Cardiovascular mortality in people with cancer compared to the general population: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of non-cancer death in cancer survivors, but the risk of CVD varies between cancers. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise available evidence on patterns and magnitude of CVD mortality risk. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline (OVID), CINAHL and Scopus databases from 01-January-2000 to 16-July-2023 of studies of people with cancer, reporting CVD mortality in cancer population compared with a reference population (e.g. general population) as standardised mortality ratios (SMR). Meta-analysis of SMRs across cancer and CVD types were pooled using a random-effects model to allow for heterogeneity of the true effect size across studies. RESULTS: We identified 136 studies from 16 countries. Sample sizes ranged from 157 to 7,529,481. The majority (n = 98; 72%) were conducted in the United States, followed by Europe (n = 22; 16%). The most common cancers studied were gastrointestinal (n = 34 studies), haematological (n = 31) and breast (n = 29). A total of 876 CVD SMRs were extracted across diverse CVD conditions. Of those, the majority (535; 61%) indicated an increased risk of CVD death (SMR >1), 109 (12%) a lower risk of CVD death (SMR <1) and 232 (27%) an equivalent risk (95% CI of SMR included 1) compared to the general population. The meta-analysis of all reported SMRs showed an increased risk of CVD death (SMR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.40-1.72) in cancer survivors compared with the general population. The SMR varied between CVD conditions and ranged from 1.36 (95% CI = 1.29-1.44) for heart diseases to 1.56 (95% CI = 1.39-1.76) for cerebrovascular diseases. SMR varied across cancer types, ranging from 1.14 (95% CI = 1.04-1.25) for testicular/germ cell tumours to 2.82 (95% CI = 2.20-3.63) for brain/central nervous system tumours. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survivors are at increased risk of premature CVD mortality compared to the general population, but the risk varies by cancer type and CVD. Future research should focus on understanding mechanisms behind the increased CVD risk to develop appropriate interventions.

Lifestyle and integrative oncology interventions for cancer-related fatigue and sleep disturbances.

Fatigue, insomnia and sleep disturbances are common after cancer diagnosis, and have a negative impact on quality of life and function. This narrative review synthesised evidence on lifestyle and integrative oncology interventions for cancer-related fatigue, insomnia and sleep disturbances in cancer survivors. There is strong evidence in support of aerobic and strength exercise for the relief of cancer-related fatigue. Yoga, massage therapy, acupuncture, Tai Chi and qigong can also be recommended for cancer-related fatigue. The evidence on yoga, acupuncture and massage therapy for sleep disturbances in cancer is mixed, while exercise appears to have a modest favourable effect. There is insufficient evidence on nutrient supplements or dietary interventions for cancer-related fatigue or insomnia and other sleep disturbances after cancer. Beyond alleviating cancer-related fatigue and insomnia-related symptoms, integrative oncology and lifestyle interventions have potential to effect multiple other benefits, such as improvement in symptoms such as pain and menopausal symptoms. There is a need for well-designed randomised controlled trials of interventions, particularly in the areas of diet and nutrient supplements, and for implementation studies of interventions already supported by evidence.

Cancer survivor preferences for breast cancer follow-up care: a discrete choice experiment.

PURPOSE: To identify the key attributes of breast cancer follow-up care models preferred by cancer survivors in Australia. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit preferences for attributes of breast cancer follow-up care. Respondents were presented with two hypothetical scenarios, known as choice sets, and asked to select a preference. Respondents were individuals living in Australia who were diagnosed with breast cancer within the past five years prior to survey completion and were recruited through the Breast Cancer Network of Australia and other community or consumer networks. Latent class modelling (LCM) approach under a random utility framework was used for the analysis. RESULTS: 123 breast cancer survivors completed the DCE survey. LCA revealed two latent classes, those with older age and lower quality of life (class 1) and younger women with higher quality of life (class 2). Class 2 preferred a care team comprising specialists, nurses and GPs and emphasised the importance of shared survivorship care plans. Class 1 remained neutral regarding the team's composition but was notably concerned about the out-of-pocket costs per consultation, a finding not seen in Class 2. CONCLUSIONS: Age and quality of life status are associated with patient preference for types and attributes of breast cancer follow-up care. The health system can work towards enhancing flexibility of follow-up care delivery, ultimately achieving person-centred care. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Efforts need to be made by policymakers to ensure consumer preferences are taken into consideration to implement tailored person-centred follow-up care pathways.

'Just Google it'-A scoping review of online mental health resources for survivors of breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: As the Internet is a ubiquitous resource for information, we aimed to replicate a patient's Google search to identify and assess the quality of online mental health/wellbeing materials available to support women living with or beyond cancer. METHODS: A Google search was performed using a key term search strategy including search strings 'cancer', 'wellbeing', 'distress' and 'resources' to identify online resources of diverse formats (i.e., factsheet, website, program, course, video, webinar, e-book, podcast). The quality evaluation scoring tool (QUEST) was used to analyse the quality of health information provided. RESULTS: The search strategy resulted in 283 resources, 117 of which met inclusion criteria across four countries: Australia, USA, UK, and Canada. Websites and factsheets were primarily retrieved. The average QUEST score was 10.04 (highest possible score is 28), indicating low quality, with 92.31% of resources lacking references to sources of information. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicated a lack of evidence-based support resources and engaging information available online for people living with or beyond cancer. The majority of online resources were non-specific to breast cancer and lacked authorship and attribution.

An online intervention to improve oncology health professional self-efficacy in communicating with carers: Hybrid effectiveness-implementation evaluation of the eTRIO program.

OBJECTIVES: Many oncology health professionals (HPs) report communicating with carers as complex; and receive limited carer-relevant training. We developed an online HP education program for supporting and managing carer involvement (eTRIO). We aimed to assess whether HPs' self-efficacy in carer communication, knowledge, and decision-making preferences improve following eTRIO. Satisfaction and implementation potential were assessed. METHODS: This type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study used a pre-post single arm intervention design. HPs completed baseline measures, the eTRIO online module, and measures at 1- and 12-weeks post-intervention. Measures included: self-efficacy in carer communication (13-items), applied knowledge (7-items), preference for carer involvement in decisions (1-item). Fifteen of participants completed feedback interviews which underwent thematic analysis. User analytics were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Fifty-six HPs completed baseline measures, 42 completed post- and follow-up measures. At baseline mean self-efficacy score was 88. HPs showed a statistically significant increase in self-efficacy post-intervention (mean = 105.8, CI [12.99, 20.47]), maintained at 12-weeks (mean = 101.1, CI [8.00, 15.72]). There were no changes in knowledge or decision-making preferences. Program engagement and satisfaction were high, 86.7% participants rated eTRIO as very/extremely helpful. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: eTRIO provided HPs with confidence to effectively engage with carers and manage complex situations such as family dominance. These gains are noteworthy, as conflict with families/carers contributes to HP burnout.

Development of Web-Based Education Modules to Improve Carer Engagement in Cancer Care: Design and User Experience Evaluation of the e-Triadic Oncology (eTRIO) Modules for Clinicians, Patients, and Carers.

BACKGROUND: Carers often assume key roles in cancer care. However, many carers report feeling disempowered and ill-equipped to support patients. Our group published evidence-based guidelines (the Triadic Oncology [TRIO] Guidelines) to improve oncology clinician engagement with carers and the management of challenging situations involving carers. OBJECTIVE: To facilitate implementation of the TRIO Guidelines in clinical practice, we aimed to develop, iteratively refine, and conduct user testing of a suite of evidence-based and interactive web-based education modules for oncology clinicians (e-Triadic Oncology [eTRIO]), patients with cancer, and carers (eTRIO for Patients and Carers [eTRIO-pc]). These were designed to improve carer involvement, communication, and shared decision-making in the cancer management setting. METHODS: The eTRIO education modules were based on extensive research, including systematic reviews, qualitative interviews, and consultation analyses. Guided by the person-based approach, module content and design were reviewed by an expert advisory group comprising academic and clinical experts (n=13) and consumers (n=5); content and design were continuously and iteratively refined. User experience testing (including "think-aloud" interviews and administration of the System Usability Scale [SUS]) of the modules was completed by additional clinicians (n=5), patients (n=3), and carers (n=3). RESULTS: The final clinician module comprises 14 sections, requires approximately 1.5 to 2 hours to complete, and covers topics such as carer-inclusive communication and practices; supporting carer needs; and managing carer dominance, anger, and conflicting patient-carer wishes. The usability of the module was rated by 5 clinicians, with a mean SUS score of 75 (SD 5.3), which is interpreted as good. Clinicians often desired information in a concise format, divided into small "snackable" sections that could be easily recommenced if they were interrupted. The carer module features 11 sections; requires approximately 1.5 hours to complete; and includes topics such as the importance of carers, carer roles during consultations, and advocating for the patient. The patient module is an adaptation of the relevant carer module sections, comprising 7 sections and requiring 1 hour to complete. The average SUS score as rated by 6 patients and carers was 78 (SD 16.2), which is interpreted as good. Interactive activities, clinical vignette videos, and reflective learning exercises are incorporated into all modules. Patient and carer consumer advisers advocated for empathetic content and tone throughout their modules, with an easy-to-read and navigable module interface. CONCLUSIONS: The eTRIO suite of modules were rigorously developed using a person-based design methodology to meet the unique information needs and learning requirements of clinicians, patients, and carers, with the goal of improving effective and supportive carer involvement in cancer consultations and cancer care.

Survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer: MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations.

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared to those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end-of-life. These MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: An expert panel comprising MASCC and ASCO members was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting: (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including 8 people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low-to-middle resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥ 94.8% agreement for seven standards (1. Person-Centred Care; 2. Coordinated and Integrated Care; 3. Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; 4. Evaluated and Communicated Care; 5. Accessible and Equitable Care; 6. Sustainable and Resourced Care; 7. Research and Data-Driven Care) and ≥ 84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards will support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders in cancer care (healthcare professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers. Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.

Survivorship Care for People Affected by Advanced or Metastatic Cancer: MASCC-ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations.

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared with those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end of life. These Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: A MASCC-ASCO expert panel was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including eight people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low- to middle-resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥94.8% agreement for seven standards, (1) Person-Centered Care; (2) Coordinated and Integrated Care; (3) Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; (4) Evaluated and Communicated Care; (5) Accessible and Equitable Care; (6) Sustainable and Resourced Care; and (7) Research and Data-Driven Care, and ≥84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders (health care professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers). Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.Additional information is available at www.mascc.org, www.asco.org/standards and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

Integrating Cardio-Oncology Across the Research Pipeline, Policy, and Practice in Australia-An Australian Cardiovascular Alliance Perspective.

Over 18 million people worldwide were diagnosed with cancer in 2020, including over 150,000 people in Australia. Although improved early detection and treatment have increased the survival rates, cardiotoxic treatment and inadequate management of cardiovascular risk factors have resulted in cardiovascular disease (CVD) being one of the leading causes of non-cancer-related death and disability among cancer survivors. International guidelines outline the standards of care for CVD risk surveillance and management. However, Australian cardio-oncology policies and clinical guidelines are limited. There is increasing growth of cardio-oncology research in Australia and support from leading Australian professional bodies and advocacy and research networks, including the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, the National Heart Foundation of Australia, and the Australian Cardiovascular Alliance (ACvA). Thus, opportunities to drive multidisciplinary cardio-oncology initiatives are growing, including grant funding, position statements, and novel research to inform new policies. The ACvA has a unique flagship structure that spans the translational research pipeline from drug discovery to implementation science. This article aims to highlight how multidisciplinary cardio-oncology innovations could intersect with the seven ACvA flagships, and to showcase Australian achievements in cardio-oncology thus far. We summarise eight key priority areas for future cardio-oncology research that emerged. These strategies will strengthen cardio-oncology research and care in Australia, and drive new guidelines, policies, and government initiatives to ensure equity in health outcomes for all cardio-oncology patients.

A meta-analysis of healthy lifestyle interventions addressing quality of life of cancer survivors in the post treatment phase.

PURPOSE: This study's primary aim was to investigate whether including a mental health component to healthy lifestyle interventions are associated with greater effects on quality of life (QoL) for post-treatment cancer survivors than addressing physical activity and/or nutrition alone. METHODS: PsycINFO, Scopus, Medline, CINAHL, and Google Scholar were searched to identify randomised control trials of healthy lifestyle interventions for post-treatment cancer survivors, with a usual care or waitlist control, and measured QoL. Meta-analyses quantified the effects of interventions vs controls at post-treatment on total QoL, physical, emotional, and social well-being. Subgroup analyses compared interventions with vs without a mental health component, modes of delivery, and duration. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2. RESULTS: Eighty-eight papers evaluating 110 interventions were included: 66 effect sizes were extracted for meta-analysis, and 22 papers were narratively synthesised. The pooled effect size demonstrated a small, significant effect of healthy lifestyle interventions in comparison to control for all QoL outcomes (total g = 0.32, p >.001; physical g = 0.19, p = 0.05; emotional g = 0.20, p >.001; social g = 0.18, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference between interventions with vs without a mental health component. Face-to-face delivered interventions were associated with greater total QoL and physical well-being compared to other modalities. Interventions delivered ≤12 weeks were associated with greater physical well-being than those delivered ≥13 weeks. Overall, studies had substantial levels of heterogeneity and 55.9% demonstrated high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Participating in a healthy lifestyle intervention following cancer treatment improves QoL. Few trials addressed mental health or evaluated online or telephone modalities; future research should develop and evaluate interventions that utilise these features. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Brief healthy lifestyle interventions can be recommended for cancer survivors, particularly those interested in improving physical well-being.

The use of patient reported outcome measures in oncology clinical practice across Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: While there is increasing evidence on the benefits of PROMs in cancer care, the extent of routine collection and use of PROMs in clinical cancer practice across Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) is unknown. This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of PROMs use in routine clinical cancer care in ANZ. METHODS: An online survey was designed and disseminated via professional societies and organisations using a snowball sampling approach to clinical and health administration professionals managing cancer care in ANZ. A poster advertising the study was also circulated on professional social media networks via LinkedIn and Twitter inviting health professionals from ANZ to participate if they were using or intending to use PROMs in clinical cancer practice. Responders opted into the survey via the survey link. RESULTS: From 132 survey views, 91(response rate, 69%) respondents from 56 clinical practices across ANZ agreed to participate in the survey, and of these 55 (n = 55/91, 60%) respondents reported collecting PROMs within their clinical practice. The majority of the respondents were from the State of New South Wales in Australia (n = 21/55, 38%), hospital (n = 35/55, 64%), and a public setting (n = 46/55, 83%). PROMs were collected in all cancer types (n = 21/36, 58%), in all stages of the disease (n = 31/36, 86%), in an adult population (n = 33/36, 92%), applied in English (n = 33/36, 92%), and used to facilitate communication with other reasons (27/36, 75%). A geospatial map analysis provided insights into the variation in PROMs uptake between the two countries and in certain jurisdictions within Australia. This study also highlights the limited resources for PROMs implementation, and a lack of systematic priority driven approach. CONCLUSION: PROM use across Australia and New Zealand seems variable and occurring predominantly in larger metropolitan centres with limited standardisation of approach and implementation. A greater focus on equitable adoption of PROMs in diverse cancer care settings is urgently needed.

Systemic Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline Q and A.

The Systemic Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer: @ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline Q and A presents takeways, rationale, and key recommendations based on #JCOGO full guideline for patients by menopausal and marker status.

Systemic Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline.

PURPOSE: To guide clinicians and policymakers in three global resource-constrained settings on treating patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) when Maximal setting-guideline recommended treatment is unavailable. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, multinational panel reviewed existing ASCO guidelines and conducted modified ADAPTE and formal consensus processes. RESULTS: Four published resource-agnostic guidelines were adapted for resource-constrained settings; informing two rounds of formal consensus; recommendations received ≥75% agreement. RECOMMENDATIONS: Clinicians should recommend treatment according to menopausal status, pathological and biomarker features when quality results are available. In first-line, for hormone receptor (HR)-positive MBC, when a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor and CDK 4/6 inhibitor combination is unavailable, use hormonal therapy alone. For life-threatening disease, use single-agent chemotherapy or surgery for local control. For premenopausal patients, use ovarian suppression or ablation plus hormone therapy in Basic settings. For human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive MBC, if trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and chemotherapy are unavailable, use trastuzumab and chemotherapy; if unavailable, use chemotherapy. For HER2-positive, HR-positive MBC, use standard first-line therapy, or endocrine therapy if contraindications. For triple-negative MBC with unknown PD-L1 status, or if PD-L1-positive and immunotherapy unavailable, use single-agent chemotherapy. For germline BRCA1/2 mutation-positive MBC, if poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor is unavailable, use hormonal therapy (HR-positive MBC) and chemotherapy (HR-negative MBC). In second-line, for HR-positive MBC, Enhanced setting recommendations depend on prior treatment; for Limited, use tamoxifen or chemotherapy. For HER2-positive MBC, if trastuzumab deruxtecan is unavailable, use trastuzumab emtansine; if unavailable, capecitabine and lapatinib; if unavailable, trastuzumab and/or chemotherapy (hormonal therapy alone for HR-positive MBC).Additional information is available at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines. It is ASCO's view that healthcare providers and system decision-makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guideline is intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.

Applying precision medicine principles to the management of multimorbidity: the utility of comorbidity networks, graph machine learning, and knowledge graphs.

The current management of patients with multimorbidity is suboptimal, with either a single-disease approach to care or treatment guideline adaptations that result in poor adherence due to their complexity. Although this has resulted in calls for more holistic and personalized approaches to prescribing, progress toward these goals has remained slow. With the rapid advancement of machine learning (ML) methods, promising approaches now also exist to accelerate the advance of precision medicine in multimorbidity. These include analyzing disease comorbidity networks, using knowledge graphs that integrate knowledge from different medical domains, and applying network analysis and graph ML. Multimorbidity disease networks have been used to improve disease diagnosis, treatment recommendations, and patient prognosis. Knowledge graphs that combine different medical entities connected by multiple relationship types integrate data from different sources, allowing for complex interactions and creating a continuous flow of information. Network analysis and graph ML can then extract the topology and structure of networks and reveal hidden properties, including disease phenotypes, network hubs, and pathways; predict drugs for repurposing; and determine safe and more holistic treatments. In this article, we describe the basic concepts of creating bipartite and unipartite disease and patient networks and review the use of knowledge graphs, graph algorithms, graph embedding methods, and graph ML within the context of multimorbidity. Specifically, we provide an overview of the application of graph theory for studying multimorbidity, the methods employed to extract knowledge from graphs, and examples of the application of disease networks for determining the structure and pathways of multimorbidity, identifying disease phenotypes, predicting health outcomes, and selecting safe and effective treatments. In today's modern data-hungry, ML-focused world, such network-based techniques are likely to be at the forefront of developing robust clinical decision support tools for safer and more holistic approaches to treating older patients with multimorbidity.