Health-Related Quality of Life and Experiences of Sarcoma Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Sarcomas are rare cancers with a spectrum of clinical needs and outcomes. We investigated care experiences and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in sarcoma patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with appointments during the first two months of the UK lockdown were invited to complete a survey. Questions included views on care modifications, COVID-19 worry and psychosocial impact, and EORTC-QLQ-C30 items. 350 patients completed the survey; median age 58 (16–92) years. Care modifications included telemedicine (74%) and postponement of appointments (34%), scans (34%) or treatment (10%). Most felt the quality of care was not affected (72%), however, social life (87%) and emotional wellbeing (41%) were affected. Worry about COVID-19 infection was moderately high (mean 5.8/10) and significantly related to higher cancer-related worry; associated with lower emotional functioning irrespective of treatment intent. Curative patients (44%) with low resilient coping scores had significantly higher COVID-19 worry. Patients who did not know their treatment intent (22%) had significantly higher COVID-19 worry and insomnia. In summary, care experiences were generally positive; however, cancer-related worry, low resilient coping and uncertainty about treatment intent were associated with COVID-19 worry. These patients may benefit from additional psychological support during the pandemic and beyond

Current anti-doping policy: a critical appraisal

BACKGROUND: Current anti-doping in competitive sports is advocated for reasons of fair-play and concern for the athlete's health. With the inception of the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA), anti-doping effort has been considerably intensified. Resources invested in anti-doping are rising steeply and increasingly involve public funding. Most of the effort concerns elite athletes with much less impact on amateur sports and the general public. DISCUSSION: We review this recent development of increasingly severe anti-doping control measures and find them based on questionable ethical grounds. The ethical foundation of the war on doping consists of largely unsubstantiated assumptions about fairness in sports and the concept of a "level playing field". Moreover, it relies on dubious claims about the protection of an athlete's health and the value of the essentialist view that sports achievements reflect natural capacities. In addition, costly antidoping efforts in elite competitive sports concern only a small fraction of the population. From a public health perspective this is problematic since the high prevalence of uncontrolled, medically unsupervised doping practiced in amateur sports and doping-like behaviour in the general population (substance use for performance enhancement outside sport) exposes greater numbers of people to potential harm. In addition, anti-doping has pushed doping and doping-like behaviour underground, thus fostering dangerous practices such as sharing needles for injection. Finally, we argue that the involvement of the medical profession in doping and anti-doping challenges the principles of non-maleficience and of privacy protection. As such, current anti-doping measures potentially introduce problems of greater impact than are solved, and place physicians working with athletes or in anti-doping settings in an ethically difficult position. In response, we argue on behalf of enhancement practices in sports within a framework of medical supervision. SUMMARY: Current anti-doping strategy is aimed at eradication of doping in elite sports by means of all-out repression, buttressed by a war-like ideology similar to the public discourse sustaining international efforts against illicit drugs. Rather than striving for eradication of doping in sports, which appears to be an unattainable goal, a more pragmatic approach aimed at controlled use and harm reduction may be a viable alternative to cope with doping and doping-like behaviour

A pragmatic approach to resolving technological unfairness: The case of Nike’s Vaporfly & Alphafly running footwear

Background Technology is often introduced into sport to facilitate it or to improve human performance within it. On occasion, some forms of novel technology require regulation or prevention entirely to ensure that a sport remains fair and accessible. Recently, the Nike Vaporfly and Alphafly shoes have received some concerns over their appropriateness for use in competitive distance running. Methods This paper evaluates the use of these shoes against an existing framework for sports technology discourse and adopts a pragmatic approach to attempt to resolve them. Results It is proposed that the three concerns regarding cost, access and coercion cannot be ruled out but likely remain short term issues. As a result, it is proposed that these running shoes are acceptable forms of technology but that ongoing vigilance will be required as such technologies develop further in the future. Conclusions The Nike Vaporfly/Alphafly shoes do push the perceived acceptability of running shoes to the limits of the current sports regulations. However, the alleged gains have not manifested themselves to a level that could be considered excessive when reviewing historical performances or when evaluated against a set of well-cited criteria. The sport will need to adopt a stance of ongoing vigilance as such technologies continue to develop or be optimised in the future

Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: ESMO-EURACAN-GENTURIS Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) are malignant mesenchymal tumours with a variable clinical behaviour, marked by differentiation towards the interstitial cells of Cajal. GISTs belong to the family of soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) but are treated separately due to their peculiar histogenesis, clinical behaviour and specific therapy. This European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)–European Reference Network for Rare Adult Solid Cancers (EURACAN)–European Reference Network for Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (GENTURIS) Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) will cover GISTs while other STSs are covered in the ESMO–EURACAN–European Reference Network for Paediatric Oncology (ERN PaedCan)–GENTURIS STS CPG

Bone sarcomas: ESMO-EURACAN-GENTURIS-ERN PaedCan Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

This Clinical Practice Guideline provides key recommendations on the management of bone sarcomas. // Recommendations have been agreed following a consensus meeting of representatives from ESMO, EURACAN, GENTURIS and ERNPaedCan. // Authorship includes a multidisciplinary group of experts from different institutions and countries worldwide