OBJECTIVE: In end-of-life cancer care, 10-20% of bereaved family members experience adverse mental health effects, including prolonged grief disorder. Despite great efforts, evidence-based recommendations to support their grieving process and well-being are often not successfully adopted into routine clinical care. This study identified facilitators and barriers using implementation science methodology.
METHODS: 81 registered nurses working in cancer care from four hospitals and three home care services in Switzerland assessed their current family support practices in end-of-life care and bereavement care. They then assessed organisational attributes of their institution and their own individual characteristics and skills regarding literature-based factors of potential relevance. Facilitators and barriers to guideline-based family support were determined using fractional logistic regression.
RESULTS: Service specialisation in palliative care, a culture that supports change, the availability of family support guidelines, billing/reimbursement of bereavement support services, and individual knowledge of family support and skill were systematically associated with higher adoption of guideline-based family support practices. Lack of privacy with families and insufficient training acted as significant barriers.
CONCLUSIONS: While several potentially relevant factors have emerged in the literature, certain organisational and individual determinants actually empirically predict guideline-based family support according to nurses in end-of-life cancer care, with some determinants having much stronger implications than others. This provides crucial guidance for focussing quality improvement and implementation efforts through tailored strategies, especially with scarce resources. Furthermore, adoption is lower in bereavement care than in end-of-life care, suggesting a particular need for supportive organisational cultures including specific training and billing/reimbursement options.

OBJECTIVE: Recent breakthroughs in natural language processing and machine learning, exemplified by ChatGPT, have spurred a paradigm shift in healthcare. Released by OpenAI in November 2022, ChatGPT rapidly gained global attention. Trained on massive text datasets, this large language model holds immense potential to revolutionize healthcare. However, existing literature often overlooks the need for rigorous validation and real-world applicability.
METHODS: This head-to-head comparative study assesses ChatGPT\'s capabilities in providing therapeutic recommendations for head and neck cancers. Simulating every NCCN Guidelines scenarios. ChatGPT is queried on primary treatments, adjuvant treatment, and follow-up, with responses compared to the NCCN Guidelines. Performance metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, and F1 score, are employed for assessment.
RESULTS: The study includes 68 hypothetical cases and 204 clinical scenarios. ChatGPT exhibits promising capabilities in addressing NCCN-related queries, achieving high sensitivity and overall accuracy across primary treatment, adjuvant treatment, and follow-up. The study\'s metrics showcase robustness in providing relevant suggestions. However, a few inaccuracies are noted, especially in primary treatment scenarios.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the proficiency of ChatGPT in providing treatment suggestions. The model\'s alignment with the NCCN Guidelines sets the stage for a nuanced exploration of AI\'s evolving role in oncological decision support. However, challenges related to the interpretability of AI in clinical decision-making and the importance of clinicians understanding the underlying principles of AI models remain unexplored. As AI continues to advance, collaborative efforts between models and medical experts are deemed essential for unlocking new frontiers in personalized cancer care.

In cancer care, symptom monitoring during treatment results in improved clinical outcomes such as improved quality of life, longer survival, and fewer hospital admissions. However, as the majority of patients with cancer are older and have multimorbidity, they may benefit from monitoring of additional symptoms. The aim of this study was to identify a core set of symptoms to monitor in older patients with multimorbidity treated for cancer, including symptoms caused by treatment side effects, destabilization of comorbidities, and functional decline.
During a scoping literature search, 17 quality of life questionnaires were used to select 53 possible symptoms to monitor. An expert panel of cancer and geriatrics specialists was asked to participate in multiple online surveys to indicate whether these symptoms were not relevant to monitor, only relevant to monitor in a specific patient group, or relevant to monitor in all patients. In a subsequent round the list was reduced and the panel indicated how frequently these symptoms should be monitored during cancer treatment and after cancer treatment completion. Finally, a digital consensus meeting was organised to decide when symptoms had to trigger a recommendation to the patient to get in touch with their medical team.
In total, 30 healthcare professionals participated in the online surveys. After two rounds, a dataset of 19 symptoms related to cancer, cancer treatment, functional decline, and destabilization of comorbidities was agreed upon for monitoring. Five symptoms were selected for daily monitoring during treatment, seven for weekly, and seven for monthly. After treatment completion, the panel agreed upon less frequent reporting. Additionally, nine symptoms to be monitored only in patients with specific cancer types or treatment types were chosen, such as \"cough up blood\" in lung cancer.
This study is the first to identify a core set of symptoms to monitor in older patients with multimorbidity treated for cancer. Future research is needed to investigate whether the monitoring of these symptoms is feasible and improves clinical outcomes in older patients with multimorbidity treated for cancer.

暂无摘要。

During periods of high community transmission of COVID-19, the public hospitals in Malaysia, an upper middle-income country, have been forced to scale down elective surgeries, prioritize cancer treatments based on treatment benefits, and postpone non-emergency imaging procedures. These inevitably led to disruptions in cancer care delivery within the public health care system. This study aims to explore the facilitators and barriers faced by healthcare providers and cancer survivors in cancer care, and to co-design a guideline to maintain the delivery of cancer care amid the disaster situations.
In-depth interviews (IDIs) will be conducted with Malaysian healthcare providers and cancer survivors and findings will be analysed thematically. The insights will be used in a subsequent phase to co-design a guideline to maintain the delivery of quality cancer care in Malaysia via a three-round modified Delphi survey with a broad range of cancer stakeholders.
Findings derived from IDIs and existing literature will be included for rating across three rounds by the expert panel. Feedback provided will be refined until consensus on the best practises for cancer care continuity during crises is achieved.
The output of the present study is not only expected to ensure the continuity of delivery of high-quality cancer care in Malaysia during the ongoing pandemic but also to be adapted during unforeseen crises in the near future.
Collaborative work between policy makers, public health physicians, members of the multidisciplinary oncology team as well as cancer survivors is vital in developing an evidenced- based contingency plan for maintaining access to cancer care.

BACKGROUND: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for incident prostate cancer staging imaging have been widely circulated and accepted as best practice since 1996. Despite these clear guidelines, wasteful and potentially harmful inappropriate imaging of men with prostate cancer remains prevalent.
OBJECTIVE: To understand changing population-level patterns of imaging among men with incident prostate cancer, we created a state-transition microsimulation model based on existing literature and incident prostate cancer cases.
METHODS: To create a cohort of patients, we identified incident prostate cancer cases from 2004 to 2009 that were diagnosed in men ages 65 and older from SEER. A microsimulation model allowed us to explore how this cohort\'s survival, quality of life, and Medicare costs would be impacted by making imaging consistent with guidelines. We conducted a probabilistic analysis as well as one-way sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS: When only imaging high-risk men compared to the status quo, we found that the population rate of imaging dropped from 53 to 38% and average per-person spending on imaging dropped from $236 to $157. The discounted and undiscounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios indicated that ideal upfront imaging reduced costs and slightly improved health outcomes compared with current practice patterns, that is, guideline-concordant imaging was less costly and slightly more effective.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the potential reduction in cost through the correction of inappropriate imaging practices. These findings highlight an opportunity within the healthcare system to reduce unnecessary costs and overtreatment through guideline adherence.

At the end of 2019, the cause of pneumonia outbreaks in Wuhan, China, was identified as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. In February 2020, the World Health Organization named the disease cause by SARS-CoV-2 as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In response to the pandemic, the Korean Cancer Association formed the COVID-19 task force to develop practice guidelines. This special article introduces the clinical practice guidelines for cancer patients which will help oncologists best manage cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

(1) Background: Preventive measures taken in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have adversely affected an entire range of cancer-related medical activities. The reallocation of medical resources, staff, and ambulatory services, as well as critical shortages in pharmaceutical and medical supplies have compelled healthcare professionals to prioritize patients with cancer to treatment and screening services based on a set of classification criteria in cancer-related guidelines. Cancer patients themselves have been affected on multiple levels, and addressing their concerns poses another challenge to the oncology community. (2) Methods: We conducted a Canada-wide search of cancer-related clinical practice guidelines on the management and prioritization of individuals into treatment and screening services. We also outlined the resources provided by Canadian cancer charities and patient advocacy groups to provide cancer patients, or potential cancer patients, with useful information and valuable support resources. (3) Results: The identified provincial guidelines emphasized cancer care (i.e., treatment) more than cancer control (i.e., screening). For cancer-related resources, a clear significance was placed on knowledge & awareness and supportive resources, mainly relating to mental health. (4) Conclusion: We provided a guidance document outlining cancer-related guidelines and resources that are available to healthcare providers and patients across Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, due to reasons beyond control, health care workers have struggled to deliver treatment for the patients with cancer. The concern for otherwise healthy patients with curable cancers that require timely intervention or therapy is the risk of contracting COVID-19 may outweigh the benefits of cancer treatment. Lack of international guidelines leaves health care providers with a case-to-case approach for delivering optimal cancer care in the wake of the pandemic. Transition to telemedicine has somewhat bridged the gap for in-office visits, but there is a continuing challenge of delays in cancer screening or significant decline of new diagnoses of cancers due to the pandemic. We aim to propose a balance in risk from treatment delay versus risks from COVID-19 with emphasis on treatment modality (surgery, radiation, and systemic therapy) as well as supportive care for cancer patients, and therefore have reviewed the publications and recommendations from international societies and study groups available as of October 2020.

Health care professionals (HCPs) use clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to make evidence-informed decisions regarding patient care. Although a large number of cancer-related CPGs exist, it is unknown which CPG dissemination and implementation strategies are effective for improving HCP behaviour and patient outcomes in a cancer care context. This review aimed to determine the effectiveness of CPG dissemination and/or implementation strategies among HCPs in a cancer care context.
A comprehensive search of five electronic databases was conducted. Studies were limited to the dissemination and/or implementation of a CPG targeting both medical and/or allied HCPs in cancer care. Two reviewers independently coded strategies using the Mazza taxonomy, extracted study findings, and assessed study quality.
The search strategy identified 33 studies targeting medical and/or allied HCPs. Across the 33 studies, 23 of a possible 49 strategies in the Mazza taxonomy were used, with a mean number of 3.25 (SD = 1.45) strategies per intervention. The number of strategies used per intervention was not associated with positive outcomes. Educational strategies (n = 24), feedback on guideline compliance (n = 11), and providing reminders (n = 10) were the most utilized strategies. When used independently, providing reminders and feedback on CPG compliance corresponded with positive significant changes in outcomes. Further, when used as part of multi-strategy interventions, group education and organizational strategies (e.g. creation of an implementation team) corresponded with positive significant changes in outcomes.
Future CPG dissemination and implementation interventions for cancer care HCPs may benefit from utilizing the identified strategies. Research in this area should aim for better alignment between study objectives, intervention design, and evaluation measures, and should seek to incorporate theory in intervention design, so that behavioural antecedents are considered and measured; doing so would enhance the field\'s understanding of the causal mechanisms by which interventions lead, or do not lead, to changes in outcomes at all levels.