The incidence of many cancers is higher in Western European (WE) countries, but mortality is frequently higher in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. A panel of oncology leaders from CEE countries participating in the South Eastern European Research Oncology Group (SEEROG) was formed in 2015, aiming to analyze the current status and trends of oncology care in CEE and to propose recommendations leading to improved care and outcomes. The SEEROG panel, meeting during the 11th Central European Oncology Congress, proposed the following: (a) national cancer control plans (NCCPs) required in all CEE countries, defining priorities in cancer care, including finance allocation considering limited health care budgets; (b) national cancer registries, describing in detail epidemiological trends; (c) efforts to strengthen comprehensive cancer centers; (d) that multidisciplinary care should be mandated by the NCCPs; (e) that smaller hospitals should be connected to multidisciplinary tumor boards via the Internet, providing access to specialized expertise; (f) nationwide primary prevention programs targeting smoking, obesity, and alcohol consumption and centrally evaluated secondary prevention programs for cervical, colorectal, and breast cancers; (g) prioritize education for all involved in cancer care, including oncology nurses, general practitioners, and palliative care providers; (h) establish outpatient care in day hospitals to reduce costs associated with the current inpatient model of care in CEE countries and to improve patients' quality of life; (i) long-term pharmacoeconomic evaluations of new therapies in CEE countries; (j) increase national oncology budgets in view of the higher mortality rates in CEE compared with WE countries; and (k) CEE countries urgently need help from the European Union to increase and monitor overall investment in cancer care.

AimTo translate the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure into Croatian and validate the Croatian version of the questionnaire.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in July 2011 in 8 general practices (GP) in Croatia. Following two stages of translation, back-translation, and pilot testing, the Croatian version of the CARE was tested on 568 consecutive patients.ResultsFace validity was high, the number of missing values was low (9%), and the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was 0.77. A principal component analysis of 10 CARE Measure items extracted two components with eigenvalues >1. These two components explained 43.6% of the total instrument variance.ConclusionThe Croatian version of the CARE Measure had acceptable reliability and face validity, but its intended component structure was not reproduced and further research is needed to understand its dimensionality.

No abstract

Cancer is not treated equally successfully in Western Europe (WE) and in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). This study showed that success in treatment of cancer is associated with the amount of money invested in oncology drugs. CEE countries spend on average 2.5 times less than WE countries for oncology drugs per new cancer case. These findings should be used by health care providers and oncologists struggling for more resources and better, more organized, evidence-based allocation of these resources as well as better oncology outcomes.

Background. Our objective was to assess the effects of COVID-19 antiepidemic measures and subsequent changes in the function of the health care system on the number of newly diagnosed breast cancers in the Republic of Croatia. Subjects, Materials, and Methods. We performed a retrospective, population-and registry-based study during 2020. The comparator was the number of patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer during 2017, 2018, and 2019. The outcome was the change in number of newly diagnosed breast cancer cases. Results. The average monthly percent change after the initial lockdown measures were introduced was −11.0% (95% confidence interval − 22.0% to 1.5%), resulting in a 24% reduction of the newly diagnosed breast cancer cases in Croatia during April, May, and June compared with the same period of 2019. However, during 2020, only 1% fewer new cases were detected than in 2019, or 6% fewer than what would be expected based on the linear trend during 2017-2019. Conclusion. It seems that national health care system measures for controlling the spread of COVID-19 had a detrimental effect on the number of newly diagnosed breast cancer cases in Croatia during the first lockdown. As it is not plausible to expect an epidemiological change to occur at the same time, this may result in later diagnosis, later initiation of treatment, and less favorable outcomes in the future. However, the effect weakened after the first lockdown and COVID-19 control measures were relaxed, and it has not reoccurred during the second COVID-19 wave. Although the COVID-19 lockdown affected the number of newly diagnosed breast cancers, the oncology health care system has shown resilience and compensated for these effects by the end of 2020. The Oncologist 2021;26:1-5 Implications for Practice: It is possible to compensate for the adverse effects of COVID-19 pandemic control measures on breast cancer diagnosis relatively promptly, and it is of crucial importance to do it as soon as possible. Moreover, as shown by this study's results on the number of newly diagnosed breast cancer cases during the second wave of the pandemic, these adverse effects are preventable to a non-negligible extent.

Objectives: The aim of our study was to assess the differences in facial emotional recognition (FER) between patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP), patients with multi-episode schizophrenia (SCH), and healthy controls (HC) and to find possible correlations of FER with psychopathology in the two patient groups. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study enrolling 160 patients from two psychiatric hospitals in Croatia (80 FEP and 80 SCH) and 80 HC during the period from October 2015 until October 2017. Patients were assessed once during their hospital treatment, using the Penn Emotion Recognition Task for assessment of FER, rating scales for psychopathology and depression and self-reporting questionnaires for impulsiveness, aggression, and quality of life. Results: The number of correctly identified emotions significantly decreased from HC to FEP [Δ −7%; 95% confidence interval (CI) [−12% to −3%], effect size r = 0.30] and more markedly in SCH (Δ −15%; 95% CI [−25% to −10%], effect size r = 0.59) after the adjustment for age and gender and correction for multiple testing. Correct FER for negative emotions, but not for happiness and neutral emotions, had a statistically significant negative correlation with some features on the scales of psychopathology, impulsivity and aggression in both patient groups. Conclusions: Impairment of FER is present from the first episode of schizophrenia and increases further with multiple psychotic episodes, but it may depend on or contribute to clinical symptoms. Therefore, assessment of FER should be included in the clinical assessment and integrated in the plan of treatment from the beginning of the illness. (JINS, 2019, 25, 165–173)

No abstract

No abstract