Patient navigation across the cancer care continuum: An overview of systematic reviews and emerging literature

Patient navigation is a strategy for overcoming barriers to reduce disparities and to improve access and outcomes. The aim of this umbrella review was to identify, critically appraise, synthesize, and present the best available evidence to inform policy and planning regarding patient navigation across the cancer continuum. Systematic reviews examining navigation in cancer care were identified in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Epistemonikos, and Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) databases and in the gray literature from January 1, 2012, to April 19, 2022. Data were screened, extracted, and appraised independently by two authors. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Review and Research Syntheses was used for quality appraisal. Emerging literature up to May 25, 2022, was also explored to capture primary research published beyond the coverage of included systematic reviews. Of the 2062 unique records identified, 61 systematic reviews were included. Fifty-four reviews were quantitative or mixed-methods reviews, reporting on the effectiveness of cancer patient navigation, including 12 reviews reporting costs or cost-effectiveness outcomes. Seven qualitative reviews explored navigation needs, barriers, and experiences. In addition, 53 primary studies published since 2021 were included. Patient navigation is effective in improving participation in cancer screening and reducing the time from screening to diagnosis and from diagnosis to treatment initiation. Emerging evidence suggests that patient navigation improves quality of life and patient satisfaction with care in the survivorship phase and reduces hospital readmission in the active treatment and survivorship care phases. Palliative care data were extremely limited. Economic evaluations from the United States suggest the potential cost-effectiveness of navigation in screening programs.     

Orientation and mobility outcome measures

Despite orientation and mobility (O&M) being a significant factor determining quality of life of people with low vision or blindness, there are no gold standard measures or agreement on how to measure O&M performance. In the first part of this systematic review, an inventory of O&M outcome measures used by recent studies to assess the performance of orientation and/or mobility of adults with vision impairment (low vision and blindness) is presented. A wide variety of O&M outcome measures have been implemented in different fields of study, such as epidemiologic research and interventional studies evaluating training, assistive technology, vision rehabilitation and vision restoration. The most frequent aspect of outcome measures is efficiency such as time, distance, speed and percentage of preferred walking speed, followed by obstacle contacts and avoidance, and dis/orientation and veering. Other less commonly used aspects are target identification, safety and social interaction and self-reported outcome measures. Some studies employ sophisticated equipment to capture and analyse O&M performance in a laboratory setting, while others carry out their assessment in real-world indoor or outdoor environments. In the second part of this review, the appropriateness of implementing the identified outcome measures to assess O&M performance in clinical and functional O&M practice is evaluated. Nearly a half of these outcome measures meet all four criteria of face validity (either clinical or functional), responsiveness, reliability and feasibility and have the potential to be implemented in clinical or functional O&M practice. The findings of this review confirm the complicated and dynamic nature of O&M. Multiple measures are required in any evaluation of O&M performance to facilitate holistic assessment of O&M abilities and limitations of each individual.     

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Beyond an era of chemoradiation?

Now is an exciting era of development in immunotherapy checkpoint inhibitors and their effect on the treatment of NPC. While the general prognosis of R/M disease is poor, immunotherapy offers some promise in a malignancy associated with EBV and characterized by a peritumoural immune infiltrate. Our study aims to review past and on-going clinical trials of monoclonal antibody therapies against the checkpoint inhibitors (e.g. PD1 and CTLA-4), in R/M NPC. All randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials involving immune checkpoint inhibitor interventions for treatment of NPC were included in the study. We utilized a validated “risk of bias” tool to assess study quality. Four separate Phase I–II trials report the potential of PD1 inhibitor treatment for patients with NPC. Within the observed groups, camrelizumab combined with chemotherapy achieved an objective response in 91% of patients as first-line treatment for metastatic NPC (PFS 68% at 1-year) but this was associated with a high rate of grade >3 adverse events (87%; CTCAE version 4.03). The remaining three studies focused on recurrent NPC disease in patients who had received at least one line of prior chemotherapy. Within this group, camrelizumab monotherapy achieved an objective response in 34% of patients (PFS 27% at 1-year; range across all three studies 20.5–34%). No NPC trial has yet reported on specific outcomes for non-PD1 checkpoint inhibitors but 11 on-going studies include alternative targets (e.g. PD-L1/CTLA-4) as combination or monotherapy treatments. In considering checkpoint immunotherapies for NPC, initial results show promise for anti-PD1 interventions. Further phase I–III trials are in progress to clarify clinical outcomes, fully determine safety profiles, and optimize drug combinations and administration schedules.     

No evidence for the need of a routine renal transplant ultrasound after elective transplant ureteric stent removal—A retrospective cohort study

Transplant ureteric stent insertion reduces the incidence of MUCs, but it is not known whether routine PSRGU is needed to detect unmasked MUCs. This study evaluated whether routine PSRGU in the pRTR is a useful tool to identify MUCs before they become clinically apparent. A retrospective analysis was undertaken of the clinical outcomes following elective stent removal from pediatric kidney‐only transplant recipients at two London centers between 2012 and 2016. Our policy was to perform PSRGU either routinely or urgently if there were concerning symptoms or biochemical evidence of renal allograft dysfunction. Elective stent removal was performed in 86% (97 of 113 pRTR), and 75 (77%) of whom had routine PSRGU at a median (IQR) of 6 (2‐8) days after stent removal. There were changes to management in 3 (4%) of pRTR with PSRGU identifying no MUC. Nineteen patients (25%) had urgent PSRGU, most commonly due to renal allograft dysfunction, at a median (IQR) of 5.5 (2.7‐12.3) days after stent removal. Of these, two pRTR required ureteric intervention. For our current practice of removing transplant stents at 4‐6 weeks post‐transplantation, our study has found no evidence to support routine PSRGU after elective stent removal.     

Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive and median sternotomy for double and triple valve surgery: A meta-analysis

Background

Limited data exists demonstrating the efficacy of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared to median sternotomy (MS) for multiple valvular disease (MVD). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare operative and peri-operative outcomes of MIS vs MS in MVD.

Methods

PubMed, Ovid, and Embase were searched from inception until August 2019 for randomized and observational studies comparing MIS and MS in patients with MVD. Clinical outcomes of intra- and postoperative times, reoperation for bleeding and surgical site infection were evaluated.

Results

Five observational studies comparing 340 MIS vs 414 MS patients were eligible for qualitative and quantitative review. The quality of evidence assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was good for all included studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated increased cardiopulmonary bypass time for MIS patients (weighted mean difference [WMD], 0.487; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.365-0.608; P < .0001). Similarly, aortic cross-clamp time was longer in patients undergoing MIS (WMD, 0.632; 95% CI, 0.509-0.755; P < .0001). No differences were found in operative mortality, reoperation for bleeding, surgical site infection, or hospital stay.

Conclusions

MIS for MVD have similar short-term outcomes compared to MS. This adds value to the use of minimally invasive methods for multivalvular surgery, despite conferring longer operative times. However, the paucity in literature and learning curve associated with MIS warrants further evidence, ideally randomized control trials, to support these findings.