Search

Background: Recent evidence brought by novel anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) antibody-drug conjugates is leading to significant changes in HER2-negative breast cancer (BC) best practices. A new targetable category termed 'HER2-low' has been identified in tumors previously classified as 'HER2-negative'. Daily practice in pathology and medical oncology is expected to align to current recommendations, but patient access to novel anticancer drugs across geographies might be impeded due to local challenges., Materials and Methods: An expert meeting involving ten regional pathology and oncology opinion leaders experienced in BC management in four Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia) was held. Herein we summarized the current situation of HER2-low metastatic BC (mBC), local challenges, and action plans to prevent delays in patient access to testing and treatment based on expert opinion., Results: Gaps and differences at multiple levels were identified across the four countries. These included variability in the local HER2-low epidemiology data, certification of pathology laboratories and quality control, and reimbursement conditions of testing and anticancer drugs for HER2-negative mBC. While clinical decisions were aligned to international guidelines in use, optimal access to testing and innovative treatment was restricted due to significant delays in reimbursement or limitative reimbursement conditions., Conclusions: Preventing delays in HER2-low mBC patient access to diagnosis and novel treatments is crucial to optimize outcomes. Multidisciplinary joint efforts and pro-active discussions between clinicians and decision makers are needed to improve care of HER2-low mBC patients in CEE countries., (© 2024 Simona Borstnar et al., published by Sciendo.)

Purpose: Oncologists are predisposed to developing burnout syndrome. Like other health care professionals worldwide, oncologists have endured additional, extreme challenges during the Covid-19 pandemic. Psychological resilience presents a potential protective mechanism against burnout. This cross-sectional study examines whether psychological resilience eased burnout syndrome among Croatian oncologists during the pandemic., Methods: An anonymized self-reporting questionnaire was electronically distributed by the Croatian Society for Medical Oncology to 130 specialist and resident oncologists working in hospitals. Available for completion from September 6-24, 2021, the survey comprised demographic questions; the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI), covering exhaustion and disengagement; and the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). The response rate was 57.7%., Results: Burnout was moderate or high for 86% of respondents, while 77% had moderate or high psychological resilience. Psychological resilience was significantly negatively correlated with the OLBI exhaustion subscale (r =  - .54; p < 0.001) and the overall OLBI score (r =  - .46; p < 0.001). Scheffe's post hoc test showed that oncologists with high resilience scored significantly lower on the overall OLBI (M = 2.89; SD = 0.487) compared to oncologists with low resilience (M = 2.52; SD = 0.493)., Conclusion: The findings thus indicate that oncologists with high psychological resilience are at significantly lower risk of developing burnout syndrome. Accordingly, convenient measures to encourage psychological resilience in oncologists should be identified and implemented., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Covid-19 vaccination has started in the majority of the countries at the global level. Cancer patients are at high risk for infection, serious illness, and death from COVID-19 and need vaccination guidance and support. Guidance availability in the English language only is a major limit for recommendations' delivery and their application in the world's population and generates information inequalities across the different populations., Methods: Most of the available COVID-19 vaccination guidance for cancer patients was screened and scrutinized by the European Cancer Patients Coalition (ECPC) and an international oncology panel of 52 physicians from 33 countries., Results: A summary guidance was developed and provided in 28 languages in order to reach more than 70 percent of the global population., Conclusion: Language barrier and e-guidance availability in the native language are the most important barriers when communicating with patients. E-guidance availability in various native languages should be considered a major priority by international medical and health organizations that are communicating with patients at the global level., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Purpose: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has greatly affected the oncology community worldwide. Lockdowns, an epidemiological measure, have made it difficult for oncologists to provide care. In this study, we analysed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Croatian cancer care., Methods: This was a multicentre cross-sectional observational study of 422 patients who received systemic oncology therapy during the pandemic. The patients completed a survey to capture their views on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their cancer care. Univariate descriptive and bivariate analyses were performed to analyse the relationship between the patients' perspective on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care and the quality of Croatian cancer care and their clinical and sociodemographic data., Results: Discontinuation or change in cancer treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic was observed in 10.2% of cases. Most did not change their place of treatment owing to the lockdown (97.6%). 14.7% of the patients felt that the quality of cancer care received had changed during the pandemic., Conclusions: In the first few months of the pandemic, Croatia had a favourable epidemiological situation. However, 25% of patients with cancer reported that the pandemic affected cancer treatment and the quality of cancer care., Competing Interests: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (© the authors; licensee ecancermedicalscience.)

An international panel of experts representing 17 European countries and Israel convened to discuss current needs and future developments in BRCA testing and counselling and to issue consensus recommendations. The experts agreed that, with the increasing availability of high-throughput testing platforms and the registration of poly-ADP-ribose-polymerase inhibitors, the need for genetic counselling and testing will rapidly increase in the near future. Consequently, the already existing shortage of genetic counsellors is expected to worsen and to compromise the quality of care particularly in individuals and families with suspected or proven hereditary breast or ovarian cancer. Increasing educational efforts within the breast cancer caregiver community may alleviate this limitation by enabling all involved specialities to perform genetic counselling. In the therapeutic setting, for patients with a clinical suspicion of genetic susceptibility and if the results may have an immediate impact on the therapeutic strategy, the majority voted that BRCA1/2 testing should be performed after histological diagnosis of breast cancer, regardless of oestrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status. Experts also agreed that, in the predictive and therapeutic setting, genetic testing should be limited to individuals with a personal or family history suggestive of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant and should also include high-risk actionable genes beyond BRCA1/2. Of high-risk actionable genes, all pathological variants (i.e. class IV and V) should be reported; class III variants of unknown significance, should be reported provided that the current lack of clinical utility of the variant is expressly stated. Genetic counselling should always address the possibility that already tested individuals might be re-contacted in case new information on a particular variant results in a re-classification., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)