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.     

A comparison of the academic impact of plastic surgery units in the United Kingdom and Ireland using bibliometric analysis

Academic output is just one aspect of a successful career as a plastic surgeon. However, for those with a strong interest in academia, the academic output of a department will likely be a key factor when deciding how to rank jobs. The aim of this study was to quantify and rank the academic output of plastic surgery units across the UK and Ireland. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science Bibliometric analysis tool was used to collate cumulative (1950–2016), 10 year (2006–2016) and 3 years (2013–2015) research output data for plastic surgery units in the UK and Ireland. Sixty-six plastic surgery units were identified. Departments were ranked for each time period according to the number of papers produced, number of citations (Nc) and h-index (a measure of the impact of scientific output). The top 3 departments for number of papers in the last 10 years were The Royal Free Hospital, London (226) Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford (218), and Morriston Hospital and Swansea (188). The top 3 for h-number were The Royal Free Hospital (21) Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester (18) and Morriston Hospital (17). Academic output varies across plastic surgery units in the UK and Ireland. A number of departments have consistently maintained high academic outputs across the years and will be of interest to surgeons hoping to pursue a career in academia.     

Patient-Reported Quality of Life Before and After Chemoradiation for Intact Pancreas Cancer: A Prospective Registry Study

PurposeOur purpose was to determine the effect of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on patient-reported quality of life (QOL) for patients with intact pancreas cancer.Methods and MaterialsWe reviewed a prospective QOL registry for patients with intact, clinically localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma treated with CRT between June 2015 and November 2018. QOL was assessed pre-CRT (immediately before CRT, after neoadjuvant chemotherapy) and at the completion of CRT with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary (FACT-Hep) and its component parts: FACT-General (FACT-G) and hepatobiliary cancer subscore (HCS). A minimally important difference from pre-CRT was defined as ≥ 6, 5, and 8 points for FACT-G, HCS, and FACT-Hep, respectively.ResultsOf 157 patients who underwent CRT, 100 completed both pre- and post-CRT surveys and were included in the primary analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range, 23-90). National Comprehensive Cancer Network resectability status was resectable (3%), borderline resectable (40%), or locally advanced (57%). Folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) (75%) or gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (42%) were given for a median of 6 cycles (range, 0-42) before CRT. Radiation therapy techniques included 3-dimensional conformal (22%), intensity modulated photon (55%), and intensity modulated proton (23%) radiation therapy to a median dose of 50 Gy (range, 36-62.5). Concurrent chemotherapy was most commonly capecitabine (82%). Sixty-three patients (63%) had surgery after CRT. The mean decline in FACT-G, HCS subscale, and FACT-Hep from pre- to post-CRT was 3.5 (standard deviation [SD], 13.7), 1.7 (SD 7.8), and 5.2 (SD 19.4), respectively. Each of these changes were statistically significant, but did not meet the minimally important difference threshold. Pancreatic head tumor location was associated with decline in FACT-Hep. Nausea was the toxicity with the greatest increase from pre- to post-CRT by both physician-assessment and patient-reported QOL.ConclusionsFor patients with intact pancreatic adenocarcinoma, modern CRT is well tolerated with minimal decline in QOL during treatment.