A narrative review was conducted to examine the current state of the utilisation of telemedicine amid the current COVID-19 pandemic and to evaluate the benefits of continuing telemedicine usage in the future. A literature review was performed for articles related to telemedicine. Databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library and Ovid MEDLINE were searched. Three reviewers independently performed article selection based on relevance to our topic. We included all articles between 1990 and 2020 related to telemedicine using the following keywords: ‘telemedicine’, ‘telehealth’, ‘policy’, ‘COVID-19’, ‘regulation’, ‘rural’, ‘physical examination’, ‘future’. A total of 60 articles were identified, and through careful selection we narrowed the final number of articles to 42 based on relevance to our topic. Telemedicine has been rapidly evolving over the past several decades. Issues with regulation and reimbursement have prevented its full immersion into the healthcare system. During the current pandemic, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services have expanded access to telemedicine services. The advantages of telemedicine moving forward include its cost-effectiveness, ability to extend access to specialty services and its potential to help mitigate the looming physician shortage. Disadvantages include lack of available technological resources in certain parts of the country, issues with security of patient data, and challenges in performing the traditional patient examination. It is critically important that changes are made to fully immerse telemedicine services into the healthcare landscape in order to be prepared for future pandemics as well as to reap the benefits of this service in the future.

and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019) provided systematic estimates of incidence, morbidity, and mortality to inform local and international efforts toward reducing cancer burden. OBJECTIVE To estimate cancer burden and trends globally for 204 countries and territories and by Sociodemographic Index (SDI) quintiles from 2010 to 2019. EVIDENCE REVIEWThe GBD 2019 estimation methods were used to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2019 and over the past decade. Estimates are also provided by quintiles of the SDI, a composite measure of educational attainment, income per capita, and total fertility rate for those younger than 25 years. Estimates include 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs).FINDINGS In 2019, there were an estimated 23.6 million (95% UI, 22.2-24.9 million) new cancer cases (17.2 million when excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 10.0 million (95% UI, 9.36-10.6 million) cancer deaths globally, with an estimated 250 million (235-264 million) DALYs due to cancer. Since 2010, these represented a 26.3% (95% UI, 20.3%-32.3%) increase in new cases, a 20.9% (95% UI, 14.2%-27.6%) increase in deaths, and a 16.0% (95% UI, 9.3%-22.8%) increase in DALYs. Among 22 groups of diseases and injuries in the GBD 2019 study, cancer was second only to cardiovascular diseases for the number of deaths, years of life lost, and DALYs globally in 2019. Cancer burden differed across SDI quintiles. The proportion of years lived with disability that contributed to DALYs increased with SDI, ranging from 1.4% (1.1%-1.8%) in the low SDI quintile to 5.7% (4.2%-7.1%) in the high SDI quintile. While the high SDI quintile had the highest number of new cases in 2019, the middle SDI quintile had the highest number of cancer deaths and DALYs. From 2010 to 2019, the largest percentage increase in the numbers of cases and deaths occurred in the low and low-middle SDI quintiles. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe results of this systematic analysis suggest that the global burden of cancer is substantial and growing, with burden differing by SDI. These results provide comprehensive and comparable estimates that can potentially inform efforts toward equitable cancer control around the world.

No abstract

No abstract

Unless indicated otherwise by family or personal history, PC screening under the age of 50 is low yield. Linear EUS may be the preferred modality for initial PC screening.