Admission patterns and outcomes of postoperative oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer patients admitted to critical care in the UK: an analysis of the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre Case Mix Programme database

Surgery for head and neck malignancy may be complex with postoperative admission to critical care units (CCUs) often required. There are, however, increasing demands on this resource. We examined a national intensive care database to assess patterns of admission and outcomes for patients following surgery for malignancies of the oral cavity and oropharynx. An analysis was performed of the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC) Case Mix Programme database. Data were extracted on case mix and outcomes for patients coded as ‘malignant neoplasm of the oropharynx requiring surgery’ admitted to critical care between 2010 and 2019. Data included admission numbers, demographics, comorbidities, physiology scores, and outcomes including length of stay and mortality. There were 9,843 admissions for patients with malignancies of the oral cavity and oropharynx from 156 CCUs over the ten-year period. Admissions increased from 486 in 2010 to 1,381 in 2019. These admissions accounted for 0.42% of overall admissions in 2010 and 0.78% in 2019. The median age of patients was 63 years and 63.5% were male. The median length of stay in critical care was 38 hours (Interquartile range (IQR) 20.4-64.3 hours). The median length of total hospital stay was 15 days (IQR 10-23 days). Mortality in critical care was low (0.7%). Admissions to CCUs following surgery for malignancies of the oral cavity and oropharynx have increased over the last decade but remain low overall. With increasing demand for this resource, ongoing monitoring of utilisation is important.     

Primary vaccination in adult patients after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation – A single center retrospective efficacy analysis

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) results in a loss of humoral immunity and subsequent risk for severe infections. Thus, re-vaccination is required but may fail due to incomplete immune reconstitution. We retrospectively analyzed predictors of immune response to primary vaccination applied according to the EBMT (European Blood and Marrow Transplantation Group) recommendations. Serologic response to vaccination against diphtheria (D), tetanus (T), Bordetella pertussis (aP) and Haemophilus influenzae (Hib) (administrated as combined DTaP-Hib-IPV vaccination) was studied in 84 alloHSCT patients transplanted between 2008 and 2015 (age at alloHSCT: 18.6–70.6 years). All patients with a relapse-free survival of ≥9 months, at least 3 consecutive vaccinations and absence of intravenous immunoglobulin administration within 3 months before and after vaccination met the primary inclusion criteria. Additionally, immunological response to a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine was analyzed in a subgroup of 67 patients. Patients’ characteristics at the time of first vaccination were recorded. Responses were measured as vaccine-specific antibody titers. Regarding DTaP-Hib-IPV vaccination, 89.3% (n = 75) of all patients achieved protective titers to at least 3 of the 4 vaccine components and were thus considered responders. 10.7% (n = 9) of the patients were classified as non-responders with positive immune response to less than 3 components. Highest response was observed for Hib (97.4%), tetanus (95.2%) and pneumococcal vaccination (83.6%) while only 68.3% responded to vaccination against Bordetella pertussis. Significant risk factors for failure of vaccination response included low B cell counts (p < 0.001; cut-off: 0.05 B cells/nl) and low IgG levels (p = 0.026; mean IgG of responders 816 mg/dl vs. 475 mg/dl of non-responders). Further, a trend was observed that prior cGvHD impairs vaccination response as 88.9% of the non-responders but only 54.7% of the responders had prior cGvHD (p = 0.073). The results demonstrate, that the currently proposed vaccination strategy leads to seroprotection in the majority of alloHSCT patients.     

Quality indicators for breast cancer care: A systematic review

ObjectivesWe evaluated breast cancer (BC) care quality indicators (QIs) in clinical pathways and integrated health care processes.MethodsFollowing protocol registration (Prospero n^o: CRD42021228867), relevant documents were identified, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases (EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE), health care valuable representatives and the World Wide Web in April 2021. Data concerning QIs, measurement tools and compliance standards were extracted from European and North American sources in duplicate with 98% reviewer agreement.ResultsThere were 89 QIs found from 22 selected documents (QI per document mean 13.5 with standard deviation 11.9). The Belgian (38 QIs) and the EUSOMA (European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists) (34 QIs) documents were the ones that best reported the QIs. No identical QI was identified in all the documents analysed. There were 67/89 QIs covering processes (75.3%) and 11/89 (12.4%) for each structure and outcomes QIs. There were 21/89 QIs for diagnosis (30.3%), 43/89 for treatment (48.3%), and 19/89 for staging, counselling, follow-up and rehabilitation (21.4%). Of 67 process QIs and 11 outcome QIs, 20/78 (26%) did not report a minimum standard of care. Shared decision making was only included as a QI in the Italian document.ConclusionMore than half of countries have not established a national clinical pathway or integrated breast cancer care process to achieve the excellence of BC care. There was heterogeneity in QIs for the evaluation of BC care quality. Over two-thirds of the clinical pathways and integrated health care processes did not provide a minimum auditable standard of care for compliance, leaving open the definition of best practice. There is a need for harmonisation of BC care QIs.     

Oncology healthcare professionals’ knowledge,attitudes, and practices regarding young carers

ObjectiveIncreasing numbers of youths are facing a relative’s cancer. In this context, some are required to provide significant support and are called young carers (YCs). However, little is known about how these youth are viewed and supported by health professionals. The aim of this study was to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of oncology healthcare professionals regarding YCs.MethodsThirty-one oncology professionals working in France (adult and pediatric departments and homecare services) participated in semi-structured interviews.ResultsThe results indicated that almost all professionals had already met a YC and could identify several situations in their professional context. Their knowledge of YCs appeared to influence their attitudes and practices. They perceived this situation in a rather superficial way when their discourse and ideas were explored in-depth. They mentioned some ideas for improving support for YCs, but also many barriers.ConclusionThe results highlight a moderate level of awareness. Thus, it is necessary to enhance providers’ awareness and knowledge of YCs.Practice implicationsAwareness campaigns and training programs need to be developed for oncology healthcare professionals to help them better identify, understand, and support YCs and their families. This type of action would positively impact patient care.