Surgeon choice in the use of postdischarge antibiotics for prophylaxis following mastectomy with and without breast reconstruction.

Multiple guidelines recommend discontinuation of prophylactic antibiotics <24 hours after surgery. In a multicenter, retrospective cohort of 2,954 mastectomy patients ± immediate breast reconstruction, we found that utilization of prophylactic postdischarge antibiotics varied dramatically at the surgeon level among general surgeons and was virtually universal among plastic surgeons.

Postdischarge antibiotic use for prophylaxis following spinal fusion.

OBJECTIVE: Despite recommendations to discontinue prophylactic antibiotics after incision closure or <24 hours after surgery, prophylactic antibiotics are continued after discharge by some clinicians. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence and factors associated with postdischarge prophylactic antibiotic use after spinal fusion. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS: This study included patients aged ≥18 years undergoing spinal fusion or refusion between July 2011 and June 2015 at 3 sites. Patients with an infection during the surgical admission were excluded. METHODS: Prophylactic antibiotics were identified at discharge. Factors associated with postdischarge prophylactic antibiotic use were identified using hierarchical generalized linear models. RESULTS: In total, 8,652 spinal fusion admissions were included. Antibiotics were prescribed at discharge in 289 admissions (3.3%). The most commonly prescribed antibiotics were trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (22.1%), cephalexin (18.8%), and ciprofloxacin (17.1%). Adjusted for study site, significant factors associated with prophylactic discharge antibiotics included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥3 (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00-1.70), lymphoma (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.11-5.98), solid tumor (OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 1.62-8.14), morbid obesity (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.09-2.47), paralysis (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.30-4.37), hematoma/seroma (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.17-7.33), thoracic surgery (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01-1.93), longer length of stay, and intraoperative antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: Postdischarge prophylactic antibiotics were uncommon after spinal fusion. Patient and perioperative factors were associated with continuation of prophylactic antibiotics after hospital discharge.

Increased Cerebrospinal Fluid Amyloid-ß During Sleep Deprivation in Healthy Middle-Aged Adults Is Not Due to Stress or Circadian Disruption.

BACKGROUND: Concentrations of soluble amyloid-ß (Aß) oscillate with the sleep-wake cycle in the interstitial fluid of mice and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of humans. Further, the concentration of Aß in CSF increases during sleep deprivation. Stress and disruption of the circadian clock are additional mechanisms hypothesized to increase CSF Aß levels. Cortisol is a marker for stress and has an endogenous circadian rhythm. Other factors such as glucose and lactate have been associated with changes in sleep-wake activity and/or Aß. OBJECTIVE: In this exploratory study, we used samples collected in a previous study to examine how sleep deprivation affects Aß, cortisol, lactate, and glucose in plasma and CSF from healthy middle-aged adults (N = 11). METHODS: Eleven cognitively normal participants without evidence of sleep disturbance were randomized to sleep deprivation or normal sleep control. All participants were invited to repeat the study. Cortisol, lactate, glucose, and Aß were measured in 2-h intervals over a 36-h period in both plasma and CSF. All concentrations were normalized to the mean prior to calculating mesor, amplitude, acrophase, and other parameters. RESULTS: One night of sleep deprivation increases the overnight concentration of Aß in CSF approximately 10%, but does not significantly affect cortisol, lactate, or glucose concentrations in plasma or CSF between the sleep-deprived and control conditions. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that sleep deprivation-related changes in CSF Aß are not mediated by stress or circadian disruption as measured by cortisol.

ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care: Prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of essential care throughout the patient journey. PROSTATE CANCER: Prostate cancer is the second most common male cancer and has a wide variation in outcomes in Europe. It has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges, and is a major healthcare burden. Care must only be a carried out in prostate/urology cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.

ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care: Primary care.

BACKGROUND: ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are checklists and explanations of organisation and actions that are necessary to give high-quality care to cancer patients. They are written by European experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care. This paper concerns the integration of primary care into care for all cancers in Europe. Primary care integration.

Towards an evidence-informed value scale for surgical and radiation oncology: a multi-stakeholder perspective.

Surgery and radiotherapy, two locoregional cancer treatments, are essential to help improve cancer outcomes, control, and palliation. The continued evolution in treatment processes, techniques, and technologies-often at substantially increased costs-demands for direction on outcomes that are most valued by patients, and the evidence that is required before clinical adoption of these practices. Three recently introduced frameworks-the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Blocks-which all help define the value of oncology treatments, were appraised with a focus on their methods and definition of patient benefit. In this Review, we investigate the applicability of these frameworks to surgical and radiotherapy innovations. Findings show that these frameworks are not immediately transferable to locoregional cancer treatments. Moreover, the lack of emphasis on patient perspective and the reliance on traditional, trial-based endpoints such as survival, disease-free survival, and safety, calls for a new framework that includes real-world evidence with focus on the whole spectrum of patient-centred endpoints. Such an evidence-informed value scale would safeguard against the proliferation of low-value innovation while simultaneously increasing access to treatments that show significant improvements in the outcomes of cancer care.

Multi-Modal Home Sleep Monitoring in Older Adults.

The gold standard for sleep monitoring is attended in-lab polysomnography; however, this method may be cost-prohibitive and inconvenient for patients and research participants. Home sleep testing has gained momentum in the field of sleep medicine due to its convenience and lower cost, as well as being more naturalistic. The accuracy and quality of home sleep testing, however, may be variable because studies are not monitored by sleep technologists. There has been some success in improving the accuracy of home sleep studies by having trained sleep technicians assist participants inside their homes with putting on the devices, but this can be intrusive and time-consuming for those involved. In this protocol, participants undergo at-home sleep monitoring with multiple devices: 1) a single-channel EEG device; 2) a home sleep test for sleep-disordered breathing and periodic limb movements; 3) actigraphy; and 4) sleep logs. A major challenge of this study is obtaining high-quality sleep monitoring data on the first attempt in order to minimize participant burden. This protocol describes the implementation of educational manuals with step-by-step instructions and photos. The goal is to improve the quality of home sleep testing.

Incorporating Patient Advocates in Oncology Clinical Development: Lessons Learned From a Novel Pilot Program.

The advent of patient-focused drug development (PFDD) has underscored the priority of engaging the "voice of the patient" in therapy development. Industry sponsors are working to enhance engagement of patients early, particularly within decision making for design and execution of clinical trials. This trend is especially significant within oncology, as industry leaders partner with patient advocacy organizations, individual patients, and clinicians to enhance patient-centricity. These partnerships often require a willingness to change attitudes, approaches, and processes to reshape traditional models of drug development. In 2016, Bayer Oncology launched a pilot program called the Patient Advocate Advisory Council (PAAC), to design and execute a program whereby patients join clinical development teams. The PAAC, composed of experienced patient advocates from the US and Europe, worked closely with company leaders to design and execute a pilot in an ongoing clinical development program. The PAAC and Bayer teams have identified important learnings from the first phase of the program, emphasizing earlier engagement of patient advisors, launching the enhanced training platform, and recruiting additional PAAC members to expand the initiative's reach across the cancer community. A critical success factor is having champions for patient engagement within the company to ensure that activities are streamlined and standardized as patient engagement becomes more common. This is particularly important given that patient engagement should be a long-term investment with sufficient and sustained resources. PAAC members and Bayer have committed to sharing learnings, to advance opportunities for successful patient engagement in drug development throughout the oncology therapeutic landscape.

Consensus on molecular imaging and theranostics in prostate cancer.

Rapid developments in imaging and treatment with radiopharmaceuticals targeting prostate cancer pose issues for the development of guidelines for their appropriate use. To tackle this problem, international experts representing medical oncologists, urologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, and nuclear medicine specialists convened at the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 1 meeting to deliver a balanced perspective on available data and clinical experience of imaging in prostate cancer, which had been supported by a systematic review of the literature and a modified Delphi process. Relevant conclusions included the following: diphosphonate bone scanning and contrast-enhanced CT are mentioned but rarely recommended for most patients in clinical guidelines; MRI (whole-body or multiparametric) and prostate cancer-targeted PET are frequently suggested, but the specific contexts in which these methods affect practice are not established; sodium fluoride-18 for PET-CT bone scanning is not widely advocated, whereas gallium-68 or fluorine-18 prostate-specific membrane antigen gain acceptance; and, palliative treatment with bone targeting radiopharmaceuticals (rhenium-186, samarium-153, or strontium-89) have largely been replaced by radium-223 on the basis of the survival benefit that was reported in prospective trials, and by other systemic therapies with proven survival benefits. Although the advances in MRI and PET-CT have improved the accuracy of imaging, the effects of these new methods on clinical outcomes remains to be established. Improved communication between imagers and clinicians and more multidisciplinary input in clinical trial design are essential to encourage imaging insights into clinical decision making.

Mapping the cancer patient information landscape: A comparative analysis of patient groups across Europe and North America.

AIM: Little is known about how patient groups provide information for patients. We invited 838 patient groups from Europe and North America to participate in an online survey. METHODS: The survey covered: (i) availability, accessibility and quality of information provided; (ii) methods by which patient groups communicate; (iii) ways in which patient groups acquire information and confirm its veracity/accuracy; (iv) how people access information online. RESULTS: European patient groups were significantly less effective in providing medical-related information than their North American counterparts in: clinical trials, potential causes of cancer, medical research, diagnosis/screening, symptoms, treatments (all p < 0.0001); Recommendations of best practice/care (p < 0.03), healthcare services(p = 0.029) and complimentary medicine (p = 0.01). Clinical trials (p = 0.0006), medical research (p = 0.006) and diagnosis/screening (p = 0.0024) were also areas where North American patients were more likely to require medical-related information. Similar patterns emerged for non-medical information with nutrition (<0.0001), watchful waiting (p = 0.0003), self-management of care (p = 0.0003), prevention (p = 0.002) and emotional issues (p = 0.016) being less effectively communicated by European patient groups. Nutrition was also an area where North American patients were more likely to require non-medical-related information. The main barriers in accessing online information which showed differences between European and North American patients were: perceived lack of need, mainly due to faith in their doctors (p = 0.0001); limited access to the internet (p = 0.0005), limited computer skills (p = 0.02); and lower income (p = 0.027). CONCLUSION: These results emphasise the more mature nature of cancer patient engagement/information provision in North America, providing valuable insights and guidance to inform development of more robust and effective cancer patient information communication platforms in Europe.

Identifying critical steps towards improved access to innovation in cancer care: a European CanCer Organisation position paper.

In recent decades cancer care has seen improvements in the speed and accuracy of diagnostic procedures; the effectiveness of surgery, radiation therapy and medical treatments; the power of information technology; and the development of multidisciplinary, specialist-led approaches to care. Such innovations are essential if we are to continue improving the lives of cancer patients across Europe despite financial pressures on our healthcare systems. Investment in innovation must be balanced with the need to ensure the sustainability of healthcare budgets, and all health professionals have a responsibility to help achieve this balance. It requires scrutiny of the way care is delivered; we must be ready to discontinue practices or interventions that are inefficient, and prioritise innovations that may deliver the best outcomes possible for patients within the limits of available resources. Decisions on innovations should take into account their long-term impact on patient outcomes and costs, not just their immediate costs. Adopting a culture of innovation requires a multidisciplinary team approach, with the patient at the centre and an integral part of the team. It must take a whole-system and whole-patient perspective on cancer care and be guided by high-quality real-world data, including outcomes relevant to the patient and actual costs of care; this accurately reflects the impact of any innovation in clinical practice. The European CanCer Organisation is committed to working with its member societies, patient organisations and the cancer community at large to find sustainable ways to identify and integrate the most meaningful innovations into all aspects of cancer care.

The potential consequences for cancer care and cancer research of Brexit.

Following the UK "Brexit" vote in June 2016, there are many uncertainties and risks for cancer research and cancer care in the UK. These are summarised and the importance of sustained engagement and influence from the cancer community on UK governments is emphasised.

For the Many, Not the Few: Patient Empowerment.

Today's patients are more knowledgable than ever before and should be placed at the centre of their own healthcare decisions. Empowering the patient is, and always will be, a fundamental pillar of personalised medicine. Front-line healthcare professionals cannot treat a patient properly without taking into account his or her perceptions of value. They cannot treat a patient properly without taking into account that patient's lifestyle and, of course, they cannot treat a patient properly without creating equal access across the EU to the best possible treatments available. The authors of this article examine ways to enhance the empowerment of Europe's patients.

Facilitating a culture of responsible and effective sharing of cancer genome data.

Rapid and affordable tumor molecular profiling has led to an explosion of clinical and genomic data poised to enhance the diagnosis, prognostication and treatment of cancer. A critical point has now been reached at which the analysis and storage of annotated clinical and genomic information in unconnected silos will stall the advancement of precision cancer care. Information systems must be harmonized to overcome the multiple technical and logistical barriers to data sharing. Against this backdrop, the Global Alliance for Genomic Health (GA4GH) was established in 2013 to create a common framework that enables responsible, voluntary and secure sharing of clinical and genomic data. This Perspective from the GA4GH Clinical Working Group Cancer Task Team highlights the data-aggregation challenges faced by the field, suggests potential collaborative solutions and describes how GA4GH can catalyze a harmonized data-sharing culture.

An Association of Cancer Physicians' strategy for improving services and outcomes for cancer patients.

The Association of Cancer Physicians in the United Kingdom has developed a strategy to improve outcomes for cancer patients and identified the goals and commitments of the Association and its members.