bei Sarkomen) wurde zwischen 2017 und 2020 in 39 deutschen Studienzentren durchgeführt. Für die vorliegende Analyse wurden Querschnittsdaten von erwachsenen Weichteilsarkompatienten ausgewertet. Faktoren auf Patienten- wie auf Einrichtungsebene wurden als mögliche Prädiktoren der Inanspruchnahme psychoonkologischer Beratung mittels logistischer Regression in einem verallgemeinerten linearen gemischten Modell exploriert. Resultate Bei 910 teilnehmenden Patienten lagen von 576 (63,3 %) Angaben zur Inanspruchnahme vor. 212 Patienten (unter Einbeziehung der fehlenden Angaben 23,3 %, ohne diese 36,7 %) nahmen psychoonkologische Angebote in Anspruch. Negativ mit der Inanspruchnahme assoziiert waren männliches (vs. weibliches) Geschlecht (Odds Ratio [OR] 0,62) und höheres Alter (18–< 40 Jahre vs. 65–< 75 Jahre: OR 0,32; 18–< 40 Jahre vs. ≥ 75 Jahre: OR 0,19). Positiv assoziiert waren Bildungsgrad (Abitur vs. Haupt‑/Volksschulabschluss [OR 2,01]) und Grading (High-grade-Tumoren vs. „low-grade“ [OR 4,41]). Wenn Psychoonkologen am Tumorboard beteiligt waren, war die Inanspruchnahme deutlich höher (OR 6,69). Konklusion Frauen, jüngere Personen, Patienten mit höherer Bildung und fortgeschrittenem Krankheitsstadium nehmen häufiger psychoonkologische Versorgung in Anspruch. Ein struktureller Faktor für eine erhöhte Inanspruchnahme ist die Beteiligung der Psychoonkologie am Tumorboard.

Objective: Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) and gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) are a group of rare malignant tumours with a high and heterogenous disease burden. As evidence is scarce, we analysed the prevalence of increased emotional distress and identified distress‐associated factors in these patients. - Methods: The PROSa‐study (Burden and medical care of sarcoma) was conducted between 2017 and 2020 in 39 study centres. Cross‐sectional data from adult STS and GIST patients were analysed. Distress was measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ‐4). The relation of socioeconomic and clinical factors with distress was explored in adjusted logistic regression models. - Results: Among 897 patients, 17% reported elevated anxiety and 19% reported depression. Unemployed patients (odds ratio [OR] 6.6; 95% CI 2.9–15.0), and those with a disability pension (OR 3.1; 95% CI 1.9–5.0) were more likely to experience distress compared to employed patients. Also, patients with a disability pass had higher odds of increased distress than those without (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.2–2.7). Lowest distress was observed in patients 2 to <5 years and ≥5 years after diagnosis (comparison: <6 months) (OR 0.4; 95% CI 0.2–0.6) and (0.3; 95% CI 0.2–0.6). Patients with thoracic STS (vs. lower limbs) had twice the odds to experience distress(OR2.0;95%CI 1.1–3.6). Distress was seen almost twice as often in patients with progressive disease (vs. complete remission) (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1–2.8). - Conclusion: The prevalence of elevated distress in STS and GIST patients is high. In unemployed patients, in those with a disability pension and in newly diagnosed patients a noticeable increase was observed. Clinicians should be aware of these factors and consider the social aspects of the disease.

Aim This update of the interdisciplinary S3 guideline on the Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Cervical Cancer (AWMF Registry No. 032/033OL) was published in March 2021. This updated guideline was funded by German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe) as part of the German Guideline Program in Oncology. The guideline was coordinated by the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Gynakologie und Geburtshilfe, DGGG) and the Working Group on Gynecological Oncology (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynakologische Onkologie, AGO) of the German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, DKG). Method The process of updating the S3 guideline dating from 2014 was based on an appraisal of the available evidence using the criteria of evidence-based medicine, adaptations of existing evidence-based national and international guidelines or - if evidence was lacking - on a consensus of the specialists involved in compiling the update. After an initial review of the current literature was carried out according to a prescribed algorithm, several areas were identified which, in contrast to the predecessor version from September 2014, required new recommendations or statements which took account of more recently published literature and the appraisal of the new evidence. Recommendations The short version of this guideline consists of recommendations and statements on the epidemiology, screening, diagnostic workup and therapy of patients with cervical cancer. The most important new aspects included in this updated guideline include the newly published FIGO classification of 2018, the radical open surgery approach for cervical cancers up to FIGO stage IB1, and use of the sentinel lymph node technique for tumors = 2 cm. Other changes include the use of PET-CT, new options in radiotherapy (e.g., intensity-modulated radiotherapy, image-guided adaptive brachytherapy), and drug therapies to treat recurrence or metastasis.

Objective Aim of the study was to compare working and non-working patients over a period of 12 months regarding socio-demographic, cancer-specific and mental health parameters. Methods This study was conducted as part of a Germany-wide longitudinal survey among 1398 patients in 13 national Comprehensive Cancer Centers. The sample used for analysis consisted of n = 430 cancer patients younger than 65 years (age M = 52.4 years, SD = 8.1; 67.0% females). Socio-demographic, cancer-specific and mental health parameters (Depression: Patient Health Questionnaire, Anxiety: Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale, Distress: Distress Thermometer) were assessed at baseline during hospitalization and at 12 months follow-up. Results 73.7% of all patients (n = 317) have returned to work after one year. While working and non-working patients did not differ in socio-demographic parameters, there were significant differences in the presence of metastases, tumor and treatment status. Mixed analysis of variances revealed significant interactions between working status and time for depression (p = 0.009), anxiety (p = 0.003) and distress (p = 0.007). Non-working patients reported higher levels of depression, anxiety and distress than working patients over time. A logistic regression showed significant associations between lower depression (p = 0.019), lower distress (p = 0.033) and the absence of a tumor (p = 0.015) with working status. Conclusions The majority of cancer survivors returned to work. Non-working patients had higher levels of depression, anxiety and distress than working patients. After controlling for cancer-specific factors, mental health parameters were still independently associated with working status. Return to work can thus be associated with an improved mental health in cancer survivors. In order to establish causality, further research is necessary.

Aim This is an update of the interdisciplinary S3-guideline on the Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Cervical Cancer (AWMF Registry No. 032/033OL), published in March 2021. The work on the updated guideline was funded by German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe) as part of the German Guideline Program in Oncology. The guideline was coordinated by the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Gynakologie und Geburtshilfe, DGGG) and the Working Group on Gynecological Oncology (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynakologische Onkologie, AGO) of the German Cancer Society (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, DKG). Method The process used to update the 2014 S3-guideline was based on an appraisal of the available evidence using the criteria of evidence- based medicine, adaptations of existing evidence-based national and international guidelines or - if evidence was lacking - on the consensus of the specialists involved in compiling the update. After an initial review of the current literature was carried out according to a prescribed algorithm, several areas were identified which, in contrast to the predecessor version from September 2014, required new recommendations or statements which would take account of more recently published literature and the recent appraisal of new evidence. Recommendations The short version of this guideline consists of recommendations and statements on palliative therapy and follow-up of patients with cervical cancer. The most important aspects included in this updated guideline are the new FIGO classification published in 2018, the radical open surgery approach used to treat cervical cancer up to FIGO stage IB1, and the use of the sentinel lymph node technique for tumors = 2 cm. Other changes include the use of PET-CT, new options in radiotherapy (e.g., intensity-modulated radiotherapy, image- guided adaptive brachytherapy), and drug therapies to treat recurrence or metastasis.

Background Today, guideline-based care for patients with advanced cancer includes regular assessment of needs, not only for patients, but also for their family caregivers. Objectives Identification, evaluation and short description of German validated self-assessment instruments for needs assessment of family caregivers that can be used in daily practice. Materials and methods This narrative review is based on a syntax-based systematic literature search in PubMed (November 2021). Results The literature search identified 525 articles dealing with needs assessment for family caregivers. A multistep, criterion-referenced process identified 12 self-assessment instruments. These 12 capture (partly) the needs of family caregivers in terms of overall burden, psychosocial burden and psychopathological symptoms, quality of life, and support needs. They are available in German, validated, practicable in daily use, and easily accessible. The instruments-including their short versions-are presented with relevant information on use, target parameters, author references, availability, and evaluation. Conclusion This article can be helpful for practitioners wishing to implement a guideline-compliant, regular needs assessment of caregivers and to promote the provision of concrete support services. However, these instruments only cover individual aspects of possible needs of caregivers and it remains to be assessed how the 12 instruments can be combined for routine use or how a selection can be made.