Citation analysis of Canadian psycho-oncology and supportive care researchers

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to conduct a historical review of psycho-oncology and supportive care research in Canada using citation analysis and to review the clinical impact of the research conducted by the most highly cited researchers. Methods: The lifetime journal publication records of 109 psycho-oncology and supportive care researchers in Canada were subject to citation analysis using the Scopus database, based on citations since 1996 of articles deemed relevant to psychosocial oncology and supportive care, excluding selfcitations. Three primary types of analysis were performed for each individual: the number of citations for each journal publication, a summative citation count of all published articles, and the Scopus h-index. Results: The top 20 psycho-oncology/supportive care researchers for each of five citation categories are presented: the number of citations for all publications; the number of citations for first-authored publications; the most highly cited first-authored publications; the Scopus h-index for all publications; and the Scopus h-index for first-authored publications. The three most highly cited Canadian psychooncology researchers are Dr. Kerry Courneya (University of Alberta), Dr. Lesley Degner, (University of Manitoba), and Dr. Harvey Chochinov (University of Manitoba). Conclusions: Citation analysis is useful for examining the research performance of psycho-oncology and supportive care researchers and identifying leaders among the

An electronic family health history tool to identify and manage patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundColorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States. Approximately 3-10% of the population has an increased risk for colorectal cancer due to family history and warrants more frequent or intensive screening. Yet, < 50% of that high-risk population receives guideline-concordant care. Systematic collection of family health history and decision support may improve guideline-concordant screening for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. We seek to test the effectiveness of a web-based, systematic family health history collection tool and decision support platform (MeTree) to improve risk assessment and appropriate management of colorectal cancer risk among patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs primary care practices.MethodsIn this ongoing randomized controlled trial, primary care providers at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System and the Madison VA Medical Center are randomized to immediate intervention or wait-list control. Veterans are eligible if assigned to enrolled providers, have an upcoming primary care appointment, and have no conditions that would place them at increased risk for colorectal cancer (such as personal history, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease). Those with a recent lower endoscopy (e.g. colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy) are excluded. Immediate intervention patients put their family health history information into a web-based platform, MeTree, which provides both patient- and provider-facing decision support reports. Wait-list control patients access MeTree 12 months post-consent. The primary outcome is the risk-concordant colorectal cancer screening referral rate obtained via chart review. Secondary outcomes include patient completion of risk management recommendations (e.g. colonoscopy) and referral for genetic consultation. We will also conduct an economic analysis and an assessment of providers' experience with MeTree clinical decision support recommendations to inform future implementation efforts if the intervention is found to be effective.DiscussionThis trial will assess the feasibility and effectiveness of patient-collected family health history linked to decision support to promote risk-appropriate screening in a large healthcare system such as the Department of Veterans Affairs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02247336 . Registered on 25 September 2014

Goal-Focused Emotion-Regulation Therapy (GET) for young adult survivors of testicular cancer: a pilot randomized controlled trial of a biobehavioral intervention protocol.

BackgroundTesticular cancer diagnosis and treatment, especially given its threat to sexuality and reproductive health, can be distressing in the formative period of young adulthood and the majority of young survivors experience impairing, distressing, and modifiable adverse outcomes that can persist long after medical treatment. These include psychological distress, impairment in pursuit of life goals, persistent physical side effects, elevated risk of secondary malignancies and chronic illness, and biobehavioral burden (e.g., enhanced inflammation, dysregulated diurnal stress hormones). However, few targeted interventions exist to assist young survivors in renegotiating life goals and regulating cancer-related emotions, and none focus on reducing the burden of morbidity via biobehavioral mechanisms. This paper describes the methodology of a randomized controlled biobehavioral trial designed to investigate the feasibility and preliminary impact of a novel intervention, Goal-focused Emotion-Regulation Therapy (GET), aimed at improving distress symptoms, emotion regulation, goal navigation skills, and stress-sensitive biomarkers in young adult testicular cancer patients.MethodsParticipants will be randomized to receive six sessions of GET or Individual Supportive Therapy (ISP) delivered over 8 weeks. In addition to indicators of intervention feasibility, we will measure primary (depressive and anxiety symptoms) and secondary (emotion regulation and goal navigation skills, career confusion) psychological outcomes prior to (T0), immediately after (T1), and 12 weeks after (T2) intervention. Additionally, identified biomarkers will be measured at baseline and at T2.DiscussionGET may have the potential to improve self-regulation across biobehavioral domains, improve overall cancer adjustment, and address the need for targeted supportive care interventions for young adult cancer survivors.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov, NCT04150848. Registered on 28 October 2019

Challenges and Opportunities to Updating Prescribing Information for Longstanding Oncology Drugs.

A number of important drugs used to treat cancer-many of which serve as the backbone of modern chemotherapy regimens-have outdated prescribing information in their drug labeling. The Food and Drug Administration is undertaking a pilot project to develop a process and criteria for updating prescribing information for longstanding oncology drugs, based on the breadth of knowledge the cancer community has accumulated with the use of these drugs over time. This article highlights a number of considerations for labeling updates, including selecting priorities for updating; data sources and evidentiary criteria; as well as the risks, challenges, and opportunities for iterative review to ensure prescribing information for oncology drugs remains relevant to current clinical practice

Applicability of trials in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of trial populations showing adequate proportion of women, but underrepresentation of elderly people

Objectives: To evaluate whether elderly people and women are adequately represented in randomized controlled trials (RCT) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Four systematic searches in MEDLINE yielded RCT in RA and OA on any intervention published in 2016 and 2017 and population-based studies (PBS) in RA and OA published between 2013 and 2017. Random effects meta-analyses estimated the pooled proportion of elderly people (defined as being ≥ 65 years old), the mean age, its standard deviation (SD), and the proportion of women stratified by disease (RA and OA) and study type (RCT and PBS). Stratified estimates were subsequently compared. Results: 265 RCT comprising 51,240 participants and 53 PBS comprising 523,630 participants were included. In both RA and OA, RCT included lower proportions of elderly people than PBS: RA –0.18 (95% confidence interval –0.22 to –0.13); OA –0.20 (–0.30 to –0.09); had lower mean ages: RA –5.2 years (–6.8 to –3.5); OA –4.7 years (–7.5 to –2.0); and smaller SD: RA –1.9 years (–2.6 to –1.3); OA –2.7 years (–4.2 to –1.2); (all comparisons: p ≤ 0.001). Proportions of women were comparable in RCT compared to PBS in both RA and OA. Conclusions: While women are adequately represented in RA and OA trials, the elderly are underrepresented, probably limiting applicability of current evidence to this growing subgroup. It is urgent to improve the inclusion of elderly people in clinical trials and study age as a determinant for outcome

Rule-based Formalization of Eligibility Criteria for Clinical Trials

Abstract. In this paper, we propose a rule-based formalization of eli-gibility criteria for clinical trials. The rule-based formalization is imple-mented by using the logic programming language Prolog. Compared with existing formalizations such as pattern-based and script-based languages, the rule-based formalization has the advantages of being declarative, ex-pressive, reusable and easy to maintain. Our rule-based formalization is based on a general framework for eligibility criteria containing three types of knowledge: (1) trial-specific knowledge, (2) domain-specific knowledge and (3) common knowledge. This framework enables the reuse of several parts of the formalization of eligibility criteria. We have implemented the proposed rule-based formalization in SemanticCT, a semantically-enabled system for clinical trials, showing the feasibility of using our rule-based formalization of eligibility criteria for supporting patient re-cruitment in clinical trial systems.

Making a decision about trial participation : the feasibility of measuring deliberation during the informed consent process for clinical trials

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Addressing the Health Needs of an Aging America: New Opportunities for Evidence-Based Policy Solutions

This report systematically maps research findings to policy proposals intended to improve the health of the elderly. The study identified promising evidence-based policies, like those supporting prevention and care coordination, as well as areas where the research evidence is strong but policy activity is low, such as patient self-management and palliative care. Future work of the Stern Center will focus on these topics as well as long-term care financing, the health care workforce, and the role of family caregivers