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.     

Prognostic and predictive significance of nuclear HIF1α expression in locally advanced HNSCC patients treated with chemoradiation with or without nimotuzumab

Background Anti-EGFR-based therapies have limited success in HNSCC patients. Predictive biomarkers are greatly needed to identify the patients likely to be benefited from these targeted therapies. Here, we present the prognostic and predictive association of biomarkers in HPV-negative locally advanced (LA) HNSCC patients.Methods Treatment-naive tumour tissue samples of 404 patients, a subset of randomised Phase 3 trial comparing cisplatin radiation (CRT) versus nimotuzumab plus cisplatin radiation (NCRT) were analysed to evaluate the expression of HIF1α, EGFR and pEGFR by immunohistochemistry and EGFR gene copy change by FISH. Progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional control (LRC) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan–Meier method. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox proportional hazard models.Results Baseline characteristics of the patients were balanced between two treatment groups (CRT vs NCRT) and were representative of the trial cohort. The median follow-up was of 39.13 months. Low HIF1α was associated with better PFS [HR (95% CI) = 0.62 (0.42–0.93)], LRC [HR (95% CI) = 0.56 (0.37–0.86)] and OS [HR (95% CI) = 0.63 (0.43–0.93)] in the CRT group. Multivariable analysis revealed HIF1α as an independent negative prognostic biomarker. For patients with high HIF1α, NCRT significantly improved the outcomes [PFS:HR (95% CI) = 0.55 (0.37–0.82), LRC:HR (95% CI) = 0.55 (0.36–0.85) and OS:HR (95% CI) = 0.54 (0.36–0.81)] compared to CRT. While in patients with low HIF1α, no difference in the clinical outcomes was observed between treatments. Interaction test suggested a predictive value of HIF1α for OS (P = 0.008).Conclusions High HIF1α expression is a predictor of poor clinical response to CRT in HPV-negative LA-HNSCC patients. These patients with high HIF1α significantly benefited with the addition of nimotuzumab to CRT.Clinical trial registration Registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India (Trial registration identifier—CTRI/2014/09/004980).Subject terms: Tumour biomarkers, Head and neck cancer, Tumour biomarkers, Head and neck cancer, Predictive markers     

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and neck of femur fractures: Standardising the perioperative management and time to surgery

Demographic projections for hip fragility fractures indicate a rising annual incidence by virtue of a multimorbid, ageing population with more noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). NCDs are characterised by slow progression and long duration ranging from ischaemic cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to various cancers. Management of this disease burden often involves commencing patients on oral anticoagulants to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events. The use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in clinical practice has increased due to their rapid onset of action, short half-life and predictable anticoagulant effects, without the need for routine monitoring. Safe and timely surgical intervention relies on reversal of anticoagulants. However, the lack of specific evidence-based guidelines for the perioperative management of patients on DOACs with hip fractures has proved challenging; in particular, the accessibility of DOAC-specific assays, justification of the cost-benefit ratio of targeted reversal agents and indications for neuraxial anaesthesia. This has led to potentially avoidable delays in surgical intervention. Following a literature review of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics of commonly used DOACs in our region including the role of surrogate markers, we propose a systematic, evidence-based guideline to the perioperative management of hip fractures DOACs. We believe this standardised protocol can be easily replicated between hospitals. We recommend that if patients are deemed suitable for a general anaesthesia, with satisfactory renal function, optimal surgical time should be 24 h following the last ingested dose of DOAC.