Category: INFORMATION

Gut Microbiota: A Hidden Ally in Cancer Treatment

Our gut is home to trillions of microorganisms, collectively called the gut microbiota, which play a crucial role in digestion, immunity, and overall health. Excitingly, research is revealing that these tiny residents can also influence the effectiveness of cancer treatments—from immunotherapy to chemotherapy and beyond. Understanding this connection opens new possibilities for more personalized and effective cancer care.

Boosting Immunotherapy through Gut Microbes

Innovative therapies like CAR-T cell therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), oncolytic viruses (OVs), and CpG-oligonucleotide immunotherapy have transformed cancer treatment in recent years. Studies show that the composition of gut microbiota can affect how well patients respond to these therapies.

For instance, certain bacteria—such as Ruminococcus, Faecalibacterium, and Akkermansia—are linked to better CAR-T outcomes, while broad-spectrum antibiotics may reduce therapy effectiveness. Similarly, gut microbes can enhance responses to ICIs by stimulating immune cells that attack tumors. OVs, which work by killing cancer cells and activating the immune system, also benefit from a healthy gut microbiota. Even CpG-based therapies are more effective when gut microbes activate immune pathways.

In short, a balanced gut microbiota can help “turn cold tumors into hot tumors,” making them more responsive to modern immunotherapies.

Gut Microbes and Traditional Treatments

Gut microbiota also affects chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Some microbes can influence drug metabolism, improving efficacy or reducing side effects. For example, bacteria like Enterococcus hirae and Barnesiella intestinihominis enhance the response to cyclophosphamide, a common chemotherapy drug, by activating immune cells.

On the other hand, disruptions in gut microbiota—often caused by antibiotics or radiation—can increase treatment toxicity, leading to issues like intestinal inflammation or mucositis. Promising strategies like fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) and certain probiotics have shown potential to restore gut balance, reduce side effects, and improve overall outcomes.

Complementary Approaches: TCM and Probiotics

Traditional medicine can also benefit from gut microbes. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) compounds, when processed by gut bacteria, can transform into more potent anti-cancer agents. Certain TCM herbs and formulas can also promote beneficial bacteria while suppressing harmful ones.

Similarly, probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics—foods or supplements that nourish or contain helpful bacteria—can support cancer treatment by strengthening gut immunity, reducing inflammation, and enhancing drug effectiveness. For example, in combination with chemotherapy or immunotherapy, synbiotics have been shown to reduce treatment-related side effects while boosting therapeutic benefits.

Emerging Strategies: Engineering the Microbiota

Beyond diet and probiotics, scientists are developing targeted microbiota interventions to fight cancer more precisely. These include:

  • Engineered microbes, designed to deliver anti-cancer agents directly to tumors.
  • Phage therapy, using viruses that selectively kill harmful bacteria.
  • Nanomedicine and OMVs (outer membrane vesicles), which can deliver drugs or immune-stimulating molecules to tumors while sparing healthy microbes.

These cutting-edge approaches are still under study, but they demonstrate the incredible potential of harnessing gut microbes to improve therapy effectiveness and reduce toxicity.

Looking Ahead: Precision Medicine and Microbiota

The future of cancer treatment may increasingly involve personalized microbiota strategies. By analyzing an individual’s gut bacteria and metabolites, clinicians could tailor therapies to maximize efficacy and minimize side effects. Combining microbiota profiling with multi-omics analysis, AI, and big data could allow doctors to predict treatment response and guide interventions in a way that was unimaginable just a decade ago.

While challenges remain—including differences in individual microbiotas, safety considerations, and regulatory hurdles—the potential is enormous. Gut microbiota represents a promising frontier in precision oncology, offering hope for more effective, safer, and individualized cancer care.

Read the full article here

Text/Adaptation: Ifiyenia Anastasiou for Kapa3

Continuing the Journey: Holistic Body and Mind Care with Kapa3 and the University of the Peloponnese

After the first round of meetings held in April (see the related article here), focusing on Nutritional Guidance and Experiential Psychological Support, Kapa3 and the University of the Peloponnese continue their collaboration with a new series of experiential workshops dedicated to the holistic care of body and mind.

The meetings are open to people living with cancer, caregivers, and healthcare professionals — to anyone seeking a space for genuine communication, understanding, and empowerment.

In this new cycle, mental health and nutrition are approached as two sides of the same care.

In the mental health sessions, participants learn to recognize and manage challenging emotions such as anxiety or fear, strengthen their resilience, and cultivate a deeper connection with themselves and others.

At the same time, the nutrition sessions explore how balanced and mindful eating can support the body, enhance energy and mood, and become an act of self-care and self-respect. Food is not only a necessity but also a way to show love — to the body, the soul, and to life itself.

The meetings are held online and are based on dialogue, experiential learning, and the sharing of personal experiences. Everyone participates at their own pace, in a warm environment of acceptance and trust.

To express your interest: Registration Form for the Support Group for People with Cancer

Text/adaptation: Ifiyenia for Kapa3

World Health Summit Side Meeting: Building Healthier Digital Futures with Information Integrity

One Week to Go: World Health Summit 2025!

From October 12–14, global leaders, researchers, and innovators will gather in Berlin for the World Health Summit 2025, tackling some of the most pressing global health challenges. This year, the focus is on Health Information Integrity, emphasizing the importance of reliable, accurate, and accessible health information in an era dominated by search engines, social media, and AI tools.

Highlights of the Summit include:

  • October 13 – The Future of Quality Health Information: A workshop presenting the Nature Medicine Commission’s work on ensuring quality health information for all, and exploring ways to measure its impact and economic value. Learn more

  • October 14 – Building Healthier Digital Futures with Information Integrity: A side event on how transparent governance and resilient information systems can protect communities from misinformation and disinformation amplified by algorithms and viral content. Learn more

The Summit brings together experts and decision-makers worldwide to explore solutions for improving health information quality and promoting evidence-based decision-making.

 

The new OECD report (2025) highlights Greece’s challenges and priorities in cancer

The new OECD report (2025) highlights Greece’s challenges and priorities in cancer, comparing them with other European countries.

Key points:

  • Increased incidence: Greece records ~67,000 new cancer diagnoses and ~36,000 deaths annually (2022 data). By 2050, cases are expected to increase by 36%.
  • Risk factors: Smoking, obesity, poor diet, air pollution, low HPV vaccination coverage.
  • Early diagnosis: There are programs for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, but they are not yet sufficiently developed or sustainable beyond 2025.
  • Inequalities in care: Staff shortages, geographical inequalities, high out-of-pocket costs, difficulties in access for vulnerable groups.
  • Survivors & caregivers: There is no organized strategy for the quality of life of survivors, while caregivers are overburdened. The “right to be forgotten” does not yet apply in Greece.
  • Data & policy: Until recently, there was no national cancer registry. Greece does not yet have a comprehensive National Cancer Plan, unlike many other European countries.

Conclusion:
Greece is called upon to:

– strengthen prevention and population-based screening,

– reduce inequalities in access,

– support survivors and caregivers,

– and develop a holistic national cancer plan with clear targets and evaluation.

The report clearly shows that the country needs greater investment, better organization, and integration of actions into European planning.

See the report in detail here  22087cfa-en (1)

The main points are given in the file below by the Kapa3 team. OOSA 2025 REPORT

Digital transformation: Health systems’ investment priorities

Health systems around the world are facing a host of challenges, including rising costs, clinical-workforce shortages, aging populations requiring more care (for example, to treat chronic conditions), and increasing competition from nontraditional players.1 At the same time, consumers are expecting new capabilities (such as digital scheduling and telemedicine) and better experiences from health systems across their end-to-end care journeys.2 In response, health systems are increasing their focus on digital and AI transformation to meet consumer demands, address workforce challenges, reduce costs, and enhance the overall quality of care.3 However, despite acknowledging the importance of these efforts to future sustainability, many health system executives say their organizations are still not investing enough.

AI, traditional machine learning, and deep learning are projected to result in net savings of up to $360 billion in healthcare spending.

AI, traditional machine learning, and deep learning are projected to result in net savings of $200 billion to $360 billion in healthcare spending.4 But are health systems investing to capture these opportunities? We recently surveyed 200 global health system executives about their digital investment priorities and progress.5 Seventy-five percent of respondents reported their organizations place a high priority on digital and analytics transformation but lack sufficient resources or planning in this area.

Increasing prioritization

In line with other industries, the majority (nearly 90 percent) of health system executives surveyed, in both technical roles (such as chief information officer or chief technology officer) and nontechnical roles (for example, CEO or CFO), reported that a digital and AI transformation is a high or top priority for their organization. At the same time, 75 percent of respondents reported their organizations are not yet able to deliver on that priority because they have not sufficiently planned or allocated the necessary resources.


Health system digital investment priority areas and anticipated impact

For health system executives, current investment priorities do not always align with areas they believe could have the most impact. There is alignment in some areas, including virtual health and digital front doors, where about 70 percent of respondents expect the highest impact.1 In other areas, such as AI, 88 percent of respondents reported a high potential impact,2 yet about 20 percent of respondents do not plan to invest in the next two years. The absence of investment in a robust, modern data and analytics platform could delay value creation in areas that depend on these capabilities—such as efforts to close gaps in care, improve timely access for referrals, and optimize operating room throughput.

Major headwinds and slow progress

Given the current macroeconomic climate and increasing cost pressures on health systems, most respondents identified budget constraints as a key obstacle to investing at scale across all digital and AI categories of interest (51 percent of respondents ranked this obstacle among the top three). For example, a health system that is building a digital front door may lack the resources to simultaneously invest in the latest generative AI (gen AI) capabilities.

Respondents called out challenges with legacy systems as the second-greatest concern (after budget constraints). Core tech modernization is key to delivering on the digital promise,1 but health systems have typically relied on a smaller set of monolithic systems that have become a challenge to untangle.

Additional highly ranked challenges include data quality (33 percent), tech talent and recruiting (30 percent), and readiness to adopt and scale new technology (34 percent).

Satisfaction with digital investment

Most executives of health systems that have invested in digital priorities (72 percent) reported satisfaction across all investment areas. Among the comparatively fewer respondents who reported investing in robotics and advanced analytics, satisfaction was even higher, at 82 percent and 81 percent, respectively. Given that investments result in a high level of satisfaction and that 75 percent of executives reported they are not yet able to deliver on their digital transformation ambitions (as noted above), health systems may be facing a failure to scale their digital programs.

What health systems can do and how they can learn from other industries

The goal of digital and AI transformation is to fundamentally rewire how an organization operates, building capabilities to drive tangible business value (such as patient acquisition and experience, clinical outcomes, operational efficiency, and workforce experience and retention) through continuous innovation. Delivering digital value for health systems requires investment and new ways of working.

Building partnerships. Scale is crucial to value creation. But the definition of at-scale systems has changed in the past few years; today, it takes more than $13 billion to be a top 20 system by revenue, and many have reached their current position through inorganic growth.6 Partnerships (joint ventures and alliances) may offer a promising avenue to access new capabilities, increase speed to market, and achieve capital, scale, and operational efficiencies.7

Moving beyond off-the-shelf solutions. History shows that deploying technology—such as electronic health records (EHRs)—on top of broken processes and clinical workflows does not lead to value. Realizing value from healthcare technology will require a reimagination (and standardization) of clinical workflows and care models across organizations. For example, optimizing workflows to enable more appropriate delegation, with technical enablement, could yield a potential 15 to 30 percent net time savings over a 12-hour shift. This could help close the nursing workforce gap by up to 300,000 inpatient nurses.8

Using the cloud for modernization. Health systems are increasingly building cloud-based data environments with defined data products to increase data availability and quality. Health systems can also use cloud-hosted, end-user-focused platforms (such as patient or clinician apps) that integrate multiple other applications and experiences to simplify stakeholders’ interactions with the system.

Operating differently. Operating differently entails fundamental changes in structure (flatter, empowered, cross-functional teams), talent (new skill sets and fully dedicated teams), ways of working (outcome orientation, agile funding, and managing products, not projects), and technology (modular architecture, cloud-based data systems, and reduced reliance on the monolithic EHR). With these changes, some health systems have begun to see real value within six months. Building a digital culture helps the transformation succeed over time.9

Cautiously embracing gen AI. Gen AI has the potential to affect everything from continuity of care and clinical operations to contracting and corporate functions. Health system executives and patients have concerns about the risks of AI, particularly in relation to patient care and privacy. Managing these risks entails placing business-minded legal and risk-management teams alongside AI and data science teams.10 Organizations could also implement a well-informed risk-prioritization strategy.

Digital and AI investments provide health systems with opportunities to address the many challenges they face. Successful health systems will invest in areas with the greatest potential impact while removing barriers—for example, by upgrading legacy infrastructure. Health systems that make successful investments in digital and analytics capabilities could see substantial benefits and position themselves to benefit from the $200 billion to $360 billion opportunity.11

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Jack Eastburn is a partner in McKinsey’s Southern California office; Jen Fowkes is a partner in the Washington, DC, office; and Karl Kellner is a senior partner in the New York office. Brad Swanson is a consultant in the Denver office.

The authors wish to thank David Bueno, Camilo Gutierrez, Dae-Hee Lee, Audrey Manicor, Lois Schonberger, and Tim Zoph for their contributions to this article.

Πηγή: mckinsey.com
find more :https://eefam.gr/digital-transformation-health-systems-investment-priorities/

A Different Chemotherapy Approach for Ovarian Cancer

OVARIAN CANCER that spreads to the lining of the abdominal cavity, called the peritoneum, is difficult to treat. Patients with this advanced cancer typically undergo debulking, also called cytoreductive surgery, a lengthy procedure in which surgeons aim to remove all cancer from the abdominal cavity and affected organs, including the ovaries and fallopian tubes as well as the bladder, colon and other parts of the gastrointestinal tract. In recent years, researchers have looked at the efficacy of using hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), which is heated chemotherapy delivered directly to the peritoneum, to destroy remaining cancer cells immediately after debulking surgery.

Scientists in Belgium and the Netherlands published long-term data from OVHIPEC-1, a randomized phase III trial to evaluate adding HIPEC to interval cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer, in the October 2023 Lancet Oncology. (In interval surgery, chemotherapy is given to shrink the cancer prior to surgery.) The study enrolled 245 women with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer whose cancer showed no signs of progression after upfront chemotherapy. Researchers randomly assigned women to have debulking surgery alone, or surgery plus HIPEC using the chemotherapy drug cisplatin. After 10 years, median overall survival for the surgery-plus-HIPEC group was 44.9 months versus 33.3 months for the surgery group. Median progression-free survival was 14.3 months and 10.7 months, respectively. The rates of adverse events were similar—25% with surgery alone versus 27% with surgery plus HIPEC—and the most common events were abdominal pain, infection and slowed bowel function.

These results are in line with the researchers’ five-year analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2018. In that analysis, 6.6% of patients in the surgery group had survived without progression at five years, compared with 12.3% in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group. At 10 years, 6.6% of the people who received surgery were alive with no progression versus 10.1% in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group. While surgery plus HIPEC did not result in better cure rates, the authors note that it significantly prolonged the time cancer was controlled. “The most important finding is that the benefit for patients with stage III ovarian carcinoma when interval cytoreductive surgery is combined with HIPEC remains present after a 10-year follow up,” says Willemien van Driel, lead author and a gynecologic oncologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, who notes that patients in both arms of the study received similar treatment after subsequent recurrences.

Van Driel says that there is still variation in the use of HIPEC along with cytoreductive surgery. European guidelines published in October 2023 note that HIPEC with cytoreductive surgery should not be considered a standard of care. In the U.S., National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that HIPEC can be considered for patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer.

Van Driel and her colleagues are now enrolling patients in the OVHIPEC-2 trial, which will study the effect of adding HIPEC in women with stage III ovarian cancer undergoing primary surgery, which is surgery done upfront prior to chemotherapy. Other trials are evaluating HIPEC use for recurrent ovarian cancer. She notes there are several unanswered questions, including optimal dosing and temperature for HIPEC and the impact of including other drugs, such as PARP inhibitors, with this approach, since many of these drugs were not standard of care at the time of the trial.

HIPEC may be a valid choice for patients who are generally healthy and open to a longer procedure and hospital stay. Although the length of surgery plus HIPEC varies, HIPEC generally adds 90 minutes or more to debulking surgery, which itself takes several hours. Also, patients typically require a longer hospital stay for recovery, possibly with intravenous or tube feedings while the digestive system recovers. 

Find more :

A Different Chemotherapy Approach for Ovarian Cancer

How to Find the Right Oncologist for You

After a cancer diagnosis, it’s one of the most important decisions you’ll make.

After a career as a golf professional in southeastern New Mexico, Doug Lyle, 76, decided he had somewhere better to be than on the course: spending time with his new grandchild. Then this summer, just as he was settling into retirement, he learned he had prostate cancer.

“When you’re first diagnosed, you immediately go to the internet, and you can be overwhelmed in short order,” he said. “The more you read about it, the more complicated it gets.”

One of the first and most important choices he had to make was who his oncologist would be. Many of the two million patients diagnosed with cancer in the United States each year get the news from a primary care doctor. Those patients might accept a referral to an oncologist without question. But research suggests that it’s worth considering the choice closely: It can shape the care you receive, your satisfaction with the treatment and your chances of survival.

Not everyone has a choice of oncologists. There are fewer providers in rural areas, and patients must travel farther to reach them. Insurers may only cover certain clinicians and hospitals. And patients from certain populations have less access to oncologists for a range of reasons, which may affect the care they receive. For example, research suggests that Black and Hispanic women with breast cancer are more likely than white women to experience delays in starting radiotherapy. And Black men with prostate cancer are less likely than white men to receive treatment that’s intended to cure their condition, even when they’re at similar stages of disease.

No matter your circumstances, you should feel empowered to have a say in who treats your cancer.

Ideally, experts said, you’d be able to easily compare doctors’ levels of experience and the outcomes of patients they’ve treated with your same diagnosis. But such apples-to-apples comparisons are not always easy to make. But “right now, there are no publicly available data to help a patient with cancer say, ‘Oh, this is where I want to go,’” said Dr. Nancy Keating, a physician and professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School. (And even if there were, apples-to-apples comparisons are not always easy to make, since patient populations vary from one doctor to the next).

Still, there are some accreditations to look for. The National Cancer Institute has given a special designation to 72 cancer centers, which must show they treat patients in accordance with the latest evidence and also conduct research into new therapies. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer has accredited over 1,500 programs that meet certain standards. And the American Society of Clinical Oncology has several certification programs, including a list of 300 practices recognized for their quality and safety.

There are resources to help you search for oncologists, too, including a U.S. News & World Report directory that lets you sort by location, patient reviews and accepted forms of insurance. The consumer research firm Castle Connolly also has a database of doctors who are nominated by their peers and then evaluated for their qualifications, interpersonal skills and more.

Look for an oncologist who frequently treats patients with diagnoses similar to yours. Research has long shown that when doctors perform certain procedures more often, their patients have better outcomes. One study found that patients of surgeons who removed more than 25 lung cancers a year spent less time in the hospital, had a lower risk of infection and were more likely to survive three years without recurrence of disease.

Dr. Timothy Pawlik, the chair of the surgery department at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, said he only treats a handful of cancers. “You want someone with depth, not breadth,” Dr. Pawlik said. That way, he explained, “the patient may have a rare cancer, but it’s not rare to that doctor.”

Additionally, everyone else on the care team including the anesthesiologists and nurses, will also be familiar with your particular cancer and treatment.

Your primary care provider may be able to find someone specializing in your diagnosis. Some physicians’ websites will identify sub-specialties, and you can also ask for guidance from patient advocacy groups focused on your type of cancer. When you reach out to a doctor, don’t be shy about asking how many patients with similar cancers they treat per year.

Mr. Lyle hesitated to get a second opinion for fear of offending the first doctor he’d seen. But he ultimately chose to do so, a step many experts recommend. “Medicine is an art, and there are sometimes differences of opinion,” said Karen Knudsen, the chief executive of the American Cancer Society. Weighing those differences can help you make a more informed choice.

If a second physician agrees with your original treatment plan, it can give you more confidence in the approach. Research suggests a second opinion can also lead to clinically meaningful changes in treatment. One 2023 study of 120 cancer patients found that a for a third of patients, a second opinion led to treatment changes that yielded better outcomes. Many had received evidence-based care from their first doctor but decided after a second opinion to scale back treatments that might have been unnecessary and had harmful side effects.

Mr. Lyle said that during his first conversation with a physician, he didn’t know enough to ask the right questions about his diagnosis and newer treatment options. “The fine points, you’re not aware of yet. So you almost need a rehearsal,” he said. (For help with what to ask during an appointment, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network has detailed information about care for many cancers.)

When it is clinically appropriate, some cancer centers now offer second opinions through telehealth. You can call to see if it’s possible to submit your medical records and get a remote consultation.

Find more:

What to Know About the HPV Vaccine and Cancer Prevention

New research shows many eligible people are not getting the shots.

Nearly 20 years after the first vaccine against human papillomavirus became available, many eligible Americans still are not getting the shot — even though it provides powerful protection against the leading cause of cervical cancer and a strong risk factor for anal cancer.
HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States, and while most infections are asymptomatic and clear up on their own within two years, a small number persist and can cause cancer. HPV causes nearly all cases of cervical cancer, and can also lead to penile, anal, oral, vulvar and vaginal cancers.

The HPV vaccine, delivered as two or three doses, can significantly cut the risk of infection. It “is really one of the most effective vaccines we have,” said Dr. Lauri Markowitz, the HPV team lead in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division of viral diseases. But uptake remains stubbornly low: A report released by the C.D.C. this month showed that in 2022, only 38.6 percent of children ages 9 to 17 had received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine. Other new research suggests that HPV vaccination rates stalled in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

A study published this week laid out some of the primary reasons cited by parents in the United States who don’t plan to vaccinate their children against HPV, including safety concerns, a lack of knowledge about the vaccine and a belief that it isn’t necessary.
“We are still facing an uphill battle from what I would call inappropriate messaging or incomplete messaging when the vaccine rolled out about why this is so important,” said Karen Knudsen, chief executive of the American Cancer Society.

The HPV vaccine fools the body into thinking it has come into contact with the virus, marshaling antibodies in defense. Those antibodies can help clear the virus and prevent infection if someone is later exposed, which can happen through oral, anal and vaginal sex.

The vaccine offers protection from the types most likely to cause cervical and anal cancers and genital warts. Since the vaccine was introduced in 2006, infections with the types of HPV that cause most HPV-related cancers and genital warts have fallen by 88 percent among teen girls and by 81 percent among young adult women, according to the C.D.C.
One reason doctors are so enthusiastic about the vaccine is that it is one of very few tools to combat HPV: Condoms do not entirely prevent transmission, and there is no treatment for the virus itself. Researchers believe HPV is responsible for more than 90 percent of cervical and anal cancers and a majority of vaginal, vulvar, and penile cancers.

Children can be vaccinated starting at age nine. The C.D.C. recommends the vaccine for all preteens from the age of 11 or 12 and anyone up to age 26. It’s most effective before people are exposed to the virus, and “the assumption is that most people have started having sexual intercourse by age 26,” said Dr. Ban Mishu Allos, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

The vaccine may still provide some benefit for people over age 26, and is approved up until age 45. The C.D.C. says that people between the ages of 27 and 45 might get the vaccine after talking to their doctors about their risk for new HPV infections.

You can ask your primary care doctor or local health centers for the vaccine. Most insurance plans fully cover it through age 26. Children and adolescents who are uninsured or underinsured can get the shots for free through the Vaccines for Children program. After age 26, insurance may not fully cover the shot, which can cost hundreds of dollars per dose. Merck, which makes the HPV vaccine Gardasil 9, has a patient assistance program for eligible people.

Researchers believe much of the hesitation stems from a key misunderstanding: “More people perceive it as a sexually transmitted infection prevention vaccine, as opposed to a cancer prevention vaccine,” said Kalyani Sonawane, an associate professor of public health sciences at the M.U.S.C. Hollings Cancer Center and an author of the new paper on parental attitudes toward HPV vaccination.

Dr. Sonawane’s research has also found that many parents are concerned about side effects. But doctors say many people do not experience side effects, and for those that do, the issues are generally mild and can include arm soreness, nausea, dizziness or, in some cases, fainting.

Doctors urge parents to vaccinate their children before they’re likely to become sexually active, which gives some parents pause, said Dr. Monica Woll Rosen, an obstetrician-gynecologist at the University of Michigan Medical School.

“You’re doing something to prevent them from getting cancer in 30 years,” she said, “and the disconnect might be too large for some people to really wrap their heads around.”

 

Find more : https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/well/live/hpv-vaccine-cancer.html

Telehealth Palliative Care Provides the Same Benefits as In-person Care

A recent study found that video-based telehealth palliative care produced results similar to in-person palliative care for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and their caregivers. The study, presented at the 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting in June, found that quality-of-life scores were virtually the same for telehealth and in-person palliative care.

Barriers Impacting Access to Palliative Care

According to Lindsey Ulin, a palliative care fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was not involved in the study, palliative care is focused on providing supportive care to people living with cancer and other serious illnesses. Palliative care physicians help manage symptoms and side effects like pain, fatigue and nausea.

According to a 2019 analysis in Quality of Life Research, patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and family members or friends who care for them often face physical, emotional and financial challenges that may impact their mental health and overall quality of life. And a 2024 article in American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book argued that early integration of palliative care alongside cancer treatment can improve patients’ quality of life.

However, both Greer and Ulin say many barriers limit access to this care for advanced-stage patients and their caregivers. Common roadblocks include hospitals and clinics not offering palliative care, the misconception that palliative care is only for people at the end of life, transportation issues and the cost of care.

“The hope is that telehealth palliative care reduces these burdens for the patient and the caregiver,” Greer says.

Telehealth Palliative Care Study Shows Promising Results

Greer’s study involved 1,250 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and their caregivers. His research team randomly assigned participants to telehealth or in-person early palliative care across 22 cancer centers in the United States.

Participants attended palliative care appointments every four weeks throughout their cancer treatment. At the week 24 assessments, quality-of-life scores were similar for telehealth (99.67) and in-person palliative care (97.67) based on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L).

Researchers found there wasn’t a significant difference in patient-reported symptoms, such as anxiety and depression, between the groups. “These are fairly standard measures when looking at the effects of palliative care,” Greer says. “We look at these because we’ve found that palliative care clinicians can help patients improve their quality of life, as well as their symptoms of anxiety.”

One difference that study data revealed was less caregiver involvement (36.6%) in virtual palliative care than in-person care (49.7%). “We had hypothesized that, given how convenient telehealth is, it would be easier for caregivers to participate,” Greer says. “We realized that telehealth gives patients more autonomy to decide when to have a caregiver present. But with in-person care, the patient often needs a loved one to help them get to the clinic.”

“In palliative care, we think about the person living with cancer and their caregiver together as a unit,” Ulin says. “Palliative care is an extra layer of support, helping caregivers cope, communicate with other providers, understand a cancer diagnosis and treatment options, and provide resources.”

See more
https://www.cancertodaymag.org/cancer-talk/telehealth-palliative-care-provides-the-same-benefits-as-in-person-care/

Ending financial discrimination for cancer survivors: embedding the Right to be Forgotten in legislation across Europe

A new study published today in The Lancet Oncology highlights that many of the current 20 million cancer survivors across Europe are being discriminated against in accessing financial services, including loans, mortgages, health and travel insurance.

The work indicated that on average, up to 25% of those living beyond their cancer may be having more difficulty accessing appropriate financial services.

A European-wide effort is currently attempting to fight this discrimination, by supporting the introduction of legislation that will permit successfully treated cancer patients to not declare a previously diagnosed cancer, so that their diagnosis is essentially “forgotten”.
In January 2016, France became the first country in the world to introduce the “Right To Be Forgotten”, specifying that long-term cancer survivors do not have to share medical information with a financial institution about their cancer diagnosis after a delay of five years without recurrence. Seven other European countries have since taken similar legal measures to counter financial discrimination against cancer survivors. Other European Member States have chosen to implement self-regulatory codes of conduct (Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg), but these are not legally binding.

With over eight years of experience, evidence from France indicates no significant negative impact on insurance companies operating in the French jurisdiction.

Those who are living beyond their disease should not be penalised for a previous cancer diagnosis. Cancer patients across Europe who have been successfully treated should, by law, be able to avoid disclosing a previous diagnosis of cancer, so that they can access the financial services that they need.

Professor Lawler added: “This is not about compassion; this is about evidence and acting on that evidence. When a cancer professional says that you are cured and international benchmarking agrees, then why do the financial institutions say that you are not? Don’t make cancer patients pay twice. Ensure the Right To Be Forgotten is enshrined in law throughout Europe.”

Read the full study here: https://lnkd.in/e_PZHn_j