Selective electrical inhibition of C-fiber spikes in fine nerve strands as a method of identifying A and C afferents

S. Revenko,V. Ermishkin,L. Ya. Selektor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00842367

IF: 0.737

1989-04-01

Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

ESMO Management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era: Breast Cancer

Evandro de Azambuja,Dario Trapani,Sibylle Loibl,Suzette Delaloge,Elzbieta Senkus,Carmen Criscitiello,Philip Poortman,Michael Gnant,Serena Di Cosimo,Javier Cortes,Fatima Cardoso,Shani Paluch-Shimon,Giuseppe Curigliano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/esmoopen-2020-000793

IF: 6.883

ESMO Open

Abstract:The global preparedness and response to the rapid escalation to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2-related disease (COVID-19) to a pandemic proportion has demanded the formulation of a reliable, useful and evidence-based mechanism for health services prioritisation, to achieve the highest quality standards of care to all patients. The prioritisation of high value cancer interventions must be embedded in the agenda for the pandemic response, ensuring that no inconsistency or discrepancy emerge in the health planning processes.The aim of this work is to organise health interventions for breast cancer management and research in a tiered framework (high, medium, low value), formulating a scheme of prioritisation per clinical cogency and intrinsic value or magnitude of benefit. The public health tools and schemes for priority setting in oncology have been used as models, aspiring to capture clinical urgency, value in healthcare, community goals and fairness, while respecting the principles of benevolence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice.We discuss the priority health interventions across the cancer continuum, giving a perspective on the role and meaning to maintain some services (undeferrable) while temporarily abrogate some others (deferrable). Considerations for implementation and the essential link to pre-existing health services, especially primary healthcare, are addressed, outlining a framework for the development of effective and functional services, such as telemedicine.The discussion covers the theme of health systems strategising, and why oncology care, in particular breast cancer care, should be maintained in parallel to pandemic control measures, providing a pragmatic clinical model within the broader context of public healthcare schemes.
Ketamine-aminophylline-induced decrease in seizure threshold.

C. Hirshman,W. Krieger,G. Littlejohn,R. Lee,R. Julien

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00132586-198304000-00015

IF: 8.986

1983-04-01

Anesthesiology

Abstract:
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care including innovations implemented in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review

Sarah Rine,Shana T Lara,Jean C Bikomeye,Sara Beltrán-Ponce,Solomon Kibudde,Nixon Niyonzima,Olatunji O Lawal,Pius Mulamira,Kirsten Mm Beyer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.13.06048

2023-11-17

Abstract:Background: The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused disruptions in the delivery and utilisation of cancer services. The impact of these interruptions is disproportionately borne by low- and middle-income countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). There are speculations of increased late-stage presentation and mortality as services are returning to the pre-pandemic state. This review aims to explore the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic impacted cancer services across SSA and to identify innovations implemented across SSA to mitigate the impacts. Methods: Using database-specific search strategies, a systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Ovid (MedLine), Web of Science, and African Index Medicus. Eligible studies included original research, reports, perspectives and summaries of national or regional outcomes published in the English language. The primary outcome was changes in the delivery and utilisation of cancer prevention and screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up services. The secondary outcome was to identify implemented innovations to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on service delivery. Results: Out of the 167 articles identified in the literature search, 46 were included in the synthesis. A majority (95.7%) of the included articles described suspension and/or delay of screening, diagnosis, and treatment services, although two studies (4.3%) described the continuation of services despite the lockdown. Care was additionally impacted by transportation limitations, shortages of staff and personal protective equipment, disruption of the medication supply chain and patients' fears and stigma associated with contracting COVID-19. A major innovation was the use of telemedicine and virtual platforms for patient consultation and follow-up during the pandemic in SSA. Furthermore, drones and mobile applications were used for sample collection, medication delivery and scheduling of treatment. In some instances, medication routes and treatment protocols were changed. Conclusions: The delivery and utilisation of cancer services decreased substantially during the pandemic. Cancer centres initiated innovative methods of care delivery, including telehealth and drone use, with long-term potential to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on service delivery. Cancer centres in SSA must explore sustainable, facility or country-specific innovations as services return to the pre-pandemic state. Registration: The review was registered in PROSPERO with registration number CRD42022351455.
Report from the Ready for the Next Round Thought-Leadership Roundtables on Building Resilience in Cancer Care and Control in Canada-Colorectal Cancer Canada; 2021

Eliya Farah,Maria El Bizri,Radmila Day,Lavina Matai,Fred Horne,Timothy P. Hanna,David Armstrong,Susan Marlin,Olivier Jérôme,Darren R. Brenner,Winson Cheung,Laszlo Radvanyi,Eva Villalba,Natalie Leon,Chana Cohen,Karine Chalifour,Ronald Burkes,Sharlene Gill,Scott Berry,Brandon S. Sheffield,Pamela Fralick,Barry D. Stein,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol29030143

2022-03-07

Current Oncology

Abstract:(1) Background: The COVID-19 pandemic illuminated vulnerabilities in the Canadian health care system and exposed gaps and challenges across the cancer care continuum. Canada is experiencing significant disruptions to cancer-related services, and the impact these disruptions (delays/deferrals/cancellations) have on the health care system and patients are yet to be determined. Given the potential adverse ramifications, how can Canada’s health care systems build resilience for future threats? (2) Methods: To answer this question, CCC facilitated a series of four thought-leadership roundtables, each representing the views of four different stakeholder groups: patients, physicians, health care system leaders, and researchers. (3) Results: Six themes of strength were identified to serve as a springboard for building resilience including, (1) advancing virtual care and digital health technologies to prevent future interruptions in cancer care delivery. (2) developing real-time data metrics, data sharing, and evidence-based decision-making. (3) enhancing public–private-non-profit partnerships to advance research and strengthen connections across the system. (4) advancing patient-centricity in cancer research to drive and encourage precision medicine approaches to care. (5) investing in training and hiring a robust supply of health care human resources. (6) implementing a national strategy and infrastructure to ensure inter-provincial collaborative data sharing (4). Conclusions: A resilient health care system that can respond to shocks and threats is not an emergency system; it is a robust everyday system that can respond to emergencies.

oncology
Recommendations for prioritization, treatment, and triage of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. the COVID-19 pandemic breast cancer consortium

Jill R. Dietz,Meena S. Moran,Steven J. Isakoff,Scott H. Kurtzman,Shawna C. Willey,Harold J. Burstein,Richard J. Bleicher,Janice A. Lyons,Terry Sarantou,Paul L. Baron,Randy E. Stevens,Susan K. Boolbol,Benjamin O. Anderson,Lawrence N. Shulman,William J. Gradishar,Debra L. Monticciolo,Donna M. Plecha,Heidi Nelson,Katharine A. Yao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05644-z

2020-04-24

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Abstract:Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic presents clinicians a unique set of challenges in managing breast cancer (BC) patients. As hospital resources and staff become more limited during the COVID-19 pandemic, it becomes critically important to define which BC patients require more urgent care and which patients can wait for treatment until the pandemic is over. In this Special Communication, we use expert opinion of representatives from multiple cancer care organizations to categorize BC patients into priority levels (A, B, C) for urgency of care across all specialties. Additionally, we provide treatment recommendations for each of these patient scenarios. Priority A patients have conditions that are immediately life threatening or symptomatic requiring urgent treatment. Priority B patients have conditions that do not require immediate treatment but should start treatment before the pandemic is over. Priority C patients have conditions that can be safely deferred until the pandemic is over. The implementation of these recommendations for patient triage, which are based on the highest level available evidence, must be adapted to current availability of hospital resources and severity of the COVID-19 pandemic in each region of the country. Additionally, the risk of disease progression and worse outcomes for patients need to be weighed against the risk of patient and staff exposure to SARS CoV-2 (virus associated with the COVID-19 pandemic). Physicians should use these recommendations to prioritize care for their BC patients and adapt treatment recommendations to the local context at their hospital.

oncology
Prioritization and resource allocation in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recommendations for colorectal and pancreatic cancer in Germany

Celine Lugnier,Sabine Sommerlatte,Ulrike Attenberger,Ambros J Beer,Martin Bentz,Stefan R Benz,Thomas Birkner,Jens Büntzel,Matthias Ebert,Peter Fasching,Wolfgang Fischbach,Emmanouil Fokas,Birgit Fricke,Helene Hense,Erich Grohmann,Ralf-Dieter Hofheinz,Dietrich Hüppe,Stefan Huster,Patrick Jahn,Monika Klinkhammer-Schalke,Wolfgang Knauf,Anna-Lena Kraeft,Bernd Oliver Maier,Georg Marckmann,Günter Niegisch,Lutz Otto,Uwe Pelzer,Pompiliu Piso,Henning Rosenau,Jochen Schmitt,Olaf Schoffer,Jalid Sehouli,Andrea Tannapfel,Ulrich Wedding,Simone Wesselmann,Eva C Winkler,Tanja Zimmermann,Bernhard Wörmann,Anke Reinacher-Schick,Jan Schildmann,Ambros J. Beer,Stefan R. Benz,Eva C. Winkler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000538171

2024-03-14

Oncology Research and Treatment

Abstract:In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a scarcity of resources with various effects on the care of cancer patients. This paper provides an English summary of a German guideline on prioritization and resource allocation for colorectal and pancreatic cancer in the context of the pandemic. Based on a selective literature review as well as empirical and ethical analyses, the research team of the CancerCOVID Consortium drafted recommendations for prioritizing diagnostic and treatment measures for both entities. The final version of the guideline received consent from the executive boards of nine societies of the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF), 20 further professional organizations and 22 other experts from various disciplines as well as patient representatives. The guiding principle for the prioritization of decisions is the minimization of harm. Prioritization decisions to fulfill this overall goal should be guided by 1. the urgency relevant to avoid or reduce harm; 2. the likelihood of success of the diagnostic or therapeutic measure advised; and 3. the availability of alternative treatment options. In the event of a relevant risk of harm as a result of prioritization, these decisions should be made by means of a team approach. Gender, age, disability, ethnicity, origin and other social characteristics, such as social or insurance status, as well as the vehemence of a patient’s treatment request and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status should not be used as prioritization criteria. The guideline provides concrete recommendations for 1. diagnostic procedures, 2. surgical procedures for cancer, and 3. systemic treatment and radiotherapy in patients with colorectal or pancreatic cancer within the context of the German healthcare system.

oncology
Impact of the early phase of the COVID pandemic on cancer treatment delivery and the quality of cancer care: a scoping review and conceptual model

Melanie Powis,Carissa Milley-Daigle,Saidah Hack,Shabbir Alibhai,Simron Singh,Monika K Krzyzanowska

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzab088

2021-06-01

International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Abstract:Abstract Background The disruption of health services due to coronavirus disease (COVID) is expected to dramatically alter cancer care; however, the implications for care quality and outcomes remain poorly understood. Objective We undertook a scoping review to evaluate what is known in the literature about how cancer treatment has been modified as a result of the COVID pandemic in patients receiving treatment for solid tumours, and what domains of quality of care are most impacted. Methods Citations were retrieved from MEDLINE and EMBASE (from 1 January 2019 to 28 October 2020), utilizing search terms grouped by the key concept (oncology, treatment, treatment modifications and COVID). Articles were excluded if they dealt exclusively with management of COVID-positive patients, modifications to cancer screening, diagnosis or supportive care or were not in English. Articles reporting on guidelines, consensus statements, recommendations, literature reviews, simulations or predictive models, or opinions in the absence of accompanying information on experience with treatment modifications in practice were excluded. Treatment modifications derived from the literature were stratified by modality (surgery, systemic therapy (ST) and radiotherapy) and thematically grouped. To understand what areas of quality were most impacted, modifications were mapped against the Institute of Medicine’s quality domains. Where reported, barriers and facilitators were abstracted and thematically grouped to understand drivers of treatment modifications. Findings were synthesized into a logic model to conceptualize the inter-relationships between different modifications, as well as their downstream impacts on outcomes. Results In the 87 retained articles, reductions in outpatients visits (26.4%) and delays/deferrals were commonly reported across all treatment modalities (surgery: 50%; ST: 55.8% and radiotherapy: 56.7%), as were reductions in surgical capacity (57.1%), alternate systemic regimens with longer treatment intervals or use of oral agents (19.2%) and the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy regimens (40.0%). Delivery of effective, timely and equitable care was the quality domains found to be the most impacted. The most commonly reported facilitator of maintaining cancer care delivery levels was the shift to virtual models of care (62.1%), while patient-initiated deferrals and cancellations (34.8%), often due to fear of contracting COVID (60.9%), was a commonly reported barrier. Conclusions As it will take a considerable amount of time for the cancer system to resume capacity and adjust models of care in response to the pandemic, these treatment delays and modifications will likely be prolonged and will negatively impact the quality of care and patient outcomes.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Aligning Cancer Research Priorities in Europe with Recommendations for Conquering Cancer: A Comprehensive Analysis

Denis Horgan,Marc Van den Bulcke,Umberto Malapelle,Nicola Normanno,Ettore D. Capoluongo,Arsela Prelaj,Carmelo Rizzari,Aliki Stathopoulou,Jaya Singh,Marta Kozaric,France Dube,Manuel Ottaviano,Stefania Boccia,Gabriella Pravettoni,Ivana Cattaneo,Núria Malats,Reinhard Buettner,Karim Lekadir,Francesco de Lorenzo,Patricia Blanc,Catherine Alix-Panabieres,Sara Badreh,Paul Hofman,Eric Solary,Ruggero De Maria

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12020259

2024-01-20

Health Care

Abstract:Improvements in cancer care require a new degree of collaboration beyond the purely medical sphere, extending deeply into the world of other stakeholders—preeminently patients but also the other stakeholders in the hardware and software of care. Cancer remains a global health challenge, necessitating collaborative efforts to understand, prevent, and treat this complex disease. To achieve this goal, a comprehensive analysis was conducted, aligning the prioritization of cancer research measures in 13 European countries with 13 key recommendations for conquering cancer in the region. The study utilized a survey involving both patients and citizens, alongside data from IQVIA, a global healthcare data provider, to assess the availability and access to single-biomarker tests in multiple European countries. The results revealed a focused approach toward understanding, preventing, and treating cancer, with each country emphasizing specific research measures tailored to its strengths and healthcare objectives. This analysis highlights the intricate relationship between research priorities, access to biomarker tests, and financial support. Timely access to tests and increased availability positively influence research areas such as cancer prevention, early detection, ageing, and data utilization. The alignment of these country-specific measures with 13 recommendations for conquering cancer in Europe underscores the importance of tailored strategies for understanding, preventing, and treating cancer.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Global effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on paediatric cancer care: a cross-sectional study

Dylan Graetz,Asya Agulnik,Radhikesh Ranadive,Yuvanesh Vedaraju,Yichen Chen,Guillermo Chantada,Monika L Metzger,Sheena Mukkada,Lisa M Force,Paola Friedrich,Catherine Lam,Elizabeth Sniderman,Nickhill Bhakta,Laila Hessissen,Rashmi Dalvi,Meenakshi Devidas,Kathy Pritchard-Jones,Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo,Daniel C Moreira

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(21)00031-6

2021-05-01

The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Although mortality due to COVID-19 has been reportedly low among children with cancer, changes in health-care services due to the pandemic have affected cancer care delivery. This study aimed to assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on childhood cancer care worldwide.METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to paediatric oncology providers worldwide from June 22 to Aug 21, 2020, through the St Jude Global Alliance and International Society for Paediatric Oncology listservs and regional networks. The survey included 60 questions to assess institution characteristics, the number of patients diagnosed with COVID-19, disruptions to cancer care (eg, service closures and treatment abandonment), adaptations to care, and resources (including availability of clinical staff and personal protective equipment). Surveys were included for analysis if respondents answered at least two thirds of the items, and the responses were analysed at the institutional level.FINDINGS: Responses from 311 health-care professionals at 213 institutions in 79 countries from all WHO regions were included in the analysis. 187 (88%) of 213 centres had the capacity to test for SARS-CoV-2 and a median of two (range 0-350) infections per institutution were reported in children with cancer. 15 (7%) centres reported complete closure of paediatric haematology-oncology services (median 10 days, range 1-75 days). Overall, 2% (5 of 213) of centres were no longer evaluating new cases of suspected cancer, while 43% (90 of 208) of the remaining centers described a decrease in newly diagnosed paediatric cancer cases. 73 (34%) centres reported increased treatment abandonment (ie, failure to initiate cancer therapy or a delay in care of 4 weeks or longer). Changes to cancer care delivery included: reduced surgical care (153 [72%]), blood product shortages (127 [60%]), chemotherapy modifications (121 [57%]), and interruptions to radiotherapy (43 [28%] of 155 institutions that provided radiotherapy before the pandemic). The decreased number of new cancer diagnoses did not vary based on country income status (p=0·14). However, unavailability of chemotherapy agents (p=0·022), treatment abandonment (p<0·0001), and interruptions in radiotherapy (p<0·0001) were more frequent in low-income and middle-income countries than in high-income countries. These findings did not vary based on institutional or national numbers of COVID-19 cases. Hospitals reported using new or adapted checklists (146 [69%] of 213), processes for communication with patients and families (134 [63%]), and guidelines for essential services (119 [56%]) as a result of the pandemic.INTERPRETATION: The COVID-19 pandemic has considerably affected paediatric oncology services worldwide, posing substantial disruptions to cancer diagnosis and management, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. This study emphasises the urgency of an equitably distributed robust global response to support paediatric oncology care during this pandemic and future public health emergencies.FUNDING: American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities.TRANSLATION: For the Spanish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Effects of prostaglandin E 1 on contralateral olivo-cochlear bundle stimulation in cats.

R. D. Brown

Abstract:
Abstract PO-093: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on care delivery and quality of life in lung cancer surgery

Dede K. Teteh,Betty Ferrell,Xiaoke Zou,Loretta Erhunmwunsee,Dan Raz,Jae Kim,Virginia Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp21-po-093

2022-01-01

Abstract:Abstract The novel coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) disrupted the healthcare delivery landscape with dramatic impacts on cancer patients and family caregivers (FCGs). Many safety measures were implemented to provide services to patients during the pandemic. However, the impact of these measures on the experiences of lung cancer surgery patients, FCGs, and their healthcare team is not well known. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe the changes and experiences with surgical care delivery from the patient, FCG, and surgical team perspectives. Methods: This mixed methods study included healthcare professionals, lung cancer surgery patients, and their FCGs from an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Data was collected between September 2020 through February 2021 using the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients' Assets, Risks, and Experiences survey (patients and FCGs only). Key informant interviews with patients, FCGs, and surgical team were also conducted. Patients/FCGs were recruited from a randomized efficacy trial of a multimedia self-management intervention in lung cancer surgery. Qualitative data was analyzed using the conventional content analysis approach and demographic descriptive statistics for patients/FCGs were determined through baseline surveys from the randomized trial. Results: Our study participants (n=56) were predominantly English speaking (91%), non-Hispanic White (68%), Asian (14%), and Black (7%) lung cancer surgery patients/FCGs. Most participants achieved more than a high school diploma (77%), 33% were employed full-time, and 50% used Medicare. Providers (n=4) included a nurse practitioner and thoracic surgeons. We identified 5 constructs that were associated with cancer care delivery from perioperative to discharge: 1) increased diagnostic testing—COVID-19 test; 2) visitor restrictions increased patients/FCGs mental health distress and decreased provider-FCG shared-decision making; 3) communication barriers decreased for patients/FCGs due to use of telehealth resources (i.e., Hope Virtual, WhatsApp, FaceTime) which increased frequency of provider engagement throughout care continuum; 4) patients/FCGs concerns and lack of education of COVID-19 risk factors impacted postoperative recovery; and 5) COVD-19 “elevated” the use and need for including telemedicine in standard of care practices. Moreover, patients experienced delays in treatment, isolation, lack of social support, financial hardship, and fear of death from COVID-19. FCGs also experienced psychological distress, financial hardship, fear of contracting COVID-19, and a heightened awareness of public health safety measures. Discussion: The COVID-19 pandemic created challenges to the cancer care delivery landscape for the surgical team and impacted the psychological and financial well-being of lung cancer surgery patients and their FCGs. While the long-term effects of the pandemic is unknown, opportunities to improve patient/FCG quality of life outcomes through targeted mental health/financial toxicity interventions is warranted. Citation Format: Dede K. Teteh, Betty Ferrell, Xiaoke Zou, Loretta Erhunmwunsee, Dan Raz, Jae Kim, Virginia Sun. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on care delivery and quality of life in lung cancer surgery [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: 14th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2021 Oct 6-8. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-093.
Molecular Markers of Hemostatic Activation in Atherosclerosis: A New Concept in Diagnostic Profiling of Endogenous Pathophysiologic Transition

J. Fareed,J. Walenga,W. Baker,A. Hayes,D. Hoppensteadt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-1003542

1986-04-01

Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis

Abstract:Molecular markers of hemostatic activation provide a reliable measure of the endogenous pathophysiologic state in atherosclerosis. Measurement of these markers before and after exercise provides a diagnostic probe for cellular-vascular interactions in patients with atherosclerosis. Molecular markers may possibly identify very early stages of atherosclerosis due to their inherent sensitivity. A high-risk cardiovascular population can be easily recognized by profiling molecular markers of hemostatic activation. Newly developed immunoassays can be used to quantitate these markers in routine laboratories. Additional clinical studies are needed to establish the diagnostic role of these molecular markers in patients with atherosclerosis and related disorders.
The impact of COVID-19 on cancer care and oncology clinical research: an experts' perspective

C Sessa,J Cortes,P Conte,F Cardoso,T Choueiri,R Dummer,P Lorusso,O Ottmann,B Ryll,T Mok,M Tempero,S Comis,C Oliva,S Peters,J Tabernero

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100339

IF: 6.883

ESMO Open

Abstract:The coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic promises to have lasting impacts on cancer clinical trials that could lead to faster patient access to new treatments. In this article, an international panel of oncology experts discusses the lasting impacts of the pandemic on oncology clinical trials and proposes solutions for clinical trial stakeholders, with the support of recent data on worldwide clinical trials collected by IQVIA. These lasting impacts and proposed solutions encompass three topic areas. Firstly, acceleration and implementation of new operational approaches to oncology trials with patient-centric, fully decentralized virtual approaches that include remote assessments via telemedicine and remote devices. Geographical differences in the uptake of remote technology, including telemedicine, are discussed in the article, focusing on the impact of the local adoption of new operational approaches. Secondly, innovative clinical trials. The pandemic has highlighted the need for new trial designs that accelerate research and limit risks and burden for patients while driving optimization of clinical trial objectives and endpoints, while testing is being minimized. Areas of considerations for clinical trial stakeholders are discussed in detail. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the underrepresentation of minority groups in clinical trials; the approach for oncology clinical trials to improve generalizability of efficacy and outcomes data is discussed. Thirdly, a new problem-focused collaborative framework between oncology trial stakeholders, including decision makers, to leverage and further accelerate the innovative approaches in clinical research developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This could shorten timelines for patient access to new treatments by addressing the cultural and technological barriers to adopting new operational approaches and innovative clinical trials. The role of the different stakeholders is described, with the aim of making COVID-19 a catalyst for positive change in oncology clinical research and eventually in cancer care.
Paramilitary punishment in Northern Ireland: a macabre irony.

R. Nicholas,Ronald J. Barr,R. Mollan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005373-199301000-00017

Abstract:The various types of paramilitary "punishments" occurring during civil disturbances in Northern Ireland are described along with a retrospective analysis of 100 victims of low-velocity punishment gunshot wounds admitted to the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, between July 1, 1986, and December 31, 1989. While "kneecapping" remains the most common form of punishment, an alteration in the character and pattern of injury has resulted in an increase in the incidence of ankle and elbow gunshot wounds. The possibility of a complicated injury involving bone, blood vessel, or nerve (either alone or in combination) occurred in approximately 40% of knee injuries, 70% of ankle injuries, and 30% of elbow injuries. The implications of these alterations in character with respect to provision of hospital care and social morbidity are described. A macabre irony exists in that the punishment policy is dictated by the paramilitary organizations who themselves are the perpetrators of major terrorist crimes.
Demographic Analysis of Cancer Research Priorities and Treatment Correlations

Denis Horgan,Marc Van den Bulcke,Umberto Malapelle,Nicola Normanno,Ettore D. Capoluongo,Arsela Prelaj,Carmelo Rizzari,Aliki Stathopoulou,Jaya Singh,Marta Kozaric,France Dube,Manuel Ottaviano,Stefania Boccia,Gabriella Pravettoni,Ivana Cattaneo,Núria Malats,Reinhard Buettner,Karim Lekadir,Francesco de Lorenzo,Catherine Alix-Panabieres,Sara Badreh,Eric Solary,Ruggero De Maria,Paul Hofman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31040139

2024-03-30

Current Oncology

Abstract:Understanding the diversity in cancer research priorities and the correlations among different treatment modalities is essential to address the evolving landscape of oncology. This study, conducted in collaboration with the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC) and Childhood Cancer International-Europe (CCI-E) as part of the "UNCAN.eu" initiative, analyzed data from a comprehensive survey to explore the complex interplay of demographics, time since cancer diagnosis, and types of treatments received. Demographic analysis revealed intriguing trends, highlighting the importance of tailoring cancer research efforts to specific age groups and genders. Individuals aged 45–69 exhibited highly aligned research priorities, emphasizing the need to address the unique concerns of middle-aged and older populations. In contrast, patients over 70 years demonstrated a divergence in research priorities, underscoring the importance of recognising the distinct needs of older individuals in cancer research. The analysis of correlations among different types of cancer treatments underscored the multidisciplinary approach to cancer care, with surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, precision therapy, and biological therapies playing integral roles. These findings support the need for personalized and combined treatment strategies to achieve optimal outcomes. In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into the complexity of cancer research priorities and treatment correlations in a European context. It emphasizes the importance of a multifaceted, patient-centred approach to cancer research and treatment, highlighting the need for ongoing support, adaptation, and collaboration to address the ever-changing landscape of oncology.

oncology
Regional variation in identified cancer care needs of early-career oncologists in China, India, and Pakistan

H Kim Lyerly,Maria R Fawzy,Zeba Aziz,Reena Nair,C S Pramesh,Vani Parmar,Purvish M Parikh,Rozmin Jamal,Azizunissa Irumnaz,Jun Ren,Martin R Stockler,Amy P Abernethy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0213

Abstract:Background: Cancer incidence and mortality is increasing in the developing world. Inequities between low-, middle-, and high-income countries affect disease burden and the infrastructure needs in response to cancer. We surveyed early-career oncologists attending workshops in clinical research in three countries with emerging economies about their perception of the evolving cancer burden. Methods: A cross-sectional survey questionnaire was distributed at clinical trial concept development workshops held in Beijing, Lahore, Karachi, and Mumbai at major hospitals to acquire information regarding home-country health conditions and needs. Results: A total of 100 respondents participated in the workshops held at major hospitals in the region (India = 29, China = 25, Pakistan = 42, and other = 4). Expected consensus on many issues (e.g., emergence of cancer as a significant health issue) was balanced with significant variation in priorities, opportunities, and challenges. Chinese respondents prioritized improvements in cancer-specific care and palliative care, Indian respondents favored improved cancer detection and advancing research in cancer care, and Pakistani respondents prioritized awareness of cancer and improvements in disease detection and cancer care research. For all, the most frequently cited opportunity was help in improving professional cancer education and training. Conclusion: Predominantly early-career oncologists attending clinical research workshops (in China, India, and Pakistan) identified needs for increasing clinical cancer research, professional education, and public awareness of cancer. Decision makers supporting efforts to reduce the burden of cancer worldwide will need to factor the specific needs and aspirations of health care providers in their country in prioritizing health policies and budgets.
Pneumocystis carinii: recent advances in basic biology and their clinical application.

P. Walzer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00002030-199310000-00001

1993-10-01

Abstract:
Abstract A028: Revisiting cancer care inequities in Sub-Saharan Africa: standpoint and recommendations

John Oluwafemi Teibo,Olabode Omotoso,Festus Adebayo Atiba,Tolulope Oladimeji,Tomiwa Kehinde Paimo,Farid S. Ataya,Gaber El-Saber Batiha,Athanasios Alexiou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-a028

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Introduction: Cancer is a major global public health concern that claims around 2000 lives per day in Africa alone. Mortality rates are expected to rise in the absence of appropriate interventions. Equity and prioritizing are the main obstacles to cancer care in Africa, as policymakers and other stakeholders in the healthcare system do not give cancer enough attention. All aspects of the cancer care continuum especially these three main levels of cancer care—prevention, diagnosis, and treatment/management—are negatively impacted by this neglect. Addressing concerns of equity and prioritizing is essential to promoting equality in cancer care, as it guarantees that all individuals have an equal opportunity at cancer prevention, early detection, appropriate therapy, and follow-up treatment. Methods: We present an overview of the current status of cancer care in Africa and offer recommendations to bridge the gap using the material currently accessible from recognized databases. Results: Insufficient funding for cancer research, inadequate screening or diagnostic facilities, a lack of a well-organized and efficient cancer registry system and access to care, a shortage of specialized medical staff, high costs for screening, vaccination, and treatment, a lack of technical capacity, poor vaccination response, and late patient presentation for cancer screening are some of the factors that we highlighted as contributing to the disparity in cancer care in Africa. We also offer suggestions on overcoming some of these barriers to achieving fairness in cancer care. Our recommendations are broken down into capacity-based and national-level initiatives. These include improving healthcare budgeting for personnel, supplies, and facilities; encouraging screening and vaccine uptake; raising awareness of cancer health among medical professionals during every hospital visit, gaining knowledge through specialized training, financing cancer research, offering cancer insurance, and putting mobile health technologies to use for telemedicine diagnosis.Conclusion: A comprehensive approach to addressing issues related to cancer equity would increase the chances of cancer patients surviving longer, reduce risk factors for at-risk groups, and guarantee fair access to cancer care across the continent. This report describes the present barriers to achieving equity in cancer care, identifies the African countries' current positions on the matter, and offers recommendations that could have the greatest impact on achieving equity in cancer care. Citation Format: John Oluwafemi Teibo, Olabode Omotoso, Festus Adebayo Atiba, Tolulope Oladimeji, Tomiwa Kehinde Paimo, Farid S. Ataya, Gaber El-Saber Batiha, Athanasios Alexiou. Revisiting cancer care inequities in Sub-Saharan Africa: standpoint and recommendations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl) nr A028.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Community-Led Action Research in Oncology: Pandemic-Appropriate Radiotherapy Innovations Evaluated (CLARO PARTE) for Latin America and the Caribbean Countries

Ivy Riano,César Alas-Pineda,Sarahi Reyes Garcia,Raúl Murillo,Francisco Gutiérrez-Delgado,Eduardo Cazap,Celia Maria Pais Viegas,Marcela de la Torre,Kaory C Barahona,Gustavo J Sarria,Ramón Del Castillo Bahi,Álvaro Luongo-Céspedes,Beatriz Ovalles,Flory Vanessa Umaña Herrera,Ricardo Sánchez,Shauna McVorran,Benjamin Williams,Joseph Kascmar,Linda S Kennedy,Kathleen D Lyons,Suyapa Bejarano,Sandra L Wong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/GO.24.00051

Abstract:Purpose: This study aimed to identify, evaluate, and rank suitable safety innovations developed during the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) radiation oncology centers. Methods: We conducted a multimodal participatory engagement collaboration with the Latin-American and Caribbean Society of Medical Oncology. The study consisted of four phases. Innovations were collected from a panel of radiotherapy experts representing a diverse group of 11 countries from LAC (Phase I). Next, a medical scientific team compared the innovations against international standards regarding their potential impact on risk of infection, clinical operation, and continuity of quality cancer care (Phase II). Their findings were supplied to the country representatives who rated the innovations for acceptability in their cancer centers (Phase III), resulting in a final report of the panel's recommendations (Phase IV). Results: A total of 81 innovations were reported by the country representatives and merged by the medical scientific team into 24 innovations that combined similar innovations. The 24 innovations were grouped into six categories including practices aimed at (1) reducing clinic crowding (n = 3), (2) increasing screening and vaccinations for COVID-19 disease (n = 5), (3) implementing social distancing (n = 6), (4) strengthening personal infection equipment and disinfection (n = 6), (5) avoiding delaying or shortening treatment protocols (n = 2), and (6) mixed procedures (n = 2). The medical scientific team found nearly all innovations were supported by international recommendations and rated as safe, efficient, and acceptable. Conclusion: By using the lessons learned from the Community-Led Action Research in Oncology: Pandemic-Appropriate Radiotherapy Innovations Evaluated study, a manual of scalable practices in radiation oncology clinics may be developed to guide actions during future large-scale public health crises in low- and middle-income countries of LAC.
An Analysis of Contemporary Oncology Randomized Clinical Trials From Low/Middle-Income vs High-Income Countries

J Connor Wells,Shubham Sharma,Joseph C Del Paggio,Wilma M Hopman,Bishal Gyawali,Deborah Mukherji,Nazik Hammad,C S Pramesh,Ajay Aggarwal,Richard Sullivan,Christopher M Booth

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7478

2021-03-01

Abstract:Importance: The burden of cancer falls disproportionally on low-middle-income countries (LMICs). It is not well known how novel therapies are tested in current clinical trials and the extent to which they match global disease burden. Objectives: To describe the design, results, and publication of oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the extent to which trials match global disease burden and how trial methods and results differ across economic settings. Design, setting, and participants: In this retrospective cohort study, a literature search identified all phase 3 RCTs evaluating anticancer therapies published from 2014 to 2017. Randomized clinical trials were classified based on World Bank economic classification. Descriptive statistics were used to compare RCT design and results from high-income countries (HICs) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Statistical analysis was conducted in January 2020. Main outcomes and measures: Differences in the design, results, and output of RCTs between HICs and LMICs. Results: The study cohort included 694 RCTs: 636 (92%) led by HICs and 58 (8%) led by LMICs. A total of 601 RCTs (87%) tested systemic therapy and 88 RCTs (13%) tested radiotherapy or surgery. The proportion of RCTs relative to global deaths was higher for breast cancer (121 RCTs [17%] and 7% of deaths) but lower for gastroesophageal cancer (38 RCTs [6%] and 14% of deaths), liver cancer (14 RCTs [2%] and 8% of deaths), pancreas cancer (14 RCTs [2%] and 5% of deaths), and cervical cancer (9 RCTs [1%] and 3% of deaths). Randomized clinical trials in HICs were more likely than those in LMICs to be funded by industry (464 [73%] vs 24 [41%]; P < .001). Studies in LMICs were smaller than those in HICs (median, 219 [interquartile range, 137-363] vs 474 [interquartile range, 262-743] participants; P < .001) and more likely to meet their primary end points (39 of 58 [67%] vs 286 of 636 [45%]; P = .001). The observed median effect size among superiority trials was larger in LMICs compared with HICs (hazard ratio, 0.62 [interquartile range, 0.54-0.76] vs 0.84 [interquartile range, 0.67-0.97]; P < .001). Studies from LMICs were published in journals with lower median impact factors than studies from HICs (7 [interquartile range, 4-21] vs 21 [interquartile range, 7-34]; P < .001). Publication bias persisted when adjusted for whether a trial was positive or negative (median impact factor: LMIC negative trial, 5 [interquartile range, 4-6] vs HIC negative trial, 18 [interquartile range, 6-26]; LMIC positive trial, 9 [interquartile range, 5-25] vs HIC positive trial, 25 [interquartile range, 10-48]; P < .001). Conclusions and relevance: This study suggests that oncology RCTs are conducted predominantly by HICs and do not match the global burden of cancer. Randomized clinical trials from LMICs are more likely to identify effective therapies and have a larger effect size than RCTs from HICs. This study suggests that there is a funding and publication bias against RCTs led by LMICs. Policy makers, research funders, and journals need to address this issue with a range of measures including building capacity and capability in RCTs.

Selective electrical inhibition of C-fiber spikes in fine nerve strands as a method of identifying A and C afferents

ESMO Management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era: Breast Cancer

Ketamine-aminophylline-induced decrease in seizure threshold.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care including innovations implemented in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review

Report from the Ready for the Next Round Thought-Leadership Roundtables on Building Resilience in Cancer Care and Control in Canada-Colorectal Cancer Canada; 2021

Recommendations for prioritization, treatment, and triage of breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. the COVID-19 pandemic breast cancer consortium

Prioritization and resource allocation in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recommendations for colorectal and pancreatic cancer in Germany

Impact of the early phase of the COVID pandemic on cancer treatment delivery and the quality of cancer care: a scoping review and conceptual model

Aligning Cancer Research Priorities in Europe with Recommendations for Conquering Cancer: A Comprehensive Analysis

Global effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on paediatric cancer care: a cross-sectional study

Effects of prostaglandin E 1 on contralateral olivo-cochlear bundle stimulation in cats.

Abstract PO-093: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on care delivery and quality of life in lung cancer surgery

Molecular Markers of Hemostatic Activation in Atherosclerosis: A New Concept in Diagnostic Profiling of Endogenous Pathophysiologic Transition

The impact of COVID-19 on cancer care and oncology clinical research: an experts' perspective

Paramilitary punishment in Northern Ireland: a macabre irony.

Demographic Analysis of Cancer Research Priorities and Treatment Correlations

Regional variation in identified cancer care needs of early-career oncologists in China, India, and Pakistan

Pneumocystis carinii: recent advances in basic biology and their clinical application.

Abstract A028: Revisiting cancer care inequities in Sub-Saharan Africa: standpoint and recommendations

Community-Led Action Research in Oncology: Pandemic-Appropriate Radiotherapy Innovations Evaluated (CLARO PARTE) for Latin America and the Caribbean Countries

An Analysis of Contemporary Oncology Randomized Clinical Trials From Low/Middle-Income vs High-Income Countries