An Evidence-based Perspective of Hedyotis Diffusa or Oldenlandia Diffusa (Spreading Hedyotis) for Cancer Patients

Introduction: Continued smoking by cancer patients causes adverse cancer treatment outcomes, but few patients receive evidence-based smoking cessation as a standard of care.Aim: To evaluate practical strategies to promote wide-scale dissemination and implementation of evidence-based tobacco cessation services within state cancer centers.Methods: A Collaborative Learning Model (CLM) for Quality Improvement was evaluated with three community oncology practices to identify barriers and facilitate practice change to deliver evidence-based smoking cessation treatments to cancer patients using standardized assessments and referrals to statewide smoking cessation resources. Patients were enrolled and tracked through an automated data system and received follow-up cessation support post-enrollment. Monthly quantitative reports and qualitative data gathered through interviews and collaborative learning sessions were used to evaluate meaningful quality improvement changes in each cancer center.Results: Baseline practice evaluation for the CLM identified the lack of tobacco use documentation, awareness of cessation guidelines, and awareness of services for patients as common barriers. Implementation of a structured assessment and referral process demonstrated that of 1,632 newly registered cancer patients,1,581 (97%) were screened for tobacco use. Among those screened, 283 (18%) were found to be tobacco users. Of identified tobacco users, 207 (73%) were advised to quit. Referral of new patients who reported using tobacco to an evidence-based cessation program increased from 0% at baseline across all three cancer centers to 64% (range = 30%–89%) during the project period.Conclusions: Implementation of quality improvement learning collaborative models can dramatically improve delivery of guideline-based tobacco cessation treatments to cancer patients.

Download Full-text

A Systematic Review Summarizing the State of Evidence on Bullying in Childhood Cancer Patients/Survivors

Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing ◽

10.1177/1043454218810136 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 36 (1) ◽

pp. 55-68 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Daisy E. Collins ◽

Sarah J. Ellis ◽

Madeleine M. Janin ◽

Claire E. Wakefield ◽

Kay Bussey ◽

...

Keyword(s):

General Population ◽

Childhood Cancer ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

The State ◽

Original Research ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Factors Associated ◽

School Aged Children ◽

School Absence ◽

Self Reports

Background: One in four school-aged children is bullied. However, the risk may be greater for childhood cancer patients/survivors (diagnosed <18 years), because of symptoms of the disease and treatment that may prejudice peers. While the serious consequences of bullying are well documented in the general population, bullying may have even greater impact in children with cancer due to the myriad of challenges associated with treatment and prolonged school absence. Objective: To summarize the state of evidence on bullying in childhood cancer patients/survivors; specifically, the rate and types of bullying experienced and the associated factors. Method: We searched five electronic databases from inception to February 2018 for original research articles reporting on bullying in childhood cancer patients/survivors. Results: We identified 29 eligible articles, representing 1,078 patients/survivors ( M = 14.35 years). Self-reports from patients/survivors revealed a considerably higher rate of bullying (32.2%) compared with the general population (25%). Our review identified little information on the factors associated with bullying in patients/survivors. However, the bullying described tended to be verbal and was often related to the physical side effects of treatment, indicating that differences in appearance may prejudice peers. It was further suggested that educating the child’s classmates about cancer may prevent bullying. Conclusions: Our findings confirm that bullying is a significant challenge for many childhood cancer patients/survivors. Additional studies are needed to identify factors that may influence the risk of bullying, which will inform the development of evidence-based interventions and guidelines to prevent bullying in childhood cancer patients/survivors.

Download Full-text

Adjuvant radiation therapy in young breast cancer patients: current state of the art and evidence-based algorithm

The Breast ◽

10.1016/j.breast.2018.08.044 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 41 ◽

pp. S15

Author(s):

Icro Meattini ◽

Matteo Lambertini ◽

Isacco Desideri ◽

Alex De Caluwé ◽

Orit Kaidar-Person ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Radiation Therapy ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

State Of The Art ◽

Adjuvant Radiation ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Breast Cancer Patients ◽

Adjuvant Radiation Therapy ◽

Current State ◽

Young Breast Cancer

Download Full-text

Treatment of Chemotherapy-induced Nausea in Cancer Patients

European Oncology & Haematology ◽

10.17925/eoh.2010.06.02.14 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 06 (02) ◽

pp. 14

Author(s):

Julie L Ryan ◽

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Metabolic Disorders ◽

Nausea And Vomiting ◽

Daily Functioning ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Nutritional Depletion

For over 30 years, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting have been the most severe and troublesome symptoms for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Unresolved chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting can lead to metabolic disorders, dehydration, nutritional depletion and oesophageal tears, and can reduce the daily functioning and quality of life of and interfere with treatment schedules. Despite the widespread use of antiemetics, chemotherapy-induced nausea continues to be problematic. Unlike vomiting, nausea is a subjective and unobservable phenomenon, making it extremely difficult to accurately assess and treat. Current research suggests that management of chemotherapy-induced nausea should focus on treating the symptoms before they occur rather than after they develop. This article highlights evidence-based interventions for the treatment of chemotherapy-related nausea.

Download Full-text

Canada's Progress to Make Smoking Cessation a First-Line Cancer Treatment

Journal of Global Oncology ◽

10.1200/jgo.18.15400 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 4 (Supplement 2) ◽

pp. 90s-90s

Author(s):

M. Halligan ◽

D. Keen

Keyword(s):

Smoking Cessation ◽

Cancer Treatment ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Smoking Status ◽

Scale Up ◽

Evidence Based ◽

First Line ◽

Quit Smoking ◽

Substantial Progress ◽

Oncology Practice

Background: Evidence indicates that smoking cessation improves the effectiveness of treatment and likelihood of survival among all cancer patients, not just those with tobacco-related disease, yet smoking is rarely addressed in oncology practice. Prior to 2016, only 3 provinces in Canada (out of a total of 10 provinces and three territories) reported implementation of smoking cessation for ambulatory cancer patients. Aim: Based on this evidence, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) implemented a systems change initiative to promote adoption of evidence-based smoking cessation within provincial and territorial cancer systems across Canada. Methods: In 2016, CPAC funded seven provinces and two territories over a 15-month period to plan, implement or evaluate integration of evidence-based smoking cessation for ambulatory cancer patients within cancer systems. Funds were used to plan (2 provinces and 2 territories), implement (3 provinces) or evaluate (2 provinces) systematic, evidence-based approaches to smoking cessation within ambulatory cancer care settings (e.g., establishing routine systems for identification of smoking cancer patients and system to support patients to quit). Funds could not be used for direct service delivery (e.g., cessation counseling). Results: After 15-months of funding from CPAC, 6 provinces reported implementation of smoking cessation for ambulatory cancer patients. The remaining province and 2 territories funded by CPAC reported development of plans for adoption of smoking cessation for cancer patients in the future. Within provinces reporting implementation of smoking cessation for cancer patients, between 65%-97% of ambulatory cancer patients were screened for smoking status; 22%-80% of these patients were offered a referral to cessation services, and 21%-45% of cancer patients accepted a referral. Conclusion: Despite provincial and territorial variations in readiness to uptake evidence-based smoking cessation for cancer patients, CPAC's approach has led to substantial progress in adoption of this approach across Canada. While progress has been made, adoption of smoking cessation and relapse prevention by cancer systems is not yet widespread in Canada. Scale-up to remaining provinces and territory, and spread within existing provinces and territories is required to reach all cancer patients and families who require support to quit smoking. Framing smoking cessation as a therapeutic intervention, not prevention, and a routine part of cancer treatment will be critical for sustainability of this work.

Download Full-text