journal article
LitStream Collection
Home
Corn, Benjamin W; Feldman, David B
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djad270pmid: 38175799
In addition to the diverse educational materials the National Cancer Institute provides to patients, caregivers, and health-care professionals, the NCI maintains an online dictionary that provides concise definitions of terms used in modern oncology. The dictionary is regarded as a valuable data reserve because it is updated frequently and employs language that facilitates comprehension among lay users and professionals alike. In this commentary, we call attention to the absence of the word hope as an entry in this important digital resource. Moreover, we propose not only including the concept of hope in this vital reference text but also basing its meaning on C. R. Snyder’s model of “hope theory,” which stresses the importance of 3 entities: goals, pathways thinking, and agency. Finally, we argue that hope can be taught as a skill to relevant stakeholders (eg, patients, caregivers, and health-care professionals) through brief workshops that have recently been expanded from in-person encounters to virtual platforms revolving around a user-friendly mobile app called “Hopetimize.”
O’Connor, Lauren; Bailey-Whyte, Maeve; Bhattacharya, Manami; Butera, Gisela; Hardell, Kaitlyn N Lewis; Seidenberg, Andrew B; Castle, Philip E; Loomans-Kropp, Holli A
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djae021pmid: 38291943
BackgroundMetformin is among the most widely used antidiabetics medications because of its minimal toxicity, favorable safety profile, availability, and low cost. In addition to its role in diabetes management, metformin may reduce cancer risk.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the association between metformin use and cancer risk, with evaluation by specific cancer type when possible. Applicable studies were identified in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception through March 7, 2023, with metformin use categorized as “ever” or “yes” and a cancer diagnosis as the outcome. Article quality was evaluated using National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines, and publication bias was evaluated using the Egger test, Begg test, and funnel plots. Pooled relative risk (RR) estimates were calculated using random-effects models, and sensitivity analysis was completed through leave-one-out cross-validation.ResultsWe included 166 studies with cancer incidence information in the meta-analysis. Reduced risk for overall cancer was observed in case-control studies (RR = 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.30 to 0.80) and prospective cohort studies (RR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.37 to 0.93). Metformin use was associated with reduced gastrointestinal (RR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.85), urologic (RR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.99), and hematologic (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.99) cancer risk. Statistically significant publication bias was observed within the studies (Egger P < .001).ConclusionsMetformin may be associated with a decreased risk of many cancer types, but high heterogeneity and risk of publication bias limit confidence in these results. Additional studies in populations without diabetes are needed to better understand the utility of metformin in cancer prevention.
Star, Jessica; Siegel, Rebecca L; Minihan, Adair K; Smith, Robert A; Jemal, Ahmedin; Bandi, Priti
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djae003pmid: 38177071
Several organizations now recommend that individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) begin screening at 45 rather than 50 years of age. We present contemporary estimates of CRC screening in newly eligible adults aged 45 to 49 years between 2019 and 2021. Nationally representative prevalence estimates and population number screened were estimated based on the National Health Interview Survey. A logistic regression model assessed CRC screening prevalence differences by survey year and sociodemographic characteristics. In 2021, 19.7%—that is, fewer than 4 million of the eligible 19 million adults aged 45 to 49 years—were up-to-date on CRC screening. Screening was lowest in those who were uninsured (7.6%), had less than a high school diploma (15.4%), and Asian (13.1%). Additionally, fecal occult blood test and/or fecal immunochemical testing was underused, with only 2.4% (<460 000 people) reporting being up-to-date with screening using this modality in 2021. CRC screening in eligible young adults remains low. Concerted efforts to improve screening are warranted, particularly in underserved populations.
Showing 1 to 10 of 10 Articles
Health-related social needs are prevalent among cancer patients; associated with substantial negative health consequences; and drive pervasive inequities in cancer incidence, severity, treatment choices and decisions, and outcomes. To address the lack of clinical trial evidence to guide health-related social needs interventions among cancer patients, the National Cancer Institute Cancer Care Delivery Research Steering Committee convened experts to participate in a clinical trials planning meeting with the goal of designing studies to screen for and address health-related social needs among cancer patients.In this commentary, we discuss the rationale for, and challenges of, designing and testing health-related social needs interventions in alignment with the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 5As framework. Evidence for food, housing, utilities, interpersonal safety, and transportation health-related social needs interventions is analyzed. Evidence regarding health-related social needs and delivery of health-related social needs interventions differs in maturity and applicability to cancer context, with transportation problems having the most maturity and interpersonal safety the least. We offer practical recommendations for health-related social needs interventions among cancer patients and the caregivers, families, and friends who support their health-related social needs. Cross-cutting (ie, health-related social needs agnostic) recommendations include leveraging navigation (eg, people, technology) to identify, refer, and deliver health-related social needs interventions; addressing health-related social needs through multilevel interventions; and recognizing that health-related social needs are states, not traits, that fluctuate over time. Health-related social needs–specific interventions are recommended, and pros and cons of addressing more than one health-related social needs concurrently are characterized. Considerations for collaborating with community partners are highlighted. The need for careful planning, strong partners, and funding is stressed. Finally, we outline a future research agenda to address evidence gaps.