Impact and management of chemotherapy/radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and the perceptual gap between oncologists/oncology nurses and patients: a cross-sectional multinational survey

Purpose: chemotherapy/radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV/RINV) can affect half of oncology patients, significantly impacting daily life. Nausea without vomiting has only recently been thought of as a condition in its own right. As such, the incidence of nausea is often underestimated. This survey investigated the incidence and impact of CINV/RINV in patients compared with estimations of physicians/oncology nurses to determine if there is a perceptual gap between healthcare professionals and patients. Methods: an online research survey of physicians, oncology nurses and patients was conducted across five European countries. Participants had to have experience prescribing/recommending or have received anti-emetic medication for CINV/RINV treatment. Questionnaires assessed the incidence and impact of CINV/RINV, anti-emetic usage and compliance, and attribute importance of anti-emetic medication. Results: a total of 947 (375 physicians, 186 oncology nurses and 386 patients) participated in this survey. The incidence of nausea was greater than vomiting: 60 % of patients reported nausea alone, whereas 18 % reported vomiting. Physicians and oncology nurses overestimated the incidence of CINV/RINV but underestimated its impact on patients' daily lives. Only 38 % of patients reported full compliance with physicians'/oncology nurses' guidelines when self-administering anti-emetic medication. Leading factors for poor compliance included reluctance to add to a pill burden and fear that swallowing itself would induce nausea/vomiting. Conclusions: there is a perceptual gap between healthcare professionals and patients in terms of the incidence and impact of CINV/RINV. This may lead to sub-optimal prescription of anti-emetics and therefore management of CINV/RINV. Minimising the pill burden and eliminating the requirement to swallow medication could improve poor patient compliance with anti-emetic regimens

The model of mortality with incident cirrhosis (MoMIC) and the model of long-term outlook of mortality in dcirrhosis (LOMiC)

The purpose of this study was to produce two statistical survival models in those with cirrhosis utilising only routine parameters, including non-liver-related clinical factors that influence survival. The first model identified and utilised factors impacting short-term survival to 90-days post incident diagnosis, and a further model characterised factors that impacted survival following this acute phase. Data were from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with Hospital Episode Statistics. Incident cases in patients ≥18 years were identified between 1998 and 2014. Patients that had prior history of cancer or had received liver transplants prior were excluded. Model-1 used a logistic regression model to predict mortality. Model-2 used data from those patients who survived 90 days, and used an extension of the Cox regression model, adjusting for time-dependent covariables. At 90 days, 23% of patients had died. Overall median survival was 3.7 years. Model-1: numerous predictors, prior comorbidities and decompensating events were incorporated. All comorbidities contributed to increased odds of death, with renal disease having the largest adjusted odds ratio (OR = 3.35, 95%CI 2.97–3.77). Model-2: covariables included cumulative admissions for liver disease-related events and admissions for infections. Significant covariates were renal disease (adjusted hazard ratio (HR = 2.89, 2.47–3.38)), elevated bilirubin levels (aHR = 1.38, 1.26–1.51) and low sodium levels (aHR = 2.26, 1.84–2.78). An internal validation demonstrated reliability of both models. In conclusion: two survival models that included parameters commonly recorded in routine clinical practice were generated that reliably forecast the risk of death in patients with cirrhosis: in the acute, post diagnosis phase, and following this critical, 90 day phase. This has implications for practice and helps better forecast the risk of mortality from cirrhosis using routinely recorded parameters without inputs from specialists

Colonoscopy quality across Europe : a report of the European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group

publishedVersionPeer reviewe

A survey on colonoscopy shows poor understanding of its protective value and widespread misconceptions across Europe.

BACKGROUND:Colonoscopy is a valuable screening tool for colorectal cancer. However, patients experience anxiety when faced with attending a first colonoscopy, and negative attitudes may contribute to non-attendance. Few studies in Europe have explored these attitudes, despite increasing colorectal cancer incidence. STUDY AIM:We conducted an online survey of the public in five European Union countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK), with the aim of understanding public knowledge of, perceptions of, and attitudes towards, colonoscopy and bowel preparation, amongst colonoscopy-naïve respondents. Attitudes towards colonoscopy were also gathered from colonoscopy-experienced patients. METHODS:Survey answers were gathered from 2,500 colonoscopy-naïve respondents and 500 colonoscopy-experienced patients, divided equally between countries. RESULTS:Across Europe, 72% of colonoscopy-naïve respondents showed receptiveness to colonoscopy if advised by their doctor to receive one, but only 45% understood its use to prevent colorectal cancer. Forty-three percent of colonoscopy-experienced respondents would still be embarrassed about having another colonoscopy, although 59% said that the experience had been better than expected. Colonoscopy-experienced respondents had greater aversion to bowel preparation than colonoscopy-naïve respondents (47% vs 26%), and 67% of colonoscopy-naïve respondents thought that only 1 litre of bowel preparation or less is required. Italians and the Spanish wanted more information than on average in Europe, while Germans had more realistic expectations of bowel preparation. DISCUSSION:There are perceptual gaps amongst the public around the purpose of colonoscopies, the subjective experience of the colonoscopy procedure, and the quantity of bowel preparation needed. These concerns could be mitigated by better education and using lower-volume bowel preparation techniques. CONCLUSION:Europeans would have a colonoscopy, but its preventive medical purpose is poorly understood and there are misconceptions around the process. Further education about the procedure, its benefits and bowel preparation is vital to improve understanding and compliance

Characteristics of right-sided colonic neoplasia and colonoscopy barriers limiting their early detection and prognosis: a review of the literature

<p><b>Introduction</b>: Colonoscopy provides less protection from colorectal cancer in the right colon than the left.</p> <p><b>Areas covered</b>: This review examines patient outcomes and colonoscopy success rates to identify factors that limit the protective effect of colonoscopy in the right colon. The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for literature from 2000 onwards, on the long-term outcomes and differences in screening practice between the right and left colon. In total, 12 systematic reviews (including nine meta-analyses) and 44 primary data records were included. Differences in patient outcomes and colonoscopy practice were identified between the right and left colon, suggesting that several factors, many of which disproportionally affect the right colon, impact lesion detection rates. Shorter withdrawal times reduce detection rates, while longer times significantly increase detection; mostly of adenomas in the right colon. Colonoscope attachments often only show a significant improvement in detection rates in the right colon, suggesting detection is more challenging due to visibility of the right colonic mucosa. Higher bowel cleansing grades significantly improve detection rates in the right colon compared to the left.</p> <p><b>Expert commentary</b>: These findings confirm the need for continued improvement of colonoscopy effectiveness, and obligatory quality assessment, overall and especially in the right colon.</p

Impact and management of chemotherapy/radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and the perceptual gap between oncologists/oncology nurses and patients: a cross-sectional multinational survey

Purpose: chemotherapy/radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV/RINV) can affect half of oncology patients, significantly impacting daily life. Nausea without vomiting has only recently been thought of as a condition in its own right. As such, the incidence of nausea is often underestimated. This survey investigated the incidence and impact of CINV/RINV in patients compared with estimations of physicians/oncology nurses to determine if there is a perceptual gap between healthcare professionals and patients. Methods: an online research survey of physicians, oncology nurses and patients was conducted across five European countries. Participants had to have experience prescribing/recommending or have received anti-emetic medication for CINV/RINV treatment. Questionnaires assessed the incidence and impact of CINV/RINV, anti-emetic usage and compliance, and attribute importance of anti-emetic medication. Results: a total of 947 (375 physicians, 186 oncology nurses and 386 patients) participated in this survey. The incidence of nausea was greater than vomiting: 60 % of patients reported nausea alone, whereas 18 % reported vomiting. Physicians and oncology nurses overestimated the incidence of CINV/RINV but underestimated its impact on patients' daily lives. Only 38 % of patients reported full compliance with physicians'/oncology nurses' guidelines when self-administering anti-emetic medication. Leading factors for poor compliance included reluctance to add to a pill burden and fear that swallowing itself would induce nausea/vomiting. Conclusions: there is a perceptual gap between healthcare professionals and patients in terms of the incidence and impact of CINV/RINV. This may lead to sub-optimal prescription of anti-emetics and therefore management of CINV/RINV. Minimising the pill burden and eliminating the requirement to swallow medication could improve poor patient compliance with anti-emetic regimens

Colonoscopy quality across Europe: a report of the European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group

Background and study aims  The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group comprises expert colonoscopists and investigators with the aim of raising colonoscopy standards. We assessed the levels of monitoring and achievement of European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures (PMs) across Europe using responses to the ECQI questionnaires. Methods  The questionnaire comprises three forms: institution and practitioner questionnaires are completed once; a procedure questionnaire is completed on multiple occasions for individual total colonoscopies. ESGE PMs were approximated as closely as possible from the data collected via the procedure questionnaire. Procedure data could provide rate of adequate bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate (CIR), withdrawal time, polyp detection rate (PDR), and tattooing resection sites. Results  We evaluated ECQI questionnaire data collected between June 2016 and April 2018, comprising 91 practitioner and 52 institution questionnaires. A total of 6445 completed procedure forms were received. Institution and practitioner responses indicate that routine recording of PMs is not widespread: adenoma detection rate (ADR) is routinely recorded in 29 % of institutions and by 34 % of practitioners; PDR by 42 % and 47 %, CIR by 62 % and 64 %, bowel preparation quality by 56 % and 76 %, respectively. Procedure data showed a rate of adequate bowel preparation of 84.2 %, CIR 73.4 %, PDR 40.5 %, mean withdrawal time 7.8 minutes and 12.2 % of procedures with possible removal of a non-pedunculated lesion ≥ 20 mm reporting tattooing. Conclusions  Our findings clearly show areas in need of quality improvement and the importance of promoting quality monitoring throughout the colonoscopy procedure