Physical activity in patients with cancer: self-report versus accelerometer assessments

Purpose: The level of daily physical activity in patients with cancer is frequently assessed by questionnaires, such as the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE). Objective assessments, with for example accelerometers, may be a good alternative. The aim of this study was to investigate the agreement between the PASE questionnaire and accelerometer-assessed physical activity in a large group of patients with different types of cancer. Methods: Baseline accelerometer and PASE questionnaire data of 403 participants from the REACT (Resistance and Endurance Exercise After Chemotherapy, n = 227), the EXIST (Exercise Intervention After Stem-Cell Transplantation, n = 74), and NET-QUBIC (NEtherlands QUality of Life And Biomedical Cohort Studies In Cancer, n = 102) studies were available for the current analyses. Physical activity was assessed by the PASE questionnaire (total score) and accelerometers (total minutes per day > 100 counts). Linear mixed models regression analysis was used to assess the agreement between the PASE questionnaire and accelerometer-assessed physical activity. Results: The mean (SD) PASE score was 95.9 (75.1) points and mean (SD) time in physical activity measured with the accelerometer was 256.6 (78.8) min per day. The agreement between the PASE score and the accelerometer data was significant, but poor (standardized regression coefficient (B) = 0.36, 95%CI = 0.27; 0.44, p < 0.01). Conclusion: Agreement between the PASE questionnaire and accelerometer-assessed physical activity was poor. The poor agreement indicates that they measure different physical activity constructs and cannot be used interchangeably to assess the level of daily physical activity in patients with cancer

Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on volume of thoracic aortic surgery on a national level

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of the coronavirus 2019 pandemic on elective and acute thoracic aortic surgery in the Netherlands. METHODS: The Netherlands Heart Registration database was used to compare the volume of elective and acute surgery on the thoracic aorta in 2019 and 2020, starting from week 11 in both years. A sub-analysis was done to assess the impact of the pandemic on high-volume and low-volume aortic centres. RESULTS: During the pandemic, the number of elective thoracic aortic operations declined by 18% [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.82 [0.73-0.91]; P < 0.01]. The decline in volume of elective surgery was significant in both high-volume (IRR 0.82 [0.71-0.94]; P < 0.01) and low-volume aortic centres (IRR 0.81 [0.68-0.98]; P = 0.03). The overall number of acute aortic operations during the pandemic remained similar to that in 2019 (505 vs 499; P = 0.85), but an increased share of these operations occurred at high-volume centres. The number of acute operations performed in high-volume centres increased by 20% (IRR 1.20 [1.01-1.42]; P = 0.04), while the number of acute operations performed in low-volume centres decreased by 17% (IRR 0.83 [0.69-1.00]; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus 2019 pandemic led to a significant decrease in elective thoracic aortic surgery but did not cause a change in the volume of acute thoracic aortic surgery in the Netherlands. Moreover, the pandemic led to a centralization of care for acute thoracic aortic surgery

Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on volume of thoracic aortic surgery on a national level

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of the coronavirus 2019 pandemic on elective and acute thoracic aortic surgery in the Netherlands. METHODS: The Netherlands Heart Registration database was used to compare the volume of elective and acute surgery on the thoracic aorta in 2019 and 2020, starting from week 11 in both years. A sub-analysis was done to assess the impact of the pandemic on high-volume and low-volume aortic centres. RESULTS: During the pandemic, the number of elective thoracic aortic operations declined by 18% [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.82 [0.73-0.91]; P < 0.01]. The decline in volume of elective surgery was significant in both high-volume (IRR 0.82 [0.71-0.94]; P < 0.01) and low-volume aortic centres (IRR 0.81 [0.68-0.98]; P = 0.03). The overall number of acute aortic operations during the pandemic remained similar to that in 2019 (505 vs 499; P = 0.85), but an increased share of these operations occurred at high-volume centres. The number of acute operations performed in high-volume centres increased by 20% (IRR 1.20 [1.01-1.42]; P = 0.04), while the number of acute operations performed in low-volume centres decreased by 17% (IRR 0.83 [0.69-1.00]; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus 2019 pandemic led to a significant decrease in elective thoracic aortic surgery but did not cause a change in the volume of acute thoracic aortic surgery in the Netherlands. Moreover, the pandemic led to a centralization of care for acute thoracic aortic surgery