Cancer Demographics and Time-to-Care in Belize.

BACKGROUND: Belize is a middle-income Caribbean country with poorly described cancer epidemiology and no comprehensive cancer care capacity. In 2018, GO, Inc., a US-based NGO, partnered with the Ministry of Health and the national hospital in Belize City to create the first public oncology clinic in the country. Here, we report demographics from the clinic and describe time intervals to care milestones to allow for public health targeting of gaps. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using paper charts and a mobile health platform, we performed a retrospective chart review at the Karl Heusner Memorial Hospital (KHMH) clinic from 2018 to 2022. RESULTS: During this time period, 465 patients with cancer presented to the clinic. Breast cancer (28%) and cervical cancer (12%) were most common. Most patients (68%) presented with stage 3 or 4 disease and were uninsured (78%) and unemployed (79%). Only 21% of patients ever started curative intent treatment. Median time from patient-reported symptoms to a biopsy or treatment was 130 and 189 days. For the most common cancer, breast, similar times were seen at 140 and 178 days. Time intervals at the clinic: <30 days from initial visit to biopsy (if not previously performed) and <30 days to starting chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: This study reports the first clinic-based cancer statistics for Belize. Many patients have months between symptom onset and treatment. In this setting, the clinic has built infrastructure allowing for minimal delays in care despite an underserved population. This further affirms the need for infrastructure investment and early detection programs to improve outcomes in Belize.

Implementing Patient-Directed Cancer Education Materials Across Nigeria.

PURPOSE: As access to cancer care expands in low-income countries, developing tools to educate patients is paramount. We took a picture booklet, which was initially developed by the nonprofit Global Oncology for Malawi and Rwanda, and adapted it for use in Nigeria. The primary goal was to assess acceptability and provide education. The secondary goals were (1) to describe the collaboration, (2) to assess knowledge gained from the intervention, (3) to assess patient understanding of their therapy intent, and (4) to explore patient's experiences via qualitative analysis. METHODS: We piloted the original English booklet at a single site and requested feedback from patients and providers. The booklet was updated; translated into Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo, and Pidgin English; and used at three additional sites. For the three-site cohort, we collected basic demographics, pretest and post-test assessing content in the booklet, and performed a qualitative analysis. RESULTS: The original booklet was widely acceptable and recommended by patients at site one (n = 31) and by providers (N = 26) representing all four sites. In the three-site cohort (n = 103), 94% of patients recommended the booklet. An immediate post-test focusing on when patients should present to care showed a statistically significant improvement in one of the seven questions. Fifty-one percent of the patients (n = 103) knew their treatment intent (curative v palliative). Qualitative analysis highlighted that the patient's thoughts on cancer are dominated by negative associations, although curability and modern therapy are also frequently cited. CONCLUSION: We adapted an educational booklet to a novel context and had it delivered by local partners. The booklet was widely recommended to future patients. The booklet had an impact on patient's knowledge of cancer treatment, potentially allowing for decreased abandonment.

Healthcare delivery interventions to reduce cancer disparities worldwide.

Globally, cancer care delivery is marked by inequalities, where some economic, demographic, and sociocultural groups have worse outcomes than others. In this review, we sought to identify patient-facing interventions designed to reduce disparities in cancer care in both high- and low-income countries. We found two broad categories of interventions that have been studied in the current literature: Patient navigation and telehealth. Navigation has the strongest evidence base for reducing disparities, primarily in cancer screening. Improved outcomes with navigation interventions have been seen in both high- and low-income countries. Telehealth interventions remain an active area of exploration, primarily in high income countries, with the best evidence being for the remote delivery of palliative care. Ongoing research is needed to identify the most efficacious, cost-effective, and scalable interventions to reduce barriers to the receipt of cancer care globally.

Screening duplex ultrasonography in neurosurgery patients does not correlate with a reduction in pulmonary embolism rate or decreased mortality.

OBJECTIVE: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a major focus of patient safety indicators and a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Many practices have employed lower-extremity screening ultrasonography in addition to chemoprophylaxis and the use of sequential compression devices in an effort to reduce poor outcomes. However, the role of screening in directly decreasing pulmonary emboli (PEs) and mortality is unclear. At the University of Mississippi Medical Center, a policy change provided the opportunity to compare independent groups: patients treated under a prior paradigm of weekly screening ultrasonography versus a post-policy change group in which weekly surveillance was no longer performed. METHODS: A total of 2532 consecutive cases were reviewed, with a 4-month washout period around the time of the policy change. Criteria for inclusion were admission to the neurosurgical service or consultation for ≥ 72 hours and hospitalization for ≥ 72 hours. Patients with a known diagnosis of DVT on admission or previous inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement were excluded. The primary outcome examined was the rate of PE diagnosis, with secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality at discharge, DVT diagnosis rate, and IVC filter placement rate. A p value < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 485 patients met the criteria for the pre-policy change group and 504 for the post-policy change group. Data are presented as screening (pre-policy change) versus no screening (post-policy change). There was no difference in the PE rate (2% in both groups, p = 0.72) or all-cause mortality at discharge (7% vs 6%, p = 0.49). There were significant differences in the lower-extremity DVT rate (10% vs 3%, p < 0.01) or IVC filter rate (6% vs 2%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Based on these data, screening Doppler ultrasound examinations, in conjunction with standard-of-practice techniques to prevent thromboembolism, do not appear to confer a benefit to patients. While the screening group had significantly higher rates of DVT diagnosis and IVC filter placement, the screening, additional diagnoses, and subsequent interventions did not appear to improve patient outcomes. Ultimately, this makes DVT screening difficult to justify.

Platelet testing in flow diversion: a review of the evidence.

OBJECTIVE Although the use of dual antiplatelet therapy with flow diversion is recommended and commonplace, the testing of platelet inhibition is more controversial. METHODS The authors reviewed the medical literature to establish and describe the physiology of platelet adhesion, the pharmacology of antiplatelet medications, and the mechanisms of the available platelet function tests. Additionally, they present a review of the pertinent neurointerventional and interventional cardiology literature. RESULTS Competing reports in the neurointerventional literature argue for and against the use of routine platelet function testing, with adjustments to the dosage or medications based on the results. The interventional cardiology literature has also wrestled with this dilemma after percutaneous coronary interventions, with conflicting reports of the benefits of platelet function testing. CONCLUSIONS Despite its prevalence, the benefits of platelet function testing prior to flow diversion are unproven. This practice will likely remain controversial until the level of evidence improves through more rigorous testing and reporting.