Clinical presentation of childhood soft tissue sarcomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Time to diagnosis (TTD) of childhood soft tissue sarcoma (STS) is significantly associated with survival. This review aims to identify pre-diagnostic symptoms/signs to inform earlier diagnosis interventions. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Web-of-Science were searched between January 2010 and February 2021 for studies including children (<18 years) diagnosed with STS, with no language restrictions. Pooled proportions of symptoms/signs were calculated and subanalysed by tumour location and age. RESULTS: Fifty-nine eligible studies were identified, totalling 2462 cases. The most frequent symptoms were lump/swelling (38%, 95% CI 27% to 51%), pain (6%, 95% CI 3% to 10%), cutaneous changes (4%, 95% CI 0 to 9%), localised eye swelling (3%, 95% CI 0 to 7%), cranial nerve deficits (2%, 95% CI 0 to 5%) and constitutional symptoms (2%, 95% CI 0 to 5%).Symptoms varied by location and age. Localised eye swelling (20%, 95% CI 3% to 45%), cranial nerve deficits (14%, 95% CI 4% to 28%) and impaired visual function (6%, 95% CI 0 to 17%) were frequent in head and neck tumours. For abdomen/pelvic tumours, urinary symptoms (24%, 95% CI 5% to 15%), abdominal distension/discomfort (22%, 95% CI 4% to 47%), genital lump/swelling (16%, 95% CI 1% to 42%), constitutional symptoms (9%, 95% CI 0%] to 23%), vaginal bleeding (7%, 95%C I 0 to 21%) and bowel habit changes (6%, 95% CI 0 to 17%) were frequent.In <5 years, consumptive coagulopathy (16%, 95% CI 0 to 48%), cutaneous changes (5%, 95% CI 0 to 40%), genital lump/swelling (4%, 95% CI 0 to 14%), reduced mobility (3%, 95% CI 0 to 11%), vaginal bleeding (2%, 95% CI 0 to 11%) and bleeding/bruising/petechiae (2%, 95% CI 0 to 20%) were frequent compared with lump/swelling, constitutional symptoms, pain and headaches which were frequent among >11 years. CONCLUSIONS: For STS, pre-diagnostic symptoms differ by age and location, highlighting the need to tailor early diagnosis interventions.

Research priorities for children's cancer: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To engage children who have experienced cancer, childhood cancer survivors, their families and professionals to systematically identify and prioritise research questions about childhood cancer to inform the future research agenda. DESIGN: James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. SETTING: UK health service and community. METHODS: A steering group oversaw the initiative. Potential research questions were collected in an online survey, then checked to ensure they were unanswered. Shortlisting via a second online survey identified the highest priority questions. A parallel process with children was undertaken. A final consensus workshop was held to determine the Top 10 priorities. PARTICIPANTS: Children and survivors of childhood cancer, diagnosed before age 16, their families, friends and professionals who work with this population. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-eight people submitted 1299 potential questions. These were refined into 108 unique questions; 4 were already answered and 3 were under active study, therefore, removed. Three hundred and twenty-seven respondents completed the shortlisting survey. Seventy-one children submitted questions in the children's surveys, eight children attended a workshop to prioritise these questions. The Top 5 questions from children were taken to the final workshop where 23 questions in total were discussed by 25 participants (young adults, carers and professionals). The top priority was 'can we find effective and kinder (less burdensome, more tolerable, with fewer short and long-term effects) treatments for children with cancer, including relapsed cancer?' CONCLUSIONS: We have identified research priorities for children's cancer from the perspectives of children, survivors, their families and the professionals who care for them. Questions reflect the breadth of the cancer experience, including diagnosis, relapse, hospital experience, support during/after treatment and the long-term impact of cancer. These should inform funding of future research as they are the questions that matter most to the people who could benefit from research.

Public awareness of childhood, teenager and young adult cancer signs and symptoms in Great Britain: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: To assess public awareness of the risks and symptoms of cancer in children, teenagers, and young adults (CTYA) aged <18 years in Great Britain. METHODS: A face-to-face computer-assisted opinion survey was conducted by Ipsos MORI. Participants were a population-based sample of 1000 adults (475 men, 525 women) aged >18 years, with 26% having children aged 6-15 in their households. Questions covered perception about cumulative cancer risk, confidence in recognising signs and symptoms, recognition and perceived urgency of classical signs and symptoms. RESULTS: Only 32% of respondents felt confident in recognising CTYA cancer signs and symptoms. Symptoms deemed to require medical assessment within 48 hours by over 50% of participants included seizures/fits, blood in urine or stool, and persistent vomiting. All symptoms except one were selected for assessment within 3 months. On average, respondents identified 10.6 out of 42 classical signs and symptoms. The most recognised symptoms included lump, swelling in pelvis, testicle or breast (46%), blood in urine or stool (44%), changes to moles (43%), lump/swelling in the chest wall or armpits (41%) and weight loss (40%). The least recognised symptoms were early/late puberty (10%), developmental delay in children aged <2 years (11%) and slow growth (13%), with 8%, 2% and 6%, respectively, perceiving no need to discuss them with a doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Public awareness of childhood cancer risks and symptoms is substantially lower compared with adult cancer awareness in Great Britain. These findings indicate knowledge and awareness gaps among the general public, highlighting the need for a child cancer awareness campaign.

Patient and public involvement to inform priorities and practice for research using existing healthcare data for children's and young people's cancers.

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, healthcare data is collected on all patients receiving National Health Service (NHS) care, including children and young people (CYP) with cancer. This data is used to inform service delivery, and with special permissions used for research. The use of routinely collected health data in research is an advancing field with huge potential benefit, particularly in CYP with cancer where case numbers are small and the impact across the life course can be significant. Patient and public involvement (PPI) exercise aims: Identify current barriers to trust relating to the use of healthcare data for research. Determine ways to increase public and patient confidence in the use of healthcare data in research. Define areas of research importance to CYP and their carers using healthcare data. METHODS: Young people currently aged between 16 and 25 years who had a cancer diagnosis before the age of 20 years and carers of a young person with cancer were invited to take part via social media and existing networks of service users. Data was collected during two interactive online workshops totalling 5 h and comprising of presentations from health data experts, case-studies and group discussions. With participant consent the workshops were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Ten young people and six carers attended workshop one. Four young people and four carers returned for workshop two. Lack of awareness of how data is used, and negative media reporting were seen as the main causes of mistrust. Better communication and education on how data is used were felt to be important to improving public confidence. Participants want the ability to have control over their own data use. Late effects, social and education outcomes and research on rare tumours were described as key research priorities for data use. CONCLUSIONS: In order to improve public and patient trust in our use of data for research, we need to improve communication about how data is used and the benefits that arise.

Everyday data is collected on all patients treated within the National Health Service, including children and young people with cancer (CYP). This data is used routinely to improve how services are run and with special permissions, can also be used for research. Negative reporting in the media about this use of data can lead to mistrust and some people choosing not to share their data. This can reduce the quality and accuracy of research looking at rare diseases or populations with small numbers. In addition, many barriers exist to researchers when trying to access this data such as laws around data sharing, making it difficult and sometimes impossible to carry out such research. We invited CYP and carers to two workshops to: Learn about how healthcar e data is used for research. Consider ways to increase public and patient confidence in this use of healthcare data. Describe areas of research importance to CYP and their carers using healthcare data. Ten young people and six carers attended the first workshop. Four young people and four carers returned for workshop two. Workshops consisted of interactive presentations, case studies and group discussions. Overall participants felt that lack of awareness and negative media reporting led to mistrust in data use for research. It was believed that greater education about how the data is used, including positive examples of the benefits of the research, was needed to improve public confidence. Key research priorities for data use included late-effects, social and educational outcomes and rare tumours.

Have we made progress in taking care of adolescents and young adults with cancer? Results of a European multi-professional survey.

BACKGROUND: It is well documented that traditional health care models do not meet the specific needs of Adolescents and Young Adults (AYA) cancer patients. METHODS: We explore a map of the development of age-specific AYA cancer care across Europe, from the perspective of healthcare professionals with an interest in AYA care, in order to understand the specific challenges and map progress over time. An on-line survey was developed by international professional cancer organisations. RESULTS: We had 377 respondents from 60 countries. The majority of respondents were physicians 298 (79%), a minority of survey respondents (39, 10.4%) work exclusively with AYA patients, most respondents declared substantial and routine clinical service collaborations to provide care and treatment to AYA with cancer. Policy for the multidisciplinary management of AYA cancer patients commonly appears in Europe now, and was reported by 234 (78.52%) respondents. Specific professional training for AYA cancer care is not uniformly available. CONCLUSION: There is considerable opportunity for many organisations to work together in raising the profile of AYA cancer related issues, in providing education and in encouraging research and collaboration.

Assessing and investigating children with suspected bone and abdominal tumours: an e-Delphi consensus process.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of childhood cancer has risen by 15% since the 1990s. Early diagnosis is key to optimising outcomes, however diagnostic delays are widely reported. Presenting symptoms are often non-specific causing a diagnostic dilemma for clinicians. This Delphi consensus process was conducted to develop a new clinical guideline for children and young people presenting with signs/symptoms suggestive of a bone or abdominal tumour. METHODS: Invitation emails were sent to primary and secondary healthcare professionals to join the Delphi panel. 65 statements were derived from evidence review by a multidisciplinary team. Participants were asked to rank their level of agreement with each statement on a 9-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 9=strongly agree), with responses ≥7 taken to indicate agreement. Statements not reaching consensus were rewritten and reissued in a subsequent round. RESULTS: All statements achieved consensus after two rounds. 96/133 (72%) participants responded to round 1 (R1) and 69/96 (72%) completed round 2 (R2). 62/65 (94%) statements achieved consensus in R1 with 29/65 (47%) gaining more than 90% consensus. Three statements did not reach consensus scoring between 61% and 69%. All reached numerical consensus at the end of R2. Strong consensus was reached on best practice of conducting the consultation, acknowledging parental instinct and obtaining telephone advice from a paediatrician to decide the timing and place of review, rather than adult cancer urgent referral pathways. Dissensus in statements was due to unachievable targets within primary care and valid concerns over a potential overinvestigation of abdominal pain. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus process has consolidated statements that will be included in a new clinical guideline for suspected bone and abdominal tumours for use in both primary and secondary care. This evidence base will be translated into awareness tools for the public as part of the Child Cancer Smart national awareness campaign.

Can I go home now? The safety and efficacy of a new UK paediatric febrile neutropenia protocol for risk-stratified early discharge on oral antibiotics.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new protocol of risk stratification and early discharge for children with febrile neutropenia (FN). DESIGN: Prospective service evaluation from 17 April 2020 to 16 April 2021. SETTING: 13 specialist centres in the UK. PATIENTS: 405 children presenting with FN. INTERVENTION: All children received intravenous antibiotics at presentation. Risk stratification was determined using the Australian-UK-Swiss (AUS) rule and eligibility for homecare assessed using criteria including disease, chemotherapy, presenting features and social factors. Those eligible for homecare could be discharged on oral antibiotics after a period of observation proportional to their risk group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Median duration of admission and of intravenous antibiotics, and percentage of patients with positive blood cultures, significant infection, readmission within 7 days of initial presentation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, death from infection and death from other causes. RESULTS: 13 centres contributed 729 initial presentations of 405 patients. AUS rule scores were positively correlated with positive blood cultures, significant infection, ICU admission and death. 20% of children were eligible for homecare with oral antibiotics, of which 55% were low risk (AUS 0-1). 46% low-risk homecare eligible patients were discharged by 24 hours vs 2% homecare ineligible. Homecare readmission rates were 14% overall and 16% for low-risk cases (similar to a meta-analysis of previous studies). No child eligible for homecare was admitted to ICU or died. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the AUS rule and homecare criteria allow for safe early outpatient management of children with FN.

Experiences and support needs of parents/caregivers of children with cancer through the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences, information and support needs of parents/caregivers of children with cancer and how these changed as the COVID-19 pandemic evolved. DESIGN: Online surveys containing closed and free-text questions on experiences, information and support needs were completed at four time points (between April 2020 and October 2021) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive statistics of closed items and content analysis of qualitative data were conducted. SETTING: Online. PARTICIPANTS: Parents/caregivers of children with cancer. RESULTS: 335 parents/caregivers completed the survey over four time points. Findings revealed that parents'/caregivers' worry about the virus and vigilance about their child's virus symptoms decreased over time. Parents reporting the need for support on how to reduce their worries and/or family members during the virus outbreak were low, however parents reported a slight increase in need for support at T3 when schools reopened. Qualitative findings reported the following themes: (1) Psychological well-being of parents/caregivers, (2) Changing perceptions of risks/priorities, (3) Adjusting to COVID-19: Living with continued caution, (4) Healthcare and treatment provision, (5) Information seeking and needs during COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted people's lives and routines in relation to access to support, finances, education and social lives, leading to psychological distress. Parents highlighted the need for timely, up-to-date and personalised information in relation to COVID-19 and their child with cancer. Further consideration of the development of technology-based health solutions may provide an efficient and safe way to connect with and support parent/caregivers.

The Childhood Cancer Diagnosis (CCD) Study: a UK observational study to describe referral pathways and quantify diagnostic intervals in children and young people with cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Childhood cancer is diagnosed in 400 000 children and young people (CYP) aged 0-19 years worldwide annually. In the UK, a child's cumulative cancer risk increases from 1 in 4690 from birth to aged 1, to 1 in 470 by age 15. Once diagnosed, access to treatments offers survival to adulthood for over 80%. Tumour diagnoses are at a later stage and mortality is higher when compared with those in other parts of Europe. This means higher risk, more intensive therapies for a cure. Some CYPs are known to experience delays to diagnosis which may further contribute to poor outcomes. This study aims to understand the current pathway of childhood cancer referrals and diagnosis and quantify diagnostic intervals in the UK. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective multicentre observational study including all tertiary childhood cancer treatment centres in the UK. CYP (0-18 years) with a new diagnosis of cancer over the study period will be invited to participate. Data will be collected at initial diagnosis and 5 years after diagnosis. Data will include demographic details, clinical symptoms, tumour location, stage and clinical risk group. In addition, key diagnostic dates and referral routes will be collected to calculate the diagnostic intervals. At 5 years' follow-up, data will be collected on refractory disease, relapse and 1-year and 5-year survival. Population characteristics will be presented with descriptive analyses with further analyses stratified by age, geographical region and cancer type. Associations between diagnostic intervals/delay and risk factors will be explored using multiple regression and logistic regression. ETHICS: The study has favourable opinion from the York and Humber, Leeds West REC (19/YH/0416). DISSEMINATION: Results will be presented at academic conferences, published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated through public messaging in collaboration with our charity partners through a national awareness campaign (ChildCancerSmart). STUDY REGISTRATION: researchregistry.com (researchregistry5313).

COVID-19 in children with haematological malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Children with cancer are not at increased risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, adults with haematological malignancies have increased risk of severe infections compared with non-haematological malignancies. METHODS: We compared patients with haematological and non-haematological malignancies enrolled in the UK Paediatric Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project between 12 March 2020 and 16 February 2021. Children who received stem cell transplantation were excluded. RESULTS: Only 2/62 patients with haematological malignancy had severe/critical infections, with an OR of 0.5 for patients with haematological compared with non-haematological malignancies. INTERPRETATION: Children with haematological malignancies are at no greater risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection than those with non-haematological malignancies.

COVID-19 and children with cancer: Parents' experiences, anxieties and support needs.

BACKGROUND: Children with cancer were designated as clinically extremely vulnerable if they were to contract SARS-CoV-2 due to immune suppression in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our aim was to explore experiences, information and support needs, and decision making of parents with a child with cancer in response to this phase in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Parents of a child with cancer completed a survey at a time when the UK moved into a period of 'lockdown'. An online survey was developed by the research team to capture parents' experiences, information and support needs, and decision making, using closed statements and open text boxes. Descriptive quantitative analyses and qualitative thematic content analysis were undertaken. FINDINGS: One hundred seventy-one parents/caregivers completed the survey. Eighty-five percent were worried about the virus and they were vigilant about the virus (92%) or cancer symptoms (93.4%). For two-thirds (69.6%), hospital was no longer considered a safe place. Eight overarching themes were identified related to the virus: (a) risk of infection; (b) information, guidance and advice; (c) health care provision; (d) fears and anxieties; or related to lockdown/isolation: (e) psychological and social impact; (f) keeping safe under lockdown; (g) provisions and dependence; and (h) employment and income. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study, to the best of our knowledge, to report experiences of parents of a child with cancer during the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic. The majority of parents were worried about SARS-CoV-2 and transmitting the virus to their child. Hospital was no longer perceived to be a safe place, and parents were worried about suboptimal cancer care. Parents described fear and anxiety and the psychological, social and economic impact of isolation.

Severity of COVID-19 in children with cancer: Report from the United Kingdom Paediatric Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project.

BACKGROUND: Children with cancer are frequently immunocompromised. While children are generally thought to be at less risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection than adults, comprehensive population-based evidence for the risk in children with cancer is unavailable. We aimed to produce evidence of the incidence and outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 in children with cancer attending all hospitals treating this population across the UK. METHODS: Retrospective and prospective observational study of all children in the UK under 16 diagnosed with cancer through data collection from all hospitals providing cancer care to this population. Eligible patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The primary end-point was death, discharge or end of active care for COVID-19 for those remaining in hospital. RESULTS: Between 12 March 2020 and 31 July 2020, 54 cases were identified: 15 (28%) were asymptomatic, 34 (63%) had mild infections and 5 (10%) moderate, severe or critical infections. No patients died and only three patients required intensive care support due to COVID-19. Estimated incidence of hospital identified SARS-CoV-2 infection in children with cancer under 16 was 3%. CONCLUSIONS: Children with cancer with SARS-CoV-2 infection do not appear at increased risk of severe infection compared to the general paediatric population. This is reassuring and supports the continued delivery of standard treatment.

Delphi method to identify expert opinion to support children's cancer referral guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance for referral of children with suspected cancer was first published in 2005 and updated in 2015. The updated version relied on sparse primary care evidence and published without input from key stakeholders, for example, acute general paediatricians and paediatric haematologists/oncologists. This led to a document that fell short as a practical guide for referring physicians managing children with potentially life-threatening conditions. Following discussions between the Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group (CCLG, the UK multidisciplinary professional body for healthcare professionals caring for children with cancer) and NICE, it was agreed that a practical supplement should be produced for the 2015 guidance. A prerequisite was evidence gathering from tertiary care to balance the existing primary care evidence, and a Delphi consensus method was therefore convened. METHODS: A CCLG NICE Guidance Committee formulated 25 draft statements for review. The CCLG emailed its paediatric haematologist/oncologist membership (n=179) and 88 responded (49%). To achieve consensus, statements required ≥70% agreement from ≥60% of actual respondents, from the denominator (n=88). RESULTS: Fifteen of 25 original statements were accepted at the first round of voting. Three of 25 statements where >50% did not support were rejected outright. One statement could not be revised without replicating a previously accepted statement. The six remaining statements were revised and a second round of voting undertaken; all six revised statements were accepted. Overall, 21 of 25 statements (84%) met consensus criteria. CONCLUSIONS: This expert opinion should help streamline suspected cancer referral in children and help optimise subsequent outcomes.