Challenges of caring for older patients with multimorbidity including cancer

Introduction: As the population is ageing, the number of older patients with multimorbidity including cancer continues to increase. To improve care for these patients, the European Union-funded project "Streamlined Geriatric and Oncological evaluation based on IC Technology" (GERONTE) was initiated to develop a new, patientcentred, holistic care pathway. The aim of this paper is to analyse what challenges are encountered in everyday clinical practice according to patients, their informal caregivers, and healthcare professionals as a starting point for the development of the care pathway.Materials and Methods: An expert panel of cancer and geriatrics specialists participated in an online survey to answer what challenges they experience in caring for older patients with multimorbidity including cancer and what treatment outcomes could be improved. Furthermore, in-depth interviews with older patients and their informal caregivers were organised to assess what challenges they experience.Results: Healthcare professionals (n = 36) most frequently mentioned the challenge of choosing the best treatment in light of the lack of evidence in this population and how to handle interactions between the (cancer) treatment and multimorbidities. Twelve patients and caregivers participated, and they most frequently mentioned challenges related to treatment outcomes, such as how to deal with symptoms of disease or treatment and how to maintain quality of life. From the challenges, five main themes emerged that should be taken into account when developing a new care pathway for older patients with multimorbidity including cancer. Two themes focus on decision making aspects such as personalized treatment recommendations and inclusion of nononcologic information, two focus on patient support and monitoring to maintain quality of life and functioning, and one overarching theme addresses care coordination to prevent fragmentation of care.Discussion: In conclusion, the management of older patients with multimorbidity including cancer is complex and although progress has been made on improving aspects of their care, challenges remain and patients are at risk of receiving inappropriate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful treatment. A patient-centred care pathway that integrates solutions to the five main themes and that moves away from a single-disease centred approach is needed.Horizon 2020 (H2020

The Technological culture of war

The article proceeds from the argument that war is a social institution and not a historical inevitability of human interaction, that is, war can be “unlearned.” This process involves deconstructing/dismantling war as an institution in society. An important step in this process is to understand the philosophical and cultural bases on which technology is employed as “tools” of war. The article focuses on such questions as, Is technology just viewed as instruments in the hand of its human masters in war? Does technology take on an autonomous role in war? How should we assess the impact of context (political, economic, and cultural) of technology when employed in war? By exploring these points, the article hopes to provide input into the discussion on the control of war technologies and ultimately the dismantling of war as an institution in society

Measurement of CP observables in B± → D(⁎)K± and B± → D(⁎)π± decays

Measurements of CP observables in B ± →D (⁎) K ± and B ± →D (⁎) π ± decays are presented, where D (⁎) indicates a neutral D or D ⁎ meson that is an admixture of D (⁎)0 and D¯ (⁎)0 states. Decays of the D ⁎ meson to the Dπ 0 and Dγ final states are partially reconstructed without inclusion of the neutral pion or photon, resulting in distinctive shapes in the B candidate invariant mass distribution. Decays of the D meson are fully reconstructed in the K ± π ∓ , K + K − and π + π − final states. The analysis uses a sample of charged B mesons produced in pp collisions collected by the LHCb experiment, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 2.0, 1.0 and 2.0 fb −1 taken at centre-of-mass energies of s=7, 8 and 13 TeV, respectively. The study of B ± →D ⁎ K ± and B ± →D ⁎ π ± decays using a partial reconstruction method is the first of its kind, while the measurement of B ± →DK ± and B ± →Dπ ± decays is an update of previous LHCb measurements. The B ± →DK ± results are the most precise to date

First observation of forward Z→bbˉZ \rightarrow b \bar{b} production in pppp collisions at s=8\sqrt{s}=8 TeV

The decay Z→bb¯ is reconstructed in pp collision data, corresponding to 2 fb −1 of integrated luminosity, collected by the LHCb experiment at a centre-of-mass energy of s=8 TeV. The product of the Z production cross-section and the Z→bb¯ branching fraction is measured for candidates in the fiducial region defined by two particle-level b -quark jets with pseudorapidities in the range 2.220 GeV and dijet invariant mass in the range 4520$GeV and dijet invariant mass in the range$45 < m_{jj} < 165$GeV. From a signal yield of$5462 \pm 763$$Z \rightarrow b \bar{b}$events, where the uncertainty is statistical, a production cross-section times branching fraction of$332 \pm 46 \pm 59$pb is obtained, where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic. The measured significance of the signal yield is 6.0 standard deviations. This measurement represents the first observation of the$Z \rightarrow b \bar{b}$production in the forward region of$pp$ collisions

Study of the lineshape of the chi(c1) (3872) state

A study of the lineshape of the chi(c1) (3872) state is made using a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 3 fb(-1) collected in pp collisions at center-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV with the LHCb detector. Candidate chi(c1)(3872) and psi(2S) mesons from b-hadron decays are selected in the J/psi pi(+)pi(-) decay mode. Describing the lineshape with a Breit-Wigner function, the mass splitting between the chi(c1 )(3872) and psi(2S) states, Delta m, and the width of the chi(c1 )(3872) state, Gamma(Bw), are determined to be (Delta m=185.598 +/- 0.067 +/- 0.068 Mev,)(Gamma BW=1.39 +/- 0.24 +/- 0.10 Mev,) where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic. Using a Flatte-inspired model, the mode and full width at half maximum of the lineshape are determined to be (mode=3871.69+0.00+0.05 MeV.)(FWHM=0.22-0.04+0.13+0.07+0.11-0.06-0.13 MeV, ) An investigation of the analytic structure of the Flatte amplitude reveals a pole structure, which is compatible with a quasibound D-0(D) over bar*(0) state but a quasivirtual state is still allowed at the level of 2 standard deviations

Measurement of the CKM angle γγ in B±→DK±B^\pm\to D K^\pm and B±→Dπ±B^\pm \to D π^\pm decays with D→KS0h+h−D \to K_\mathrm S^0 h^+ h^-

A measurement of $CP$-violating observables is performed using the decays $B^\pm\to D K^\pm$ and $B^\pm\to D \pi^\pm$, where the $D$ meson is reconstructed in one of the self-conjugate three-body final states $K_{\mathrm S}\pi^+\pi^-$ and $K_{\mathrm S}K^+K^-$ (commonly denoted $K_{\mathrm S} h^+h^-$). The decays are analysed in bins of the $D$-decay phase space, leading to a measurement that is independent of the modelling of the $D$-decay amplitude. The observables are interpreted in terms of the CKM angle $\gamma$. Using a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $9\,\text{fb}^{-1}$ collected in proton-proton collisions at centre-of-mass energies of $7$, $8$, and $13\,\text{TeV}$ with the LHCb experiment, $\gamma$ is measured to be $\left(68.7^{+5.2}_{-5.1}\right)^\circ$. The hadronic parameters $r_B^{DK}$, $r_B^{D\pi}$, $\delta_B^{DK}$, and $\delta_B^{D\pi}$, which are the ratios and strong-phase differences of the suppressed and favoured $B^\pm$ decays, are also reported

Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in Oncology with a Focus on the Older Patient-A Systematic Review

For physicians, it is important to know which treatment outcomes are prioritized overall by older patients with cancer, since this will help them to tailor the amount of information and treatment recommendations. Older patients might prioritize other outcomes than younger patients. Our objective is to summarize which outcomes matter most to older patients with cancer. A systematic review was conducted, in which we searched Embase and Medline on 22 December 2020. Studies were eligible if they reported some form of prioritization of outcome categories relative to each other in patients with all types of cancer and if they included at least three outcome categories. Subsequently, for each study, the highest or second-highest outcome category was identified and presented in relation to the number of studies that included that outcome category. An adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. In total, 4374 patients were asked for their priorities in 28 studies that were included. Only six of these studies had a population with a median age above 70. Of all the studies, 79% identified quality of life as the highest or second-highest priority, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), and treatment response (50%). Absence of transient short-term side effects was prioritized in 16%. The studies were heterogeneous considering age, cancer type, and treatment settings. Overall, quality of life, overall survival, progression- and disease-free survival, and severe and persistent side effects of treatment are the outcomes that receive the highest priority on a group level when patients with cancer need to make trade-offs in oncologic treatment decisions

Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in Oncology with a Focus on the Older Patient-A Systematic Review

For physicians, it is important to know which treatment outcomes are prioritized overall by older patients with cancer, since this will help them to tailor the amount of information and treatment recommendations. Older patients might prioritize other outcomes than younger patients. Our objective is to summarize which outcomes matter most to older patients with cancer. A systematic review was conducted, in which we searched Embase and Medline on 22 December 2020. Studies were eligible if they reported some form of prioritization of outcome categories relative to each other in patients with all types of cancer and if they included at least three outcome categories. Subsequently, for each study, the highest or second-highest outcome category was identified and presented in relation to the number of studies that included that outcome category. An adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. In total, 4374 patients were asked for their priorities in 28 studies that were included. Only six of these studies had a population with a median age above 70. Of all the studies, 79% identified quality of life as the highest or second-highest priority, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), and treatment response (50%). Absence of transient short-term side effects was prioritized in 16%. The studies were heterogeneous considering age, cancer type, and treatment settings. Overall, quality of life, overall survival, progression- and disease-free survival, and severe and persistent side effects of treatment are the outcomes that receive the highest priority on a group level when patients with cancer need to make trade-offs in oncologic treatment decisions.Experimentele farmacotherapi

Information needs of older patients newly diagnosed with cancer

Background: Understanding what information patients want and need is an important step in optimizing care. Therefore, we set out to collect all available evidence about the information that is most important to older patients with a new cancer diagnosis and whether or not these information needs are sufficiently addressed.Method: A systematic literature review of Embase and Medline.Results: We included eighteen studies addressing the importance of a range of information topics and studies ad -dressing the sufficiency of information provided. On a scale from 1 to 10, patients ranked information about prognosis and the chance of cure as the most important category (median ranking 10, interquartile range (IQR) 8-10), followed by information on cancer itself (median 9, IQR 5.5-9), and treatment options (median 8, IQR 8-9). In-formation on side-effects of treatment (median 7, IQR 6-8), and practicalities (median 6, IQR 5-7.5) were also considered important. Patients rated information about the practicalities of treatment as the most insufficiently addressed (median 9.5), followed by self-care at home (median 9), and information about prognosis and side-effects (median 8 for both).Conclusion: This systematic review demonstrates that information provision about the cancer itself and about treatment options is generally satisfactory to patients, while information about prognosis, practicalities of treatment and self-care at home could be improved. However, there is significant heterogeneity among older patients regarding which information is most important to them, thus requiring an ongoing dialogue between patients and health care providers about which information is most needed at any given time. (c) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved