Anxiety and depression in patients with non-site-specific cancer symptoms: data from a rapid diagnostic clinic.

Background: Rapid diagnostic clinics (RDCs) provide a streamlined holistic pathway for patients presenting with non-site specific (NSS) symptoms concerning of malignancy. The current study aimed to: 1) assess the prevalence of anxiety and depression, and 2) identify a combination of patient characteristics and symptoms associated with severe anxiety and depression at Guy's and St Thomas' Foundation Trust (GSTT) RDC in Southeast London. Additionally, we compared standard statistical methods with machine learning algorithms for predicting severe anxiety and depression. Methods: Patients seen at GSTT RDC between June 2019 and January 2023 completed the General Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) questionnaires, at baseline. We used logistic regression (LR) and 2 machine learning (ML) algorithms (random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM)) to predict risk of severe anxiety and severe depression. The models were constructed using a set of sociodemographic and clinical variables. Results: A total of 1734 patients completed GAD-7 and PHQ-8 questionnaires. Of these, the mean age was 59 years (Standard Deviation: 15.5), and 61.5% (n:1067) were female. Prevalence of severe anxiety (GAD-7 score ≥15) was 13.8% and severe depression (PHQ-8 score≥20) was 9.3%. LR showed that a combination of previous mental health condition (PMH, Adjusted Odds Rario (AOR) 3.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36-4.56), symptom duration >6 months (AOR 2.20; 95%CI 1.28-3.77), weight loss (AOR 1.88; 95% CI 1.36-2.61), progressive pain (AOR 1.71; 95%CI 1.26-2.32), and fatigue (AOR 1.36; 95%CI 1.01-1.84), was positively associated with severe anxiety. Likewise, a combination PMH condition (AOR 3.95; 95%CI 2.17-5.75), fatigue (AOR 2.11; 95%CI 1.47-3.01), symptom duration >6 months (AOR 1.98; 95%CI 1.06-3.68), weight loss (AOR 1.66; 95%CI 1.13-2.44), and progressive pain (AOR 1.50; 95%CI 1.04-2.16), was positively associated with severe depression. LR and SVM had highest accuracy levels for severe anxiety (LR: 86%, SVM: 85%) and severe depression (SVM: 89%, LR: 86%). Conclusion: High prevalence of severe anxiety and severe depression was found. PMH, fatigue, weight loss, progressive pain, and symptoms >6 months emerged as combined risk factors for both these psychological comorbidities. RDCs offer an opportunity to alleviate distress in patients with concerning symptoms by expediting diagnostic evaluations.

Genomic Insights for Personalized Care: Motivating At-Risk Individuals Toward Evidence-Based Health Practices.

Background: Lung cancer and tobacco use pose significant global health challenges, necessitating a comprehensive translational roadmap for improved prevention strategies. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) are powerful tools for patient risk stratification but have not yet been widely used in primary care for lung cancer, particularly in diverse patient populations. Methods: We propose the GREAT care paradigm, which employs PRSs to stratify disease risk and personalize interventions. We developed PRSs using large-scale multi-ancestry genome-wide association studies and standardized PRS distributions across all ancestries. We applied our PRSs to 796 individuals from the GISC Trial, 350,154 from UK Biobank (UKBB), and 210,826 from All of Us Research Program (AoU), totaling 561,776 individuals of diverse ancestry. Results: Significant odds ratios (ORs) for lung cancer and difficulty quitting smoking were observed in both UKBB and AoU. For lung cancer, the ORs for individuals in the highest risk group (top 20% versus bottom 20%) were 1.85 (95% CI: 1.58 - 2.18) in UKBB and 2.39 (95% CI: 1.93 - 2.97) in AoU. For difficulty quitting smoking, the ORs (top 33% versus bottom 33%) were 1.36 (95% CI: 1.32 - 1.41) in UKBB and 1.32 (95% CI: 1.28 - 1.36) in AoU. Conclusion: Our PRS-based intervention model leverages large-scale genetic data for robust risk assessment across populations. This model will be evaluated in two cluster-randomized clinical trials aimed at motivating health behavior changes in high-risk patients of diverse ancestry. This pioneering approach integrates genomic insights into primary care, promising improved outcomes in cancer prevention and tobacco treatment.

Redefining Cancer Research Priorities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries in the Post-COVID-19 Global Context: A Modified Delphi Consensus Process.

PURPOSE: The post-COVID-19 funding landscape for cancer research globally has become increasingly challenging, particularly in resource-challenged regions (RCRs) lacking strong research ecosystems. We aimed to produce a list of priority areas for cancer research in countries with limited resources, informed by researchers and patients. METHODS: Cancer experts in lower-resource health care systems (as defined by the World Bank as low- and middle-income countries; N = 151) were contacted to participate in a modified consensus-seeking Delphi survey, comprising two rounds. In round 1, participants (n = 69) rated predetermined areas of potential research priority (ARPs) for importance and suggested missing ARPs. In round 2, the same participants (n = 49) rated an integrated list of predetermined and suggested ARPs from round 1, then undertook a forced choice priority ranking exercise. Composite voting scores (T-scores) were used to rank the ARPs. Importance ratings were summarized descriptively. Findings were discussed with international patient advocacy organization representatives. RESULTS: The top ARP was research into strategies adapting guidelines or treatment strategies in line with available resources (particularly systemic therapy) (T = 83). Others included cancer registries (T = 62); prevention (T = 52); end-of-life care (T = 53); and value-based and affordable care (T = 51). The top COVID-19/cancer ARP was strategies to incorporate what has been learned during the pandemic that can be maintained posteriorly (T = 36). Others included treatment schedule interruption (T = 24); cost-effective reduction of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (T = 19); and pandemic preparedness (T = 18). CONCLUSION: Areas of strategic priority favored by cancer researchers in RCRs are related to adaptive treatment guidelines; sustainable implementation of cancer registries; prevention strategies; value-based and affordable cancer care; investments in research capacity building; epidemiologic work on local risk factors for cancer; and combatting inequities of prevention and care access.

Assessing the quality of patient-reported outcome measurements for gynecological cancers: a systematic review.

Aim: To provide perspective on patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) instruments to adopt in patients diagnosed with gynecological cancers. Methods: A systematic search was conducted to identify PROMs developed for or applied in gynecological cancer populations. PROMs identified in more than one study subsequently underwent assessment according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. Results: Overall, 55 PROMs were identified within the gynecological cancer setting, and 20 were assessed according to COSMIN guidelines. Most PROMs had limited information reported, but a best fit approach was adopted to recommend a number of instruments for use in patients with gynecological cancer. Conclusion: Further study to assess the methodological quality of each PROM utilized in gynecological cancers is warranted to endorse the recommendations of this review.

Gynecological cancers are cancers which occur in the reproductive system of women. The cervical cancer screening program and development of new treatments mean that women with gynecological cancers are now living longer than before. However, these new treatments may have side effects that can affect the quality of life of women with cancer. Many care providers now agree that looking at women's quality of life during their gynecological cancer journey is an important part of their treatment. Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are questionnaires that the patient completes to measure their symptoms and quality of life. There are a lot of PROMs available to choose from, and it can be difficult to select one that is relevant and understandable for all women with gynecological cancer. This article searched the literature to find all PROMs that can be completed by women with gynecological cancer and then measured each of the PROM's quality. PROM quality was measured by looking at validity (whether the questionnaire measures what it is supposed to measure), reliability (that the questionnaire is not subject to different errors in measuring), and sensitivity (that the questionnaire can measure changes in questionnaire scores over time). Overall, this study found that there were a few PROMs that were of good enough quality to be completed by women with gynecological cancers. These questionnaires are called the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Cervical Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-CX24), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Endometrial Cancer (EORTC QLQ-EN24), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Gynecologic Oncology Group ­ Neurotoxicity (FACT-GOG/Ntx), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy ­ Ovarian (FACT-O) and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Each questionnaire can be filled out by women with different types of gynecological cancer, and the FSFI measures sexual problems that women may experience after cancer treatment.

Undergoing radical treatment for prostate cancer and its impact on wellbeing: A qualitative study exploring men's experiences.

INTRODUCTION: Quality of life in prostate cancer survivorship is becoming increasingly important, with mental and social wellbeing recognised as key components. However, limited global evaluation of psychosocial challenges experienced after treatment exists. Therefore, we aimed to explore the lived experiences of men who underwent radical treatment, and its psychosocial impact. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted using 19 men who had undergone radical treatment (prostatectomy or radiotherapy) for their cancer. Semi-structured interviews were conducted exploring lived experiences of men after treatment. A Structured thematic analysis of collected data was undertaken, with an inductive co-construction of themes through the lens of the biopsychosocial model. Themes generated were considered within a psychological, social, and physical wellbeing framework. RESULTS: An initial knowledge gap meant mental wellbeing was strongly impacted initially leading to a 'Diagnostic Blow and the Search for Clarity'. Doubt over individuals' future resulted in 'An Uncertain Future' in many men. Once treatment was completed a 'Reflective journey' began, with men considering their outcomes and decisions made. Social wellbeing was also impacted with many identifying the 'Emotional Repercussions' on their relationships and the impact their diagnosis had on their partner and family. Many subsequently sought to increase their support through 'The Social Network and Advocacy', while physical changes led to an increased need for 'Social Planning'. Finally, physical wellbeing was highlighted by a continual acknowledgement of the 'Natural process of ageing' leading to a reluctancy to seek help, whilst simultaneously attempting to improve existing health via 'The Health Kick'. CONCLUSIONS: Radical treatments have a considerable impact on mental and social wellbeing of individuals. Anxiety after diagnosis and significant uncertainty over individual futures exist, with physical complications of treatment leading to social repercussions. Future research should aim to identify forms of support to improve quality of life of these men.

Association between COVID-19 burden and delays to diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients in England.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has been highly disruptive for cancer care. Here, we examined the effect COVID-19 had on performance of the 62-day Cancer Waiting Time (CWT) target set by the National Health Service (NHS) in England. METHODS: Data were retrospectively obtained on COVID-19 hospitalisations and CWT for NHS hospitals in England (n = 121). We produced a 'COVID-19 burden' to describe the proportion of each provider's beds occupied with COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 burden was examined against CWT performance for 1st April - 30th May 2020 (Wave 1), and 1st October - 30th November 2020 (Wave 2). Two-tailed Spearman correlations were used to identify relationships between COVID-19 burden and CWT performance amongst different referral (i.e., 2-week-wait (2 W W) and internal specialist) and tumour types. Significantly correlated variables were further examined using linear regression models. RESULTS: COVID-19 burden was negatively associated with the percentage of 2 W W pathway referrals that met the CWT target in Wave 1 (r= -0.30, p = 0.001) and Wave 2 (r= -0.21, p = 0.02). These associations were supported by the results from our linear regression models (B for wave 1: -0.71; 95 %CI: -1.03 to -0.40; B for wave 2: -0.38; 95 %CI: -0.68 to -0.07). No associations were found between COVID-19 burden and internal specialist referrals or tumour type. CONCLUSION: Increased COVID-19 burden was associated with lower compliance with CWT targets amongst urgent referrals from primary care in England. This will likely be an ongoing issue due to the backlog of patients awaiting investigations and treatment. POLICY SUMMARY: As the number of cancer referrals improve, we highlight the need for changes to primary and secondary care to manage the backlog within cancer diagnostic services to alleviate the impact of COVID-19.

An exploration of wellbeing in men diagnosed with prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: There is a growing emphasis on improving quality of life of people with prostate cancer. However, those undergoing active surveillance remain underrepresented in the literature with less known about their unique challenges. Therefore, we aimed to explore their lived experiences post diagnosis and its effect on their mental, social, and physical wellbeing. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 men undergoing active surveillance for low-risk disease. Thematic analysis was used to inductively co-construct themes through the lens of the biopsychosocial model. RESULTS: Mental wellbeing was strongly affected in our participants due to the overwhelming emotional impact of their diagnosis resulting in an 'Emotional Diagnostic Disequilibrium'. Informational awareness and education about prostate cancer helped patients with 'Recognition of the Impact'. Patients experienced an 'Unsettling Monitoring Cycle' due to the increased fear and anxiety around PSA monitoring appointments, with some men ignoring their mental wellbeing needs as their disease is 'A Future Problem'. 'Concealment of Diagnosis' left many feeling isolated and highlighted an important coping mechanisms in the 'Importance of a Social Support Network' theme. Finally, physical health mostly changed through alterations in health behaviour, leading to 'A Healthier Lifestyle' with increasing attribution of physical symptoms to age through 'Symptomatic Overshadowing'. CONCLUSION: The greatest disease impact on men's wellbeing was at the time of diagnosis, with a subsequent cyclical anxiety and fear of disease progression prominent around monitoring appointments. Future research should explore ways to better support patients with these issues and at these times, improving their quality of life.

The Promise of Polygenic Risk Prediction in Smoking Cessation: Evidence From Two Treatment Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco use disorder is a complex behavior with a strong genetic component. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on smoking behaviors allow for the creation of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to approximate genetic vulnerability. However, the utility of smoking-related PRSs in predicting smoking cessation in clinical trials remains unknown. AIMS AND METHODS: We evaluated the association between polygenic risk scores and bioverified smoking abstinence in a meta-analysis of two randomized, placebo-controlled smoking cessation trials. PRSs of smoking behaviors were created using the GWAS and Sequencing Consortium of Alcohol and Nicotine use (GSCAN) consortium summary statistics. We evaluated the utility of using individual PRS of specific smoking behavior versus a combined genetic risk that combines PRS of all four smoking behaviors. Study participants came from the Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centers (TTURCs) Study (1091 smokers of European descent), and the Genetically Informed Smoking Cessation Trial (GISC) Study (501 smokers of European descent). RESULTS: PRS of later age of smoking initiation (OR [95% CI]: 1.20, [1.04-1.37], p = .0097) was significantly associated with bioverified smoking abstinence at end of treatment. In addition, the combined PRS of smoking behaviors also significantly predicted bioverified smoking abstinence (OR [95% CI] 0.71 [0.51-0.99], p = .045). CONCLUSIONS: PRS of later age at smoking initiation may be useful in predicting smoking cessation at the end of treatment. A combined PRS may be a useful predictor for smoking abstinence by capturing the genetic propensity for multiple smoking behaviors. IMPLICATIONS: There is a potential for polygenic risk scores to inform future clinical medicine, and a great need for evidence on whether these scores predict clinically meaningful outcomes. Our meta-analysis provides early evidence for potential utility of using polygenic risk scores to predict smoking cessation amongst smokers undergoing quit attempts, informing further work to optimize the use of polygenic risk scores in clinical care.

The impact of hospital attendance on COVID-19 infection in cancer patients: an assessment of data from Guy's Cancer.

Objective: The authors monitored positivity rates of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 tests during the second wave of COVID-19 at Guy's Cancer Centre. Methods: Logistic regression was used to investigate factors associated with asymptomatic COVID-19 positivity rates between 1 December 2020 and 28 February 2021 (n = 1346). Results: Living 20-40 km and 40-60 km from the alpha variant was associated with a reduced chance of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test compared with 0-20 km (odds ratio [OR]: 0.20; CI: 0.07-0.53 and OR: 0.38; CI: 0.15-0.98, respectively). An increased number of tests was associated with an increased chance of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (OR: 1.10; CI: 1.04-1.16). Conclusion: The COVID-19 positivity rate of asymptomatic cancer patients is partly due to increased testing, with some contribution from the proximity of the patient population to the epicenter of the alpha variant.

The UK's second wave of COVID-19 was partly driven by the emergence of the alpha variant in the southeast of England in November 2020, spreading farther to become the predominant variant across England in December 2020. The alpha variant is associated with a greater transmissibility rate, posing an increased risk to the vulnerable population. This raised concerns about the welfare of cancer patients, as the disease and its treatment can lower one's ability to fight infection. This resulted in some cancer treatments being interrupted or stopped on the grounds of clinical safety and some follow-up care being disrupted. In order to investigate the factors associated with asymptomatic COVID-19 positivity rates between 1 December 2020 and 28 February 2021, the authors gathered information on the number of tests taken per cancer patient at Guy's and extracted data from Guy's approved research database, which houses all routinely collected clinical data on cancer patients. This included demographic data, such as post code and age, as well as number of visits to the hospital. From their analysis, the authors concluded that living closer to the epicenter of the alpha variant was associated with a high positivity rate; also, the more tests taken, the more likely the patients are to test positive. Therefore, the authors can conclude that attending the hospital does not increase the risk of transmission.

Qualitative Analysis of Interviews and Focus Groups Exploring Factors Contributing to Adherence to GnRH Agonists in Men with Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Side effects from the prolonged use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists may lead to nonadherence to the treatment in men with advanced prostate cancer (PCa). We investigated the reasons contributing to nonadherence to GnRH agonists through interviews with men with PCa and focus groups with their health care professionals. DATA SOURCES: The three stages of the study were validation of themes, interviews with men on GnRH agonists, and focus groups with oncology specialists and clinical nurse specialists. An experienced oncologist validated factors contributing to nonadherence identified from the literature. A total of 10 men with PCa were recruited from a large teaching hospital and were interviewed on a one-to-one basis using a topic guide. In stage three, two separate focus groups were held with oncology specialists and clinical nurse specialists treating men with PCa. The interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Initial codes identified from stage three were grouped into themes and thematically analyzed. CONCLUSION: Themes identified from the interviews and focus groups influencing adherence to treatment were side effects of treatment, patient belief system, benefits outweigh harm, quality of life over quantity of life, social support, and patient-clinician relationship. Although side effects such as hot flushes and loss of libido were sometimes overwhelming for many, these men felt that treatment benefits outweighed harm. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Reasons leading to nonadherence can be multifactorial and unique to each patient. Employing different strategies by health care professionals may lead to the eventual acceptance of treatment, while also acknowledging their reasons for nonadherence.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Researchers in 2020: A Qualitative Study of Events to Inform Mitigation Strategies.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on global health systems and economies. With ongoing and future challenges posed to the field due to the pandemic, re-examining research priorities has emerged as a concern. As part of a wider project aiming to examine research priorities, here we aimed to qualitatively examine the documented impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer researchers. Materials and Methods: We conducted a literature review with the aim of identifying non-peer-reviewed journalistic sources and institutional blog posts which qualitatively documented the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer researchers. We searched on 12th January 2021 using the LexisNexis database and Google, using terms and filters to identify English-language media reports and blogs, containing references to both COVID-19 and cancer research. The targeted search returned 751 results, of which 215 articles met the inclusion criteria. These 215 articles were subjected to a conventional qualitative content analysis, to document the impacts of the pandemic on the field of cancer research. Results: Our analysis yielded a high plurality of qualitatively documented impacts, from which seven categories of direct impacts emerged: (1) COVID measures halting cancer research activity entirely; (2) COVID measures limiting cancer research activity; (3) forced adaptation of research protocols; (4) impacts on cancer diagnosis, cases, and services; (5) availability of resources for cancer research; (6) disruption to the private sector; and (7) disruption to supply chains. Three categories of consequences from these impacts also emerged: (1) potential changes to future research practice; (2) delays to the progression of the field; and (3) potential new areas of research interest. Discussion: The COVID-19 pandemic had extensive practical and economic effects on the field of cancer research in 2020 that were highly plural in nature. Appraisal of cancer research strategies in a post-COVID world should acknowledge the potential for substantial limitations (such as on financial resources, limited access to patients for research, decreased patient access to cancer care, staffing issues, administrative delays, or supply chain issues), exacerbated cancer disparities, advances in digital health, and new areas of research related to the intersection of cancer and COVID-19.

"Something Good Has to Come Out of the Horror": A Qualitative Examination of Cancer Survivors' Attitudes Towards Participation in Research During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction: The first year of the COVID-19 pandemic has been highly disruptive for people with cancer. Furthermore, it has been shown that accrual to cancer trials dropped substantially in 2020. Building on findings from a previous pilot survey, the present study used qualitative methods to gain insights into attitudes towards participation in research studies amongst people who have experienced cancer, in the context of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: We interviewed 13 participants from the UK, who were purposively sampled, including a broad sample of cancer types, and a mixture of individuals who have and have not taken part in research previously. Participants underwent semi-structured interviews (median interview duration: 47 min) and were asked open-ended questions about their attitude towards and experiences with COVID-19, and their attitude towards research participation. In addition to this, prompts were used to ask participants about concerns that were highlighted by our previous quantitative work on this topic, such as concerns about being older or having to travel to participate. Interview transcripts were analysed using a framework analysis approach. Results: Our findings suggest that cancer patient decision-making about research participation during an infectious disease pandemic may be a function of a basic cost-benefit analysis, which considers the benefit of taking part, either personally to themselves or to wider society. The benefit may then be weighed by the patient against the risk of being infected, which may be influenced by trust in the relevant clinicians/researchers; familiarity with the study location; provision of detailed information on safety protocols for infectious disease; and, in particular, the availability of safe transport to and from the study location. Discussion: Some cancer patients say that they would be less likely to participate in a research study in the middle of an infectious disease pandemic due to an increased risk to themselves. Patients' perceived risk to themselves from participating may be ameliorated via the provision of certain practical solutions that can be considered at the study protocol design stage, such as safe travel, information, and the use of staff and study sites familiar to the patient.

Is there a role for physical activity when treating patients with cancer with immune checkpoint inhibitors? Protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: For patients with cancer, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) produce superior long-term responses compared with alternative treatments, although at the cost of manifesting adverse immune-related events. There are many hypotheses of the impacts of physical activities in immunotherapy, but little is known about the oncological outcomes and the underlying mechanisms. This scoping review aims to identify possible physical activity interventions, their efficacy and feasibility and the potential underlying biological mechanisms responsible for their effects. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: The Levac methodology framework was used along with guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis to inform development of this protocol. Abstracts and titles followed by full-text screening will be performed by two independent reviewers for inclusion. All studies describing the impact of physical activities and exercise interventions on cancer ICIs, with particular focus on oncological outcomes, quality of life or underling biological mechanisms, will be included. After extracting qualitative and quantitative data, they will be evaluated and summarised, respectively. Subsequently, a further consultation step with other scientists and healthcare professionals will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research findings will be published through an open-access peer-reviewed journal. The results of this scoping review will be used to inform further studies on physical impacts on immunotherapy. All data included will be from open resources, therefore, no ethical clearances are required.

Global cancer research in the era of COVID-19: a bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer across the world have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic due to increased risk of infection and disruption to cancer diagnosis and treatment. Widening of healthcare disparities is expected as the gap between health systems with and without adequate resources to mitigate the pandemic become more apparent. We undertook a bibliometric analysis of research related to cancer and COVID-19 to understand (1) the type of research that has been conducted (e.g. patients, services and systems) and (2) whether the pandemic has impacted the state of global cancer research as measured by research outputs to date. METHODS: An existing filter for cancer research consisting of title words and the names of specialist cancer journals was used to identify cancer and COVID-19 related articles and reviews in the Web of Science (©Clarivate Analytics) between January 2019 and February 2021. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred and forty-five publications were identified. The majority (57%) were reviews, opinion pieces or concerned with modelling impact of delays to diagnosis and treatment. The main research domains focused on managing or estimating COVID-19 risk to cancer patients accounting for 384 papers (25%). High Income countries contributed the largest volume (n = 1,115; 72%), compared to Upper Middle (n = 302; 20%), Lower Middle (n = 122; 8%) and Low Income countries (n = 2.4; 0.2%). No evidence of a reduction in global cancer research output was observed in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a shift in research focus rather than a decline in absolute output. However, there is variation based on national income and collaborations are minimal. There has been a focus on pan-cancer studies rather than cancer site-specific studies. Strengthening global multidisciplinary research partnerships with teams from diverse backgrounds with regard to gender, clinical expertise and resource setting is essential to prevent the widening of cancer inequalities.

Designing a Pragmatic Intervention to Help Improve the Bladder Cancer Patient Experience.

Bladder cancer (BC) is the 10th most common malignancy worldwide and the patient experience is found to be worse than that for patients diagnosed with other cancer types. We aimed to develop a wellbeing intervention to help improve the bladder cancer patient experience by ameliorating their health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL). We followed the 3 phases of the modified Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework for development of complex interventions. Following a systematic review of the literature on mental, sexual, and physical wellbeing, we conducted discussion groups with patients and healthcare professionals on these 3 themes. A consultation phase was then conducted with all relevant stakeholders to co-design a wellbeing intervention as part of a feasibility study. A pragmatic wellbeing feasibility trial was designed based on the hypothesis that a wellbeing program will increase patient awareness and attendance to services available to them and will better support their needs to improve HRQoL. The primary feasibility endpoints are patient attendance to the services offered and changes in HRQoL. The principle of patient centered care has strengthened the commitment to provide a holistic approach to support BC patients. In this study, we developed a wellbeing intervention in collaboration with patients and healthcare professionals to meet an unmet need in terms of the BC patient experience.

The importance of patient and public involvement in cancer research: time to create a new job profile.

Tweetable abstract Need to add #PPI coordinator to required job profiles in #research: improve research quality, enthuse research team and ensure #patients and their families are the center of our research activities.

The Current Evidence for Factors that Influence Treatment Decision Making in Localized Kidney Cancer: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: With a growing number of treatment options for localized kidney cancer, patients and health care professionals have both the opportunity and the burden of selecting the most suitable management option. This mixed method systematic review aims to understand the barriers and facilitators of the treatment decision making process in localized kidney cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed®, Embase® and Cochrane Central databases between January 1, 2004 and April 23, 2020 using the Joanna Briggs Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement. We identified 553 unique citations; of these, 511 were excluded resulting in 42 articles included for synthesis. The Purpose, Respondents, Explanation, Findings and Significance and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist was applied. RESULTS: The key themes describing barriers and facilitators to treatment decision making were identified and categorized into 3 domains: 1) kidney cancer specific characteristics, 2) decision maker related criteria and 3) contextual factors. The main facilitators identified within these domains were size at diagnosis, age, comorbidities, body mass index, gender, nephrometry scoring systems, biopsy, socioeconomic status, family history of cancer, year of diagnosis, geographic region and practice pattern. The key barriers were race, gender, patient anxiety, low confidence in diagnostic and treatment options, cost of procedure, and practice patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Future interventions designed to improve the decision making process for localized kidney cancer should consider these barriers and facilitators to ensure a better patient experience.

Studying the Utility of Using Genetics to Predict Smoking-Related Outcomes in a Population-Based Study and a Selected Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to examine the predictive utility of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for smoking behaviors. AIMS AND METHODS: Using summary statistics from the Sequencing Consortium of Alcohol and Nicotine use consortium, we generated PRSs of ever smoking, age of smoking initiation, cigarettes smoked per day, and smoking cessation for participants in the population-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study (N = 8638), and the Collaborative Genetic Study of Nicotine Dependence (COGEND) (N = 1935). The outcomes were ever smoking, age of smoking initiation, heaviness of smoking, and smoking cessation. RESULTS: In the European ancestry cohorts, each PRS was significantly associated with the corresponding smoking behavior outcome. In the ARIC cohort, the PRS z-score for ever smoking predicted smoking (odds ratio [OR]: 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31, 1.43); the PRS z-score for age of smoking initiation was associated with age of smoking initiation (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.82, 0.92); the PRS z-score for cigarettes per day was associated with heavier smoking (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.11, 1.25); and the PRS z-score for smoking cessation predicted successful cessation (OR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.17, 1.32). In the African ancestry cohort, the PRSs did not predict smoking behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking-related PRSs were associated with smoking-related behaviors in European ancestry populations. This improvement in prediction is greatest in the lowest and highest genetic risk categories. The lack of prediction in African ancestry populations highlights the urgent need to increase diversity in research so that scientific advances can be applied to populations other than those of European ancestry. IMPLICATIONS: This study shows that including both genetic ancestry and PRSs in a single model increases the ability to predict smoking behaviors compared with the model including only demographic characteristics. This finding is observed for every smoking-related outcome. Even though adding genetics is more predictive, the demographics alone confer substantial and meaningful predictive power. However, with increasing work in PRSs, the predictive ability will continue to improve.