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.     

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.

     

Effect of obstructive sleep apnoea on retinal microvascular function: a randomised controlled trial

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology - Retinal microvascular endothelial dysfunction is thought to be of importance in the development of ocular vascular diseases....     

Systematic review of drug–drug interactions between rifamycins and anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents and considerations for management

Rifamycins (rifampin, rifabutin, and rifapentine) play an essential role in the treatment of mycobacterial and some nonmycobacterial infections. They also induce the activity of various drug transporting and metabolizing enzymes, which can impact the concentrations and efficacy of substrates. Many anticoagulant and antiplatelet (AC/AP) agents are substrates of these enzymes and have narrow therapeutic indices, leading to risks of thrombosis or bleeding when coadministered with rifamycins. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects on AC/AP pharmacokinetics, laboratory markers, and clinical safety and efficacy of combined use with rifamycins. A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidance was performed. The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were queried for English-language reports on combination use of rifamycins and AC/AP agents from database inception through August 2021. The 29 studies identified examined warfarin (n = 17), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (n = 8), and antiplatelet agents (n = 4) combined with rifampin (n = 28) or rifabutin (n = 1). Eleven studies were case reports or small case series; 14 reported on pharmacokinetic or laboratory markers in healthy volunteers. Rifampin-warfarin combinations led to reductions in warfarin area under the curve (AUC) of 15%–74%, with variability by warfarin isomer and study. Warfarin dose increases of up to 3–5 times prerifampin doses were required to maintain coagulation parameters in the therapeutic range. DOAC AUCs were decreased by 20%–67%, with variability by individual agent and with rifampin versus rifabutin. The active metabolite of clopidogrel increased substantially with rifampin coadministration, whereas prasugrel was largely unaffected and ticagrelor saw decreases. Our review suggests most combinations of AC/AP agents and rifampin are problematic. Further studies are required to determine whether rifabutin or rifapentine could be safe alternatives for coadministration with AC/AP drugs.     

Radiation dose reduction in CT-guided cryoablation of renal tumors

PURPOSEWe aimed to evaluate the effect on the radiation dose to the patient by reducing the tube current during the placement of the ablation needles (reduced dose group) compared with the patient doses delivered when scanning at the standard fully diagnostic level (full dose group) in computed tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous cryoablation.METHODSWe conducted a retrospective study of 103 patients undergoing cryoablation in a tertiary cancer center. Overall, 62 patients were scanned with standard exposure parameters (full dose group) set on a 64-slice multidetector CT scanner, while 41 patients were scanned on a reduced dose protocol. Dose levels were retrieved from the hospital picture and archiving communication system including the volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol), total dose length product (DLP), length of cryoablation procedure, number of cryoablation needles and patient size. Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney (rank-sum) tests were used to compare the median DLP, CTDIvol and skin dose between the two groups.RESULTSMedian total DLP for the full dose group was 6025 mGy·cm (1909–13353 mGy·cm) compared with 3391 mGy·cm (1683–6820 mGy·cm) for the reduced dose group. The reduced dose group had a 44% reduction in total DLP and 42% reduction in total CTDIvol (p < 0.001). The estimated skin doses were 384 mGy for the full dose group and 224 mGy for the reduced dose group (42% reduction) (p < 0.001). At 12-month follow-up, the technical success for the full dose (n=62) was 97% with 2 patients requiring a further cryoablation treatment for residual tumor. The technical success for the reduced dose group (n=41) was 100%.CONCLUSIONCT dose reduction technique during image-guided cryoablation treatment of renal tumors can achieve significant radiation dose reduction whilst maintaining sufficient image quality.

Renal cell carcinoma is the most common kidney cancer and has a rising incidence (1–4), with obesity and smoking being major risk factors (5–8).Image-guided ablation offers a more minimally invasive option compared with surgery and the current evidence base shows that it is a safe and effective treatment for T1a tumors, with a low rate of complications (9–11). The major advantage of cryoablation over other modalities is the ability to accurately visualize the iceball and therefore zone of ablation on intraprocedural imaging, either with computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (12, 13). However, renal cryoablation involves the placement of more ablation probes and can have almost three times the radiation exposure compared with CT-guided radiofrequency ablation procedures (14).In addition to this substantial radiation dose per cryoablation, estimated to be between 32 and 39.7 mSv, the follow-up CT imaging will also add to the total radiation burden (15, 16). Whilst this level of radiation dose and associated stochastic risk may be a lesser concern in the older patients, greater consideration needs to be given to younger patients (<50 years old) and in patients requiring lifelong follow-up imaging, in particular those with hereditary diseases such as Von Hippel-Lindau syndrome (15). To our knowledge, the potential for reducing radiation dose for cryoablation patients.The principle aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on the radiation dose to the patient by reducing the tube current during the placement of the ablation needles (reduced dose group) compared with the patient doses delivered when scanning at the standard fully diagnostic level (full dose group) in CT-guided percutaneous cryoablation.