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.     

Differential diagnosis of diarrhoea in patients with neuroendocrine tumours:A systematic review

BACKGROUND Approximately 20% of patients with neuroendocrine tumours(NETs) develop carcinoid syndrome(CS),characterised by flushing and diarrhoea.Somatostatin analogues or telotristat can be used to control symptoms of CS through inhibition of serotonin secretion.Although CS is often the cause of diarrhoea among patients with gastroenteropancreatic NETs(GEP-NETs),other causes to consider include pancreatic enzyme insufficiency(PEI),bile acid malabsorption and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth.If other causes of diarrhoea unrelated to serotonin secretion are mistaken for CS diarrhoea,these treatments may be ineffective against the diarrhoea,risking detrimental effects to patient quality of life.AIM To identify and synthesise qualitative and quantitative evidence relating to the differential diagnosis of diarrhoea in patients with GEP-NETs.METHODS Electronic databases(MEDLINE,Embase and the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to September 12,2018 using terms for NETs and diarrhoea.Congresses,systematic literature review bibliographies and included articles were also hand-searched.Any study designs and publication types were eligible for inclusion if relevant data on a cause(s) of diarrhoea in patients with GEP-NETs were reported.Studies were screened by two independent reviewers at abstract and full-text stages.Framework synthesis was adapted to synthesise quantitative and qualitative data.The definition of qualitative data was expanded to include all textual data in any section of relevant publications.RESULTS Forty-seven publications(44 studies) were included,comprising a variety of publication types,including observational studies,reviews,guidelines,case reports,interventional studies,and opinion pieces.Most reported on PEI on/after treatment with somatostatin analogs;9.5%-84% of patients with GEP-NETs had experienced steatorrhoea or confirmed PEI.Where reported,14.3%–50.7% of patients received pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy.Other causes of diarrhoea reported in patients with GEP-NETs included bile acid malabsorption(80%),small intestinal bacterial overgrowth(23.6%-62%),colitis(20%) and infection(7.1%).Diagnostic approaches included faecal elastase,breath tests,tauroselcholic(selenium-75) acid(Se HCAT) scan and stool culture,although evidence on the effectiveness or diagnostic accuracy of these approaches was limited.Assessment of patient history or diarrhoea characteristics was also reported as initial approaches for investigation.From the identified evidence,if diarrhoea is assumed to be CS diarrhoea,consequences include uncontrolled diarrhoea,malnutrition,and perceived ineffectiveness of CS treatment.Approaches for facilitating differential diagnosis of diarrhoea include improving patient and clinician awareness of non-CS causes and involvement of a multidisciplinary clinical team,including gastroenterologists.CONCLUSION Diarrhoea in GEP-NETs can be multifactorial with misdiagnosis leading to delayed patient recovery and inefficient resource use.This systematic literature review highlights gaps for further research on prevalence of non-CS diarrhoea and suitability of diagnostic approaches,to determine an effective algorithm for differential diagnosis of GEP-NET diarrhoea.     

Use of a dual lumen port for automated red cell exchange in adults with sickle cell disease

Red cell exchange (RCE) is a common procedure in adults with sickle cell disease (SCD). Implantable dual lumen Vortex (DLV) ports can be used for RCE in patients with poor peripheral venous access. We performed a retrospective cohort study of RCE procedures performed in adults with SCD. The main objective of the study was to compare the inlet speed, duration of procedures and rate of complications performed through DLV ports to those performed through temporary central venous and peripheral catheters. Twenty‐nine adults with SCD underwent a total of 318 RCE procedures. Twenty adults had DLV ports placed and 218 procedures were performed using DLV ports. Mean length of follow‐up after DLV port placement was 397 ± 263 days. Six DLV ports were removed due to infection and 1 for malfunction after a mean of 171 ± 120 days. Compared to temporary central venous and peripheral catheters, DLV port procedures had a greater rate of procedural complications, a longer duration, and a lower inlet speed (all P < 0.01). When accounting for the maximum allowable inlet speed to avoid citrate toxicity, 40% of DLV port procedures were greater than 10% below maximum speed, compared to 7 and 14% of procedures performed through temporary central venous and peripheral catheters (P < 0.0001). In conclusion, DLV ports can be used for RCE in adults with SCD, albeit with more procedural complications and longer duration. The smaller internal diameter and longer catheter of DLV ports compared to temporary central venous catheters likely accounts for the differences noted. J. Clin. Apheresis 30:353–358, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

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.