Evaluating the Harms of Cancer Testing-A Systematic Review of the Adverse Psychological Correlates of Testing for Cancer and the Effectiveness of Interventions to Mitigate These.

(1) Background: Several studies have described the psychological harms of testing for cancer. However, most were conducted in asymptomatic subjects and in cancers with a well-established screening programme. We sought to establish cancers in which the literature is deficient, and identify variables associated with psychological morbidity and interventions to mitigate their effect. (2) Methods: Electronic bibliographic databases were searched up to December 2020. We included quantitative studies reporting on variables associated with psychological morbidity associated with cancer testing and primary studies describing interventions to mitigate these. (3) Results: Twenty-six studies described individual, testing-related, and organisational variables. Thirteen randomised controlled trials on interventions were included, and these were categorised into five groups, namely the use of information aids, music therapy, the use of real-time videos, patient navigators and one-stop clinics, and pharmacological or homeopathic therapies. (4) Conclusions: The contribution of some factors to anxiety in cancer testing and their specificity of effect remains inconclusive and warrants further research in homogenous populations and testing contexts. Targeting young, unemployed patients with low levels of educational attainment may offer a means to mitigate anxiety. A limited body of research suggests that one-stop clinics and patient navigators may be beneficial in patients attending for diagnostic cancer testing.

The impact of preoperative oral nutrition supplementation on outcomes in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery for cancer in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Malnutrition is an independent predictor for postoperative complications in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We systematically reviewed evidence on the impact of preoperative oral nutrition supplementation (ONS) on patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery in LMICs. We searched EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, WHO Global Index Medicus, SciELO, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) databases from inception to March 21, 2022 for randomised controlled trials evaluating preoperative ONS in gastrointestinal cancer within LMICs. We evaluated the impact of ONS on all postoperative outcomes using random-effects meta-analysis. Seven studies reported on 891 patients (446 ONS group, 445 control group) undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer. Preoperative ONS reduced all cause postoperative surgical complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.46-0.60, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%, n = 891), infection (0.52, 0.40-0.67, P = 0.008, I2 = 0%, n = 570) and all-cause mortality (0.35, 0.26-0.47, P = 0.014, I2 = 0%, n = 588). Despite heterogeneous populations and baseline rates, absolute risk ratio (ARR) was reduced for all cause (pooled effect -0.14, -0.22 to -0.06, P = 0.006; number needed to treat (NNT) 7) and infectious complications (-0.13, -0.22 to -0.06, P < 0.001; NNT 8). Preoperative nutrition in patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery in LMICs demonstrated consistently strong and robust treatment effects across measured outcomes. However additional higher quality research, with particular focus within African populations, are urgently required.

British Gynaecological Cancer Society recommendations and guidance on patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU).

The National Cancer Survivorship Initiative through the National Health Service (NHS) improvement in the UK started the implementation of stratified pathways of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) across various tumor types. Now the initiative is continued through the Living With and Beyond Cancer program by NHS England. Evidence from non-randomized studies and systematic reviews does not demonstrate a survival advantage to the long-established practice of hospital-based follow-up regimens, traditionally over 5 years. Evidence shows that patient needs are inadequately met under the traditional follow-up programs and there is therefore an urgent need to adapt pathways to the needs of patients. The assumption that hospital-based follow-up is able to detect cancer recurrences early and hence improve patient prognosis has not been validated. A recent survey demonstrates that follow-up practice across the UK varies widely, with telephone follow-up clinics, nurse-led clinics and PIFU becoming increasingly common. There are currently no completed randomized controlled trials in PIFU in gynecological malignancies, although there is a drive towards implementing PIFU. PIFU aims to individualize patient care, based on risk of recurrence and holistic needs, and optimizing resources. The British Gynaecological Cancer Society wishes to provide the gynecological oncology community with guidance and a recommendations statement regarding the value, indications, and limitations of PIFU in endometrial, cervical, ovarian, and vulvar cancers in an effort to standardize practice and improve patient care.