NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Survivorship, Version 1.2022

Sanft, Tara; Day, Andrew T.; Peterson, Lindsay L.; Rodriguez, Maria Alma; Ansbaugh, Shannon; Armenian, Saro H.; Baker, K. Scott; Ballinger, Tarah J.; Broderick, Gregory A.; Demark‐Wahnefried, Wendy; Dickinson, Kristin; Fairman, Nathan; Friedman, Debra L.; Goldman, Mindy; Henry, Norah Lynn; Hill‐Kayser, Christine; Hudson, Melissa; Khakpour, Nazanin; Koura, Divya; McDonough, Allison L.; Melisko, Michelle; Mooney, Kathi; Moore, Halle C. F.; Moryl, Natalie; Neuman, Heather B.; O’Connor, Tracey; Overholser, Linda; Paskett, Electra D.; Patel, Chirayu G.; Pirl, William F.; Porpiglia, Andrea S.; Ruddy, Kathryn J.; Schapira, Lidia; Shockney, Lillie D.; Smith, Sophia K.; Syrjala, Karen L.; Tevaarwerk, Amye J.; Yang, Eric H.; Zee, Phyllis C.; McMillian, Nicole R.; Freedman-Cass, Deborah A.

doi:10.6004/jnccn.2022.0052

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 137 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, we did not explicitly set out to assess the effectiveness of a bundled implementation strategy, nor to test the separability of our multicomponent intervention. While future work could mount studies to examine these issues, from the perspective of addressing disparities in survivorship care delivery, implementation research should focus on better characterizing the interface between primary care and oncology and identify strategies to better integrate care delivery for cancer survivors such that the care they receive is seamless and addresses survivorship care guidelines holistically [ 55 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing implementation of a care coordination intervention for cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in a safety-net system: an application of the Implementation Research Logic Model

Rodriguez,

Lee,

Higashi

et al. 2023

Implementation Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Under- and uninsured cancer survivors have significant medical, social, and economic complexity. For these survivors, effective care coordination between oncology and primary care teams is critical for high-quality, comprehensive care. While evidence-based interventions exist to improve coordination between healthcare teams, testing implementation of these interventions for cancer survivors seen in real-world safety-net settings has been limited. This study aimed to (1) identify factors influencing implementation of a multicomponent care coordination intervention (nurse coordinator plus patient registry) focused on cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in an integrated safety-net system and (2) identify mechanisms through which the factors impacted implementation outcomes. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews (patients, providers, and system leaders), structured observations of primary care and oncology operations, and document analysis during intervention implementation between 2016 and 2020. The practice change model (PCM) guided data collection to identify barriers and facilitators of implementation; the PCM, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and Implementation Research Logic Model guided four immersion/crystallization data analysis and synthesis cycles to identify mechanisms and assess outcomes. Implementation outcomes included appropriateness, acceptability, adoption, and penetration. Results The intervention was appropriate and acceptable to primary care and oncology teams based on reported patient needs and resources and the strength of the evidence supporting intervention components. Active and sustained partnership with system leaders facilitated these outcomes. There was limited adoption and penetration early in implementation because the study was narrowly focused on just breast and colorectal cancer patients. This created barriers to real-world practice where patients with all cancer types receive care. Over time, flexibility intentionally designed into intervention implementation facilitated adoption and penetration. Regular feedback from system partners and rapid cycles of implementation and evaluation led to real-time adaptations increasing adoption and penetration. Discussion Evidence-based interventions to coordinate care for underserved cancer survivors across oncology and primary care teams can be implemented successfully when system leaders are actively engaged and with flexibility in implementation embedded intentionally to continuously facilitate adoption and penetration across the health system.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing implementation of a care coordination intervention for cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in a safety-net system: an application of the Implementation Research Logic Model

Rodriguez,

Lee,

Higashi

et al. 2023

Implementation Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The diagnostic criteria for novel coronavirus infection following the 2019 Guidelines for the Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) issued by the National Institutes of Health of the United States ( 12 ) and the “Diagnosis and Treatment of Novel coronavirus Pneumonia (Trial 10th Edition)” issued by the Health Commission of China ( 13 ). According to NCCN Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Cancer-Associated Infections, Version 2022.3 ( 14 ), the severity of COVID-19 infection in the 20 children was not severe (mild or moderate).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical efficacy analysis of paxlovid in children with hematological diseases infected with the omicron SARS-CoV-2 new variant

Liu

Wen

et al. 2023

Front. Pediatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo summarize the clinical characteristics of children with hematological malignancies co-infected with novel coronavirus and explore the safety and effectiveness of Paxlovid treatment.MethodsFrom December 10, 2022, to January 20, 2023, the clinical data of children with hematological diseases diagnosed with novel coronavirus infection in the outpatient and emergency department of the Seventh Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were retrospectively analyzed.ResultsAccording to whether to give paxlovid or not, it is divided into group A (paxlovid group) and group B (non-paxlovid group). The length of fever was 1–6 days in group A and 0–3 days in group B. The viral clearance time was shorter in group A than in group B. The inflammatory indexes CRP and PCT were significantly higher in group A than in group B (P < 0.05). Twenty patients were followed up for 1 month after leaving the hospital, and there were 5 cases of reappearance of fever, 1 case of increased sleep, 1 case of physical fatigue and 1 case of loss of appetite within 2 weeks.ConclusionsPaxlovid has no apparent adverse reactions in children 12 years old and younger with underlying hematological diseases infected with the new coronavirus. Focusing on the interaction between paxlovid and other drugs is necessary during the treatment.

show abstract

“…The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommends a BRCA2 genetic test starting at age 40 years in cases of a personal history of metastatic, node-positive, biochemically recurrent, Gleason ≥8, or Gleason 7 disease with a strong family history of BRCA-related cancers. Additional men with PCa were referred if their personal and/or family history was suspicious for hereditary cancer predisposition, such as Lynch Syndrome [56]. However, BRCA1 is not routinely included in PCa genetic screening but only "considered", due to the lower prevalence in men with PCa.…”

Section: Further Indications For Pc Genetic Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of Germline BRCA1/2 Variants in Ashkenazi and Non-Ashkenazi Prostate Cancer Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cioffi

Cobelli

Veronesi

et al. 2023

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims: International guidelines recommend testing BRCA2 in men with prostate cancer, due to the presence of a strong association with this gene. Some ethnicities present disparities in genetic distribution for the relation with specific founder variants. Ashkenazi Jewish people are, importantly, at high risk of breast cancer for their inherited cluster with germline BRCA1/2 variants. However, in Ashkenazi men with prostate cancer, the prevalence of BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 is not well defined. We assessed the frequency of these variants in Ashkenazi vs. non-Ashkenazi men with prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: In accord with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, we revised all germline BRCA variants reported in MEDLINE from 1996 to 2021 in Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi men with prostate cancer. Results: Thirty-five original studies were selected for the analysis. Among populations from Israel and North America, Ashkenazi Jewish men presented higher prevalence of BRCA1 variants [0.9% (0.4–1.5) vs. 0.5% (0.2–1.1), p = 0.09] and a lower prevalence of BRCA2 variants [1.5% (1.1–2.0) vs. 3.5% (1.7–5.9), p = 0.08] in comparison to the non-Ashkenazi population. Conclusions: Since germline BRCA1 variants are more prevalent and BRCA2 variants are less prevalent in PCa patients of Ashkenazi Jewish ethnicity in comparison to non-Ashkenazi patients, prostate cancer genetic screening in Ashkenazi men should not be restricted to the BRCA2 gene.

show abstract

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Survivorship, Version 1.2022

Cited by 18 publications

References 137 publications

Factors influencing implementation of a care coordination intervention for cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in a safety-net system: an application of the Implementation Research Logic Model

Factors influencing implementation of a care coordination intervention for cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in a safety-net system: an application of the Implementation Research Logic Model

Clinical efficacy analysis of paxlovid in children with hematological diseases infected with the omicron SARS-CoV-2 new variant

Prevalence of Germline BRCA1/2 Variants in Ashkenazi and Non-Ashkenazi Prostate Cancer Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About