es/iode’s Post

🔍 Lung Cancer Patient Pathway Project: Identifying Gaps and Opportunities in Cancer Care The Ministry of Social Affairs recently hosted the concluding event of the Lung Cancer Patient Pathway Project, an important initiative aimed at enhancing the journey of lung cancer patients. Through a collaborative public-private partnership, the project brought together key stakeholders, including the Health Insurance Fund and leading pharmaceutical companies, to identify critical challenges and propose actionable solutions. 📝 Key Findings: Stressful Waiting Periods: The waiting time for a diagnosis emerged as a particularly stressful phase for patients, highlighting the need for better communication and support during this time. Palliative Care: The quality and availability of palliative care were found to vary significantly, underlining the importance of immediate support upon diagnosis. Unified Information: A need for clearer, unified sources of information and improved training for healthcare professionals in delivering difficult news was identified. A special thanks to the Tehnopol HealthTech team for their outstanding work and dedication to this project. Your efforts have been invaluable in driving innovation and improving the future of cancer care in Estonia. 🙏 🔗 Learn more about the project and its findings here:

The economic disparity in the treatment of sickle cell disease (SCD) versus oncology patients underscores systemic healthcare inequalities deeply rooted in socioeconomic factors and racial disparities. SCD, a genetic blood disorder primarily affecting individuals of African descent, receives disproportionately less attention, funding, and resources compared to cancer. This discrepancy reflects historical and structural biases within the healthcare system, perpetuating disparities in access to care, research, and treatment options. Economic factors play a significant role in exacerbating these disparities. Individuals with SCD often face financial barriers to accessing comprehensive care due to limited resources, lack of health insurance, and geographic disparities in healthcare access. The cost of managing SCD can be substantial, including expenses for medications, hospitalizations, and specialized treatments, placing a significant burden on individuals and families already struggling economically. Conversely, oncology patients may benefit from more comprehensive insurance coverage and support programs, as cancer receives greater attention and funding within the healthcare system. Advances in cancer treatment, such as chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and targeted therapies, have led to improved survival rates and quality of life for many patients. However, these treatments can also be financially burdensome, leading to disparities in access and outcomes based on socioeconomic status. Furthermore, disparities in research funding and clinical trials perpetuate the gap between SCD and oncology treatment. Clinical trials play a crucial role in advancing medical knowledge and improving treatment options, yet individuals with SCD are often underrepresented in research studies compared to oncology patients. This underrepresentation limits the development of tailored treatments and interventions for SCD, exacerbating the cycle of inequity in healthcare. Addressing the economic disparity in the treatment of SCD and oncology patients requires a comprehensive approach. This includes increasing funding for SCD research, expanding access to comprehensive care services, and implementing targeted interventions to address socioeconomic barriers. Additionally, advocating for equitable representation in clinical trials and raising awareness about the impact of SCD on affected communities are crucial steps in narrowing the gap and promoting health equity for all individuals, regardless of their medical condition or socioeconomic status.

The April issue of The Lancet Oncology is out! The article that had to inspire my conceptual cover this month is entitled: Cost and Value of Cancer Medicines Delivered in a Single-Payer Health System: A Cross-Sectional Study from Ontario, Canada The authors concluded that there needs to be a much more careful assessment of the cost:benefits ratio of cancer care as it currently exists in Ontario, as two thirds of cancer care expenditures extend life only by an average of 6 months. These are the conceptual elements in the cover image: • An infusion needle is shown secreting Canadian dollars, known colloquially in Canada as “loonies” because the coins feature an embossed northern loon. Some of the secreted coins are piling up at the bottom of the image representing the growing cost of cancer therapy. • Actual northern loons are shown morphing out of a coin as well as flying out of the syringe into a sunnier area of the sky. These loons represent positive changes from a potential redirection of cancer care budgets to other areas such as “psychosocial supports, symptom management, palliative care, and home nursing care”. • On the left, the sky is more menacing and the clouds have the lumpy shape subtly suggestive of a tumour. • The forest floor forming the backdrop across the bottom of the image shows a swath of trilliums. Trilliums are a ubiquitous woodland wildflower in Ontario, and so a stylized trillium logo became the official symbol for the province. This trillium logo is found on virtually everything related to health care here, including our Ontario Health Insurance Plan cards. The image can probably be interpreted in different ways by the viewer, but I hope that helps make it intriguing :-)

When a patient receives a positive result in colorectal cancer screening, timely follow-up is key to diagnosis and treatment. Missing this follow-up can lead to missed or delayed cancer diagnosis. The Ambulatory Safety Net (ASN) program “catches” these patients and ensures they get the follow-up tests they need. The ASN program -- developed with health systems in Boston and implemented as part of a learning collaborative -- has already identified over 5,000 patients with over 1,500 completing testing. Authors: Rachel Moyal-Smith DrPH, PA-C; Meagan Elam, DrPH, MS; Jason Boulanger, MFA; Rich Balaban, MD; Joanne Cox, MD; Rebecca Cunningham, MD; Patricia Folcarelli, RN, MA, PhD; Matthew Germak, MD MPH; Kristin O'Riley, RN, MPH; Melissa Parkerton, MA; Fiona Unsworth, BA; Nathan Samuels, DNP, MSN, ANP-BC, CPPS; Luke Sato, MD; Evan M. Benjamin, MD, MS Paper in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety: https://lnkd.in/e52E4E22

📃Scientific paper: What does “urgency” mean when prioritizing cancer treatment? Results from a qualitative study with German oncologists and other experts during the COVID-19 pandemic Abstract: Purpose Cancer care in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic was affected by resource scarcity and the necessity to prioritize medical measures. This study explores ethical criteria for prioritization and their application in cancer practices from the perspective of German oncologists and other experts. Methods We conducted fourteen semi-structured interviews with German oncologists between February and July 2021 and fed findings of interviews and additional data on prioritizing cancer care into four structured group discussions, in January and February 2022, with 22 experts from medicine, nursing, law, ethics, health services research and health insurance. Interviews and group discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Results Narratives of the participants focus on “urgency” as most acceptable criterion for prioritization in cancer care. Patients who are considered curable and those with a high level of suffering, were given a high degree of “urgency.” However, further analysis indicates that the “urgency” criterion needs to be further distinguished according to at least three different dimensions: “urgency” to (1) prevent imminent harm to life, (2) prevent future harm to life and (3) alleviate suffering. In addition, “urgency” is modulated by the “success,” which can be reached by means of an intervention, and the “likelihood” of reaching that success. Conclusion Our analysis indicates that while “urg... Continued on ES/IODE ➡️ https://etcse.fr/4CN7H ------- If you find this interesting, feel free to follow, comment and share. We need your help to enhance our visibility, so that our platform continues to serve you.

A recent article highlights a significant shift in oncology care: the American Society of Clinical Oncology now recommends early palliative care for everyone diagnosed with advanced cancer. Here are six crucial points to know about palliative care: 1. Improved Quality of Life and Survival: Early involvement in palliative care not only enhances the quality of life but also prolongs survival, according to Dr. Allison Chang from the Dana Farber Cancer Institute. 2. Empowering Patients: Palliative care puts patients in control, working closely with their providers to manage symptoms and treatment side effects effectively. 3. Supporting Caregivers: Palliative care teams recognize and support the essential role of caregivers, ensuring they are an integral part of the care process. 4. More Time at Home: By managing symptoms like fatigue, palliative care helps patients spend more quality time at home or wherever they prefer to be. 5. Insurance Coverage: Most insurance companies cover palliative care, making it accessible to those in need. 6. Not Just for Cancer: Palliative care benefits anyone with a serious illness, including heart and kidney failure. It's essential for patients to ask their doctor about the potential benefits. Dr. Arif Kamal, Chief Patient Officer for the American Cancer Society, emphasizes: "Palliative care is no longer something that's 'nice to have.' It's a 'have to have.'" 💙 What this means for Tuesday Health: At Tuesday Health, we are dedicated to integrating palliative care from the time of diagnosis to ensure our members receive comprehensive, compassionate support throughout their journey. Read the full article here: https://hubs.la/Q02CGmK30 #PalliativeCare #CancerCare #HealthcareInnovation #PatientCare #TuesdayHealth

Article Review The article from The New York Times discusses a promising new blood test for early detection of colon cancer, which is expected to be a simpler alternative to colonoscopies and at-home fecal tests. The test, called Shield, is developed by Guardant Health and detects DNA fragments shed into the blood by colon cancers and large polyps. A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine reports that Shield detected 87% of early-stage, curable cancers with a false positive rate of 10%. However, the blood test is less effective at detecting large polyps, finding only 13% compared to fecal tests and colonoscopies, which detect 43% and 94%, respectively. Since some polyps can develop into cancer, the ability to detect them is important for cancer prevention. Patients are advised to be fully informed about the blood test's limitations in detecting these precancerous polyps. The medical community is considering how best to incorporate this test into routine screenings and how to discuss the options with patients, especially given the time constraints of primary care physicians. There's also the question of how frequently the blood test should be performed, with a suggestion of every three years not yet being established. Additionally, there's interest in whether this test could benefit younger individuals not currently eligible for routine screenings, amid rising colon cancer rates in this demographic. The cost of the blood test is currently $895 out-of-pocket, but Guardant Health aims to work with Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers on pricing if the test receives FDA approval. In comparison, the fecal test costs between $581 to $681, and colonoscopies range from $1,250 to $4,800, with an average cost of $2,750 in the United States. These other tests are usually covered by insurance. Dr. William Grady, associated with the trial sponsored by Guardant, suggests that the company might price the test to be comparable to existing screening methods. The article underscores that while the blood test shifts focus from prevention to early detection, its ease of use might increase screening rates, potentially reducing deaths from colon cancer overall. The sentiment is summarized by Dr. John M. Carethers' statement that the best screening test is the one that is completed by the patient. 😀

Study Reveals Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening

One of the most dreaded conversations to have with your doctor is a cancer diagnosis. This is why there is such a push for early detection to increase the rate of survival. A new study estimates that cancer screening costs $43 billion annually in the US, with colorectal cancer screening accounting for 64% of the total.  The study found that: * 88% of screening costs are paid by private insurance * 8.5% by Medicare * 3.2% by Medicaid and other programs.  This might seem like a very high price tag, but compared to the cost of not catching cancer early, I think this is a worthwhile investment. Just ask any cancer survivor.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has updated its breast cancer screening guidelines. The new guidelines recommend that women begin getting screened for breast cancer at age 40 & get mammograms at least every other year. with @JerickaDuncan on @CBSMornings Breast cancer rates have risen among women under 50, particularly since 2015, with about 10% of cases occurring in this age group. Black women face a higher risk of developing breast cancer at a younger age and experiencing more aggressive forms, with a 40% higher mortality risk compared to white women, highlighting the need for earlier screening to address disparities. While some recommend yearly screening, the USPSTF hasn't endorsed this universally due to uncertain mortality reduction benefits. Further research is necessary to compare screening frequencies, improve screening for Black women and those with dense breasts, and determine screening guidelines for women over 75. Insurance typically covers mammograms annually for women over 40, though high-risk individuals may incur some costs before 40. 3D mammograms offer enhanced screening, potentially reducing the need for additional ultrasounds or MRIs. While ultrasounds and MRIs improve detection in dense breasts, their impact on mortality remains unclear. Importantly, 85% of breast cancer cases occur without a family history, with risk factors including prior or family history, genetic mutations (BRCA1/2), lifestyle factors like tobacco and alcohol use, estrogen exposure, obesity, and chest radiation. Individualized screening discussions with healthcare providers are crucial for high-risk individuals.