How can hospitals change practice to better implement smoking cessation interventions? A systematic review

Smoking cessation reduces the risk of death, improves recovery, and reduces the risk of hospital readmission. Evidence and policy support hospital admission as an ideal time to deliver smoking-cessation interventions. However, this is not well implemented in practice. In this systematic review, the authors summarize the literature on smoking-cessation implementation strategies and evaluate their success to guide the implementation of best-practice smoking interventions into hospital settings. The CINAHL Complete, Embase, MEDLINE Complete, and PsycInfo databases were searched using terms associated with the following topics: smoking cessation, hospitals, and implementation. In total, 14,287 original records were identified and screened, resulting in 63 eligible articles from 56 studies. Data were extracted on the study characteristics, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes. Implementation outcomes were guided by Proctor and colleagues' framework and included acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. The findings demonstrate that studies predominantly focused on the training of staff to achieve implementation. Brief implementation approaches using a small number of implementation strategies were less successful and poorly sustained compared with well resourced and multicomponent approaches. Although brief implementation approaches may be viewed as advantageous because they are less resource-intensive, their capacity to change practice in a sustained way lacks evidence. Attempts to change clinician behavior or introduce new models of care are challenging in a short time frame, and implementation efforts should be designed for long-term success. There is a need to embrace strategic, well planned implementation approaches to embed smoking-cessation interventions into hospitals and to reap and sustain the benefits for people who smoke.     

Functional estrogen receptor signal transduction pathway activity and antihormonal therapy response in low-grade ovarian carcinoma

Background

Advanced low-grade ovarian carcinoma (LGOC) is difficult to treat. In several studies, high estrogen receptor (ER) protein expression was observed in patients with LGOC, which suggests that antihormonal therapy (AHT) is a treatment option. However, only a subgroup of patients respond to AHT, and this response cannot be adequately predicted by currently used immunohistochemistry (IHC). A possible explanation is that IHC only takes the ligand, but not the activity, of the whole signal transduction pathway (STP) into account. Therefore, in this study, the authors assessed whether functional STP activity can be an alternative tool to predict response to AHT in LGOC.

Methods

Tumor tissue samples were obtained from patients with primary or recurrent LGOC who subsequently received AHT. Histoscores of ER and progesterone receptor (PR) were determined. In addition, STP activity of the ER STP and of six other STPs known to play a role in ovarian cancer was assessed and compared with the STP activity of healthy postmenopausal fallopian tube epithelium.

Results

Patients who had normal ER STP activity had a progression-free survival (PFS) of 16.1 months. This was significantly shorter in patients who had low and very high ER STP activity, with a median PFS of 6.0 and 2.1 months, respectively (p < .001). Unlike ER histoscores, PR histoscores were strongly correlated to the ER STP activity and thus to PFS.

Conclusions

Aberrant low and very high functional ER STP activity and low PR histoscores in patients with LGOC indicate decreased response to AHT. ER IHC is not representative of functional ER STP activity and is not related to PFS.     

Metastatic adult-type non-rhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcomas in children and adolescents: A cohort study from the European paediatric Soft tissue sarcoma Study Group

Background

Limited data exist on the clinical behavior of pediatric non-rhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcomas (NRSTS) with distant metastases at onset, and a clear standard of care has not yet been defined.

Methods

This cohort study reports on pediatric adult-type metastatic NRSTS enrolled in two concurrent prospective European studies, i.e., the randomized BERNIE study and the single-arm MTS 2008 study developed by the European paediatric Soft tissue sarcoma Study Group. Treatment programs were originally designed for patients with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma, i.e., nine courses of multidrug chemotherapy (with or without bevacizumab in the BERNIE study), followed by 12 cycles of maintenance therapy, whereas radiotherapy and/or surgery (on primary tumor and/or metastases) were delayed until after seven courses of chemotherapy had been administered.

Results

The study included 61 patients <21 years old treated from July 2008 to December 2016. The lung was the site of metastases in 75% of the cases. All patients received multi-agent chemotherapy, 44% had local therapy to primary tumor, and 18% had treatment of metastases. Median time to progression/relapse was 6 months. A high rate of tumor progression was observed during the initial part of the chemotherapy program. With a median follow-up of 41.5 months (range, 2–111 months), 3-year event-free survival and overall survival were 15.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.6–25.7) and 34.9% (95% CI, 22.7–47.5), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in outcome depending on the type of treatment administered.

Conclusions

The study confirmed the overall poor outcome for patients with metastatic NRSTS, whose treatment remains a challenge.

Plain Language Summary

• Pediatric non-rhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcomas form a heterogeneous group of rare tumors.
• Although recent international studies have defined the standard of care for patients with localized disease, limited data are available on the clinical behavior of patients with distant metastases.
• This study on 61 metastatic cases treated on two prospective European protocols confirms that the chances of survival of such patients are often dismal and a standard treatment is still lacking.

     

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.     

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.