Interventions to reduce times to diagnosis and treatment of head and neck cancer: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: We systematically reviewed evidence of health system interventions to reduce diagnostic and treatment intervals for people with head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from inception to 30 April 2020 for controlled or uncontrolled comparative studies. Primary outcome was any time interval between first clinical presentation and treatment onset. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included. Four types of interventions were identified: single clinic-based (N = 4), multidisciplinary clinic-based (N = 15), hospital or service re-design (N = 12), and health system re-design (N = 6). There was some evidence that multidisciplinary interventions improve timeliness of diagnosis and treatment; however, evidence of long-term effectiveness was lacking. Study quality was assessed as either low or moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to reduce times to diagnosis and treatment of HNC are heterogeneous, with limited evidence of effectiveness. Future interventions should account for the complex and dynamic nature of health systems and adhere to best-practice principles for early-diagnosis research.

Collateral positives of COVID-19 for culturally and linguistically diverse communities in Western Sydney, Australia.

BACKGROUND: To investigate whether culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities in Western Sydney have experienced any positive effects during the COVID-19 pandemic, and if so, what these were. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey with ten language groups was conducted from 21st March to 9th July 2021 in Sydney, Australia. Participants were recruited through bilingual multicultural health staff and health care interpreter service staff and answered a question, 'In your life, have you experienced any positive effects from the COVID-19 pandemic?' Differences were explored by demographic variables. Free-text responses were thematically coded using the Content Analysis method. RESULTS: 707 people completed the survey, aged 18 to >70, 49% males and 51% females. Only 161 (23%) of those surveyed reported any positive impacts. There were significant differences in the proportion of those who reported positives based on age (p = 0.004), gender (p = 0.013), language (p = 0.003), health literacy (p = 0.014), English language proficiency (p = 0.003), education (p = <0.001) and whether participants had children less than 18 years at home (p = 0.001). Content Analysis of open-ended responses showed that, of those that did report positives, the top themes were 'Family time' (44%), 'Improved self-care' (31%) and, 'Greater connection with others' (17%). DISCUSSION: Few surveyed participants reported finding any positives stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. This finding is in stark contrast to related research in Australia with participants whose native language is English in which many more people experienced positives. The needs of people from CALD backgrounds must inform future responses to community crises to facilitate an equitable effect of any collateral positives that may arise.

Desmoplastic small round cell tumor involving the uterine cervix: The first reported case in the literature, and brief review of gynecologic presentations.

Background: Desmoplastic small round cell tumors are exceedingly rare, usually involve abdominal organs and predominantly affect male patients. We describe the first reported case arising from the uterine cervix and provide a summary of 20 previously reported cases involving gynecologic organs. Case: A 54 year-old was diagnosed with a rapidly growing 13 cm desmoplastic small round cell tumor of the cervix. She was treated through a multimodal approach involving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery. She subsequently recurred, and this was successfully treated with radiation therapy. She is well and without evidence of disease 22 months after initial diagnosis. Conclusion: We report successful treatment through multidisciplinary and multimodal management. This can guide management of future patients as no gold-standard treatment has yet been described.

A Systematic Review of Outcome Measures in Orthopaedic Trauma Trials: What Are We Measuring?

Purpose: The objectives of this study are to describe the outcome measures used in orthopaedic fracture care trials, with a particular focus on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and to determine which study characteristics are associated with number of citations. Methods: We retrieved randomized clinical trials on fracture care between 2012 and 2017 from Embase, Medline and CENTRAL databases. Data collected included study characteristics (e.g., region, design, setting, sample size) and outcome measures (e.g., primary variable, measurement perspective, use of PROMs, study results and number of citations). Results: We identified a total of 8,580 articles in the initial search. After title screening, abstract screening and full-text review, we included 416 articles for analysis. 58.4% (243) of the studies clearly defined a primary outcome measure and 56.3% (234) reported sample size justifications for outcome selection. The most common primary outcome reported was a visual analogue scale for pain; used in 21 of the 243 (8.6%) studies that defined a primary outcome. At least one PROM was used in 68.5% (285) of the papers included. Conclusions: A large proportion of studies reporting on PROMs for orthopaedic trauma patients do not provide key information on the outcome selection process; a step of utmost importance in and the designing and reporting of RCTs. There is substantial heterogeneity in the selection of PROMs for fracture care trials, which limits the ability to compare and summarize across studies. Future research in fracture care should strive towards improving the reporting of informative PROMs, with rationale that demonstrates understating of the injury, intervention and patient values. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-022-00667-8.

Genetic basis of cannabis use: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: With the increase in cannabis use rates, cannabis use disorder is being reported as one of the most common drug use disorders globally. Cannabis use has several known physical, psychological, and social adverse events, such as altered judgement, poor educational outcomes, and respiratory symptoms. The propensity for taking cannabis and the development of a cannabis use disorder may be genetically influenced for some individuals. Heritability estimates suggest a genetic basis for cannabis use, and several genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have identified possible regions of association, albeit with inconsistent findings. This systematic review aims to summarize the findings from GWASs investigating cannabis use and cannabis use disorder. METHODS: This systematic review incorporates articles that have performed a GWAS investigating cannabis use or cannabis use disorder. MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, GWAS Catalog, GWAS Central, and NIH Database of Genotype and Phenotype were searched using a comprehensive search strategy. All studies were screened in duplicate, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the quality of genetic association studies (Q-Genie) tool. All studies underwent qualitative synthesis; however, quantitative analysis was not feasible. RESULTS: Our search identified 5984 articles. Six studies met our eligibility criteria and were included in this review. All six studies reported results that met our significance threshold of p ≤ 1.0 × 10-7. In total 96 genetic variants were identified. While meta-analysis was not possible, this review identified the following genes, ANKFN1, INTS7, PI4K2B, CSMD1, CST7, ACSS1, and SCN9A, to be associated with cannabis use. These regions were previously reported in different mental health conditions, however not in relation to cannabis use. CONCLUSION: This systematic review summarized GWAS findings within the field of cannabis research. While a meta-analysis was not possible, the summary of findings serves to inform future candidate gene studies and replication efforts. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO CRD42020176016.

The association between cannabis use and outcome in pharmacological treatment for opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: With the ongoing opioid crisis and policy changes regarding legalization of cannabis occurring around the world, it is necessary to consider cannabis use in the context of opioid use disorder (OUD) and its treatment. We aimed to examine (1) past-month cannabis use in patients with OUD, (2) self-reported cannabis-related side effects and craving, and (3) the association between specific characteristics of cannabis use and opioid use during treatment in cannabis users. METHODS: Participants receiving pharmacological treatment for OUD (n = 2315) were recruited from community-based addiction treatment clinics in Ontario, Canada, and provided information on past-month cannabis use (self-report). Participants were followed for 3 months with routine urine drug screens in order to assess opioid use during treatment. We used logistic regression analysis to explore (1) the association between any cannabis use and opioid use during treatment, and (2) amongst cannabis-users, specific cannabis use characteristics associated with opioid use. Qualitative methods were used to examine responses to the question: "What effect does marijuana have on your treatment?". RESULTS: Past-month cannabis use was reported by 51% of participants (n = 1178). Any cannabis use compared to non-use was not associated with opioid use (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.87-1.23, p = 0.703). Amongst cannabis users, nearly 70% reported daily use, and half reported experiencing cannabis-related side effects, with the most common side effects being slower thought process (26.2%) and lack of motivation (17.3%). For cannabis users, daily cannabis use was associated with lower odds of opioid use, when compared  with occasional use (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.47-0.79, p < 0.001) as was older age of onset of cannabis use (OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.94, 0.99, p = 0.032), and reporting cannabis-related side effects (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.51, 0.85, p = 0.001). Altogether, 75% of cannabis users perceived no impact of cannabis on their OUD treatment. CONCLUSION: Past-month cannabis use was not associated with more or less opioid use during treatment. For patients who use cannabis, we identified specific characteristics of cannabis use associated with differential outcomes. Further examination of characteristics and patterns of cannabis use is warranted and may inform more tailored assessments and treatment recommendations.

Genetic determinants of cannabis use: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: With the legalization of cannabis in Canada, there is an increase trend in use. Cannabis has been known to have several health implications, one of which is the development of cannabis use disorder (CUD). CUD is more common in males than females, as well as in certain ethnic groups such as Native Americans. Additionally, both environmental and genetic risk factors have been found for cannabis use. The objective of this systematic review will be to summarize the genetic variants associated with cannabis use which have reached borderline genome-wide significance. METHODS: This systematic review will incorporate articles that have performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) investigating cannabis use. MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, GWAS Catalog, GWAS Central, and NIH Database of Genotype and Phenotype will be searched using a comprehensive search strategy. The quality of genetic association studies (Q-Genie) tool will be utilized to assess the quality of the included studies. All screening and data extraction will occur independently by two authors. If feasible, a random-effects meta-analysis will be conducted on pooled odds ratios of single nucleotide polymorphisms reaching borderline genome-wide significance. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will synthesize available GWAS on cannabis use. Results from this review will inform and direct further investigation of genetic variants associated with cannabis use. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020176016.