How does COVID-19 impact treatment decision-making for clinicians in localised kidney cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Beyer K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7753465 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The world is going through an unprecedented time in history, and Urologists are, like many other healthcare professionals, facing and combating on two fronts: against the pandemic itself and cancer. When looking at the fatality rates, bladder cancer overcomes Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by far and can be as high as 52%, so Urologists must not postpone investigation. Cystoscopy remains the gold standard for the investigation of bladder cancer and computed tomography (CT) urography for obtaining images of the upper tract in cases of macroscopic hematuria. Whenever transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURB) is necessary, extra care must be taken to assure muscle sample, avoiding another surgical intervention and hospitalization, but when necessary it should not be postponed due to the elevated progression rate of the disease. Follow-up cystoscopies can be postponed for 6 months for low risk, 3 months for intermediate, 6 weeks for high risk, and not beyond 24 hours in case of emergencies as life-threatening hematuria, anemia, and urinary retention. Regarding chemotherapy, more than ever the key point is to evaluate each case individually. Bacille Calmette Guerin (BCG) must be considered only as an inducing course, in selected intermediate and most high-risk cancers. Whenever possible patients should be tested before surgery. Based on the current literature on optimal bladder cancer patients approach we comprehensively synthetize the major societies guidelines on the issue so far, adding a critical view to the topic. This article aims to guide Urologists on decision making against bladder cancer in the COVID-19 era.
| S-EPMC8012830 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, impacting 2.1 million women each year. The number of publications on BC is much higher than for any other type of tumor, as well as the number of clinical trials. One of the consequences of all this information is reflected in the number of approved drugs. This review aims to discuss the impact of technological advances in the diagnosis, treatment and decision making of breast cancer and the prospects for the next 10 years. Currently, the literature has described personalized medicine, but what will the treatment be called for in the coming years?
| S-EPMC8703478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly contagious zoonotic pathogen that has exacted heavy public health, social and economic tolls. In February 2020, the World Health Organization acronymed the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 as COVID-19, for coronavirus disease 2019. The number of confirmed COVID-19 infections, which has been detected in at least 103 countries, has reached 1,970,225 worldwide as of April 14, 2020 with 124,544 deaths, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Many cases of COVID-19 resolve quickly. However, the disease, which, like other respiratory pathogens that cause common cold symptoms is believed to be transmitted through respiratory droplets. Infection with COVID-19 can also lead to significant morbidity and death; this is particularly the case for cancer patients. Moreover, because the signs and symptoms of COVID-19 are easily misattributed to the sequelae of cancer itself, such as pulmonary embolism, or its treatment, such as nausea and diarrhea, diagnosis may be delayed or missed. Potential COVID-19 rule out criteria, based on the Wells' criteria for pulmonary embolism, another protean disease entity, are provided as a decision-making aid. This review summarizes the current understanding of the transmission, clinical presentation, diagnosis and differential diagnosis, pathogenesis, rationale to treat the cancer or not, treatment and prevention of COVID-19 with an emphasis on implications in cancer.
| S-EPMC7438345 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Dementia and cancer occur commonly in older adults. Yet, little is known about the effect of dementia on cancer treatment and outcomes in patients diagnosed with cancer, and no guidelines exist. We performed a mixed studies review to assess the current knowledge and gaps on the impact of dementia on cancer treatment decision-making, cancer treatment, and mortality. A search in PubMed, Medline, and PsycINFO identified 55 studies on older adults with a dementia diagnosis before a cancer diagnosis and/or comorbid cancer and dementia published in English from January 2004 to February 2020. We described variability using range in quantitative estimates, ie, odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), and risk ratios (RR) when appropriate and performed narrative review of qualitative data. Patients with dementia were more likely to receive no curative treatment (including hospice or palliative care) (OR, HR, and RR range = 0.40-4.4, n = 8), while less likely to receive chemotherapy (OR and HR range = 0.11-0.68, n = 8), radiation (OR range = 0.24-0.56, n = 2), and surgery (OR range = 0.30-1.3, n = 4). Older adults with cancer and dementia had higher mortality than those with cancer alone (HR and OR range = 0.92-5.8, n = 33). Summarized findings from qualitative studies consistently revealed that clinicians, caregivers, and patients tended to prefer less aggressive care and gave higher priority to quality of life over life expectancy for those with dementia. Current practices in treatment-decision making for patients with both cancer and dementia are inconsistent. There is an urgent need for treatment guidelines for this growing patient population that considers patient and caregiver perspectives.
| S-EPMC8152697 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The ability to make risky decisions in stressful contexts has been largely investigated in experimental settings. We examined this ability during the first months of COVID-19 pandemic, when in Italy people were exposed to a prolonged stress condition, mainly caused by a rigid lockdown. Participants among the general population completed two cognitive tasks, an Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), which measures individual risk/reward decision-making tendencies, and a Go/No-Go task (GNG), to test impulsivity, together with two questionnaires, the Perceived Stress Scale and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales. The Immune Status Questionnaire was additionally administered to explore the impact of the individual health status on decision making. The effect of the questionnaires scores on task performance was examined. The results showed that higher levels of perceived stress and a more self-reported vulnerable immune status were associated, separately, with less risky/more advantageous choices in the IGT in young male participants but with more risky/less advantageous choices in older male participants. These effects were not found in female participants. Impulsivity errors in the GNG were associated with more anxiety symptoms. These findings bring attention to the necessity of taking into account decision-making processes during stressful conditions, especially in the older and more physically vulnerable male population.
| S-EPMC8698277 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Shared decision making (SDM) and decision aids (DAs) increase patients' involvement in health care decisions and enhance satisfaction with their choices. Studies of SDM and DAs have primarily occurred in academic centers and large health systems, but most primary care is delivered in smaller practices, and over 20% of Americans live in rural areas, where poverty, disease prevalence, and limited access to care may increase the need for SDM and DAs.To explore perceptions and practices of rural primary care clinicians regarding SDM and DAs.Cross-sectional survey. Setting and Participants Primary care clinicians affiliated with the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network.Surveys were returned by 181 of 231 eligible participants (78%); 174 could be analyzed. Two-thirds of participants were physicians, 84% practiced family medicine, and 55% were male. Sixty-five percent of respondents were unfamiliar with the term shared decision making, but following definition, 97% reported that they found the approach useful for conditions with multiple treatment options. Over 90% of clinicians perceived helping patients make decisions regarding chronic pain and health behavior change as moderate/hard in difficulty. Although 69% of respondents preferred that patients play an equal role in making decisions, they estimate that this happens only 35% of the time. Time was reported as the largest barrier to engaging in SDM (63%). Respondents were receptive to using DAs to facilitate SDM in print- (95%) or web-based formats (72%), and topic preference varied by clinician specialty and decision difficulty.Rural clinicians recognized the value of SDM and were receptive to using DAs in multiple formats. Integration of DAs to facilitate SDM in routine patient care may require addressing practice operation and reimbursement.
| S-EPMC3665512 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesPressures on healthcare systems due to COVID-19 has impacted patients without COVID-19 with surgery disproportionally affected. This study aims to understand the impact on the initial management of patients with brain tumours by measuring changes to normal multidisciplinary team (MDT) decision making.DesignA prospective survey performed in UK neurosurgical units performed from 23 March 2020 until 24 April 2020.SettingRegional neurosurgical units outside London (as the pandemic was more advanced at time of study).ParticipantsRepresentatives from all units were invited to collect data on new patients discussed at their MDT meetings during the study period. Each unit decided if management decision for each patient had changed due to COVID-19.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary outcome measures included number of patients where the decision to undergo surgery changed compared with standard management usually offered by that MDT. Secondary outcome measures included changes in surgical extent, numbers referred to MDT, number of patients denied surgery not receiving any treatment and reasons for any variation across the UK.Results18 units (75%) provided information from 80 MDT meetings that discussed 1221 patients. 10.7% of patients had their management changed-the majority (68%) did not undergo surgery and more than half of this group not undergoing surgery had no active treatment. There was marked variation across the UK (0%-28% change in management). Units that did not change management could maintain capacity with dedicated oncology lists. Low volume units were less affected.ConclusionCOVID-19 has had an impact on patients requiring surgery for malignant brain tumours, with patients receiving different treatments-most commonly not receiving surgery or any treatment at all. The variations show dedicated cancer operating lists may mitigate these pressures.Study registrationThis study was registered with the Royal College of Surgeons of England's COVID-19 Research Group (https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/coronavirus/rcs-covid-research-group/).
| S-EPMC7430412 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background. Although effective interventions for shared decision making (SDM) exist, there is a lack of uptake of these tools into clinical practice. "Nudges," which draw on behavioral economics and target automatic thinking processes, are used by policy makers to influence population-level behavior change. Nudges have not been applied in the context of SDM interventions but have potential to influence clinician motivation, a primary barrier to long-term adoption of SDM tools. Objective. Describe, evaluate, and propose recommendations for the use of a behavioral economics framework (MINDSPACE) on clinician motivation and behavior during implementation of a validated decision aid (DA) for left ventricular assist device at nine hospitals. Methods. Qualitative thematic analysis of process notes from stakeholder meetings during the first 6 months of implementation to identify examples of how the MINDSPACE framework was operationalized. Quantitative implementation progress was evaluated using the RE-AIM framework. Results. MINDSPACE components were translated into concrete approaches that leveraged influential stakeholders, fostered ownership over the DA and positive emotional associations, spread desirable norms across sites, and situated the DA within established default processes. DA reach to eligible patients increased from 9.8% in the first month of implementation to 70.0% in the sixth month. Larger gains in reach were observed following meetings using MINDSPACE approaches. Limitations. The MINDSPACE framework does not capture all possible influences on behavior and responses to nudges may differ across populations. Conclusions. Behavioral economics can be applied to implementation science to foster uptake of SDM tools by increasing clinician motivation. Our recommendations can help other researchers effectively apply these approaches in real-world settings when there are often limited incentives and opportunities to change organizational- or structural-level factors.
| S-EPMC7227151 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Widespread vaccination is necessary to minimize or halt the effects of many infectious diseases, including COVID-19. Stagnating vaccine uptake can prolong pandemics, raising the question of how we might predict, prevent, and correct vaccine hesitancy and unwillingness. In a multinational sample (N = 4,452) recruited from 13 countries that varied in pandemic severity and vaccine uptake (July 2021), we examined whether short-sighted decision-making as exemplified by steep delay discounting-choosing smaller immediate rewards over larger delayed rewards-predicts COVID-19 vaccination status. Delay discounting was steeper in unvaccinated individuals and predicted vaccination status over and above demographics or mental health. The results suggest that delay discounting, a personal characteristic known to be modifiable through cognitive interventions, is a contributing cause of differences in vaccine compliance.
| S-EPMC9277980 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAppropriate tools are essential to support a clinician's decision to refer very preterm infants to developmental resources. Streamlining the use of developmental assessment or screening tools to make clinical decisions offers an alternative methodology to help to choose the most effective way to assess this very high-risk population.ObjectiveTo examine the influence of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire-3rd edition (ASQ3) and the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-3rd edition (Bayley-III) scores within a clinically-based decision-making process.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study includes children born at less than 29 weeks gestation who had completed both psychologist-administered Bayley-III and physician-observed ASQ3 assessments at 18 months corrected age. Theoretical referral decisions (TRDs) based on each assessment results were formulated, using cut-off scores between the lower first and second standard deviation values and below the lower second standard deviation values. TRDs to refer to developmental resources were evaluated in light of the multidisciplinary team's actual final integrated decisions (FID).ResultsComplete data was available for 67 children. The ASQ3 and the Bayley-III had similar predictive value for the FID, with comparable kappa values. Comparisons of the physicians' and psychologists' TRDs with the FIDs demonstrated that the ASQ3 in conjunction with the medical and socio-familial findings predicted 93% of referral decisions.ConclusionTaking into consideration potential methodological biases, the results suggest that either ASQ3 or Bayley-III, along with socio-environmental, medical and neurological assessment, are sufficient to guide the majority of clinicians' decisions regarding referral for specialty services. This retrospective study suggests that the physician-supervised ASQ3 may be sufficient to assess children who had been extremely preterm infants for referral purposes. The findings need to be confirmed in a larger, well-designed prospective study to minimize and account for potential sources of bias.
| S-EPMC5289417 | biostudies-literature