Search

Background Development of this guideline was undertaken by the Exercise for People with Cancer Guideline Development Group, a group organized by Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care (PEBC). The purpose of the guideline was to provide guidance for clinicians with respect to exercise for patients living with cancer, focusing on the benefits of specific types of exercise, recommendations about screening requirements for new referrals, and safety concerns. Methods Consistent with the pebc's standardized approach, a systematic search was conducted for existing guidelines, and systematic literature searches were performed in medline and embase for both systematic reviews and primary literature. Content and methodology experts performed an internal review, which was followed by an external review by targeted experts and intended users. Results The search identified three guidelines, eighteen systematic reviews, and twenty-nine randomized controlled trials with relevance to the topic. The present guideline provides recommendations for the duration, frequency, and intensity of exercise appropriate for people living with cancer. It also provides recommendations for pre-exercise assessment, safety concerns, and delivery models. Conclusions There is sufficient evidence to show that exercise provides benefits in quality of life and muscular and aerobic fitness for people with cancer both during and after treatment, and that it does not cause harm. The present guideline is intended to support the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology's Canadian physical activity guidelines. The recommendations are intended for clinicians and institutions treating cancer patients in Ontario, and for policymakers and program planners involved in the delivery of exercise programs for cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding how hostility may affect health risk is predicated on articulating its core physiological, psychological and social features. Barefoot [Barefoot, J.C. (1992). Developments in the measurement of hostility. In: Friedman, H.S. (Ed.), Hostility, Coping and Health, pp. 13-31. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C] emphasized the importance of cognitive, affective and behavioural components. The present study examined whether hostile people differ from non-hostile people on measures of emotional verbal behaviour. Forty participants were interviewed about an anger-eliciting experience. Interviews were transcribed and evaluated for the use of emotional language using the Dictionary of Affect in Language [Whissell, C.M. (1989). The dictionary of affect in language. In: Plutchik, R. and Kellerman, H. (Eds.), The Measurement of Emotions. Emotion: Theory, Research and Experience. Vol. 4. Academic, San Diego]. Independent judges read the transcripts and rated the amount of anger experienced by the participants. Participants' use of activation and evaluation words, subjective reports of anger and judges' ratings of their anger were examined as a function of gender, social desirability and hostility subcomponents: cynicism, hostile attributions, aggressive responding and hostile affect. Cognitive/attitudinal components were related to the use of more positive language in the anger interview, while behavioural and affective components were related to judged anger. The findings suggest that there are complex differences in emotional communication associated with hostility components. While supporting transactional models, they underscore the multidimensional nature of the affective repertoires associated with hostility. The findings suggest that further study of emotional behaviour associated with hostility components would be fruitful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To provide recommendations for a surveillance regimen that leads to the largest overall survival benefit for patients after curative treatment for Stage I-IV colon and rectal cancer., Methods: Consistent with the Program in Evidence-Based Care's standard approach, guideline databases, i.e., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and PROSPERO, were systematically searched. Then, we drafted recommendations and methodology experts performed an internal review of the resulting draft recommendations, which was followed by an external review by targeted experts and intended users., Results: Four systematic reviews and two randomized controlled trials were identified that provided evidence for recommendations., Conclusions: For patients with stage I-III colon cancer, a medical history and physical examination should be performed every six months for three years; computed tomography (CT) of the chest-abdomen-pelvis (CT CAP) should be performed at one and three years, or one CT CAP could be performed at 18 months; the use of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is optional if CT imaging is being performed; and surveillance colonoscopy should be performed one year after the initial surgery. The frequency of subsequent surveillance colonoscopy should be dictated by previous findings, but generally, colonoscopies should be performed every five years if the findings are normal. There was insufficient evidence to support these recommendations for patients with rectal cancer, Stage IV colon cancer, and patients over the age of 75 years. Patients should be informed of current recommendations and the treating physician should discuss the specific risks and benefits of each recommendation with their patients.

Objective: To provide recommendations for preferred models of follow-up care for stage I-IV colorectal (CRC) cancer survivors in Ontario; to identify signs and symptoms of potential recurrence and when to investigate; and to evaluate patient information and support needs during the post-treatment survivorship period., Methods: Consistent with the Program in Evidence-Based Medicine's standardized approach, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and PROSPERO databases were systematically searched. The authors drafted recommendations and revised them based on the comments from internal and external reviewers., Results: Four guidelines, three systematic reviews, three randomized controlled trials, and three cohort studies provided evidence to develop recommendations., Conclusions: Colorectal cancer follow-up care is complex and requires multidisciplinary, coordinated care delivered by the cancer specialist, primary care provider, and allied health professionals. While there is limited evidence to support a shared care model for follow-up, this approach is deemed to be best suited to meet patient needs; however, the roles and responsibilities of care providers need to be clearly defined, and patients need to know when and how to contact them. Although there is insufficient evidence to recommend any individual or combination of signs or symptoms as strong predictor(s) of recurrence, patients should be educated about these and know which care provider to contact if they develop any new or concerning symptoms. Psychosocial support and empathetic, effective, and coordinated communication are most valued by patients for their post-treatment follow-up care. Continuing professional education should emphasize the importance of communication skills and coordination of communication between the patient, family, and healthcare providers.

Objectives: To evaluate the evidence concerning gFOBT kits and to develop gFOBT standards to be implemented by the Ontario Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening Program (the "Program")., Design and Methods: We evaluated 3 aspects of gFOBT kits: 1) performance factors; 2) usability factors; and 3) laboratory factors. We obtained information from the published literature, other countries that use gFOBT, the internet, and gFOBT kit manufacturers' instructions., Results: The Program should use a single brand of gFOBT kit with sensitivity > or =40% and specificity > or =95% for the detection of CRC in repeated testing. The Program should regularly monitor gFOBT performance. Participants should not restrict their diets except for eliminating vitamin C supplements and citrus fruits and juices for 3 days prior to and during stool collection; participants should not discontinue taking aspirin (ASA) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The Program should use one or a limited number of labs; leak-proof envelopes should be used that protect samples during mailing; the lab should delay processing fecal samples for at least 48 h following stool collection; the lab should implement staff training and quality control protocols., Conclusions: The Program should monitor and report on its performance according to these standards, and should continually assess new evidence related to CRC screening methods.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cause of non-tobacco-related cancer deaths in Canadian men and women, accounting for 10% of all cancer deaths. An estimated 7800 men and women will be diagnosed with CRC, and 3250 will die from the disease in Ontario in 2007. Given that CRC incidence and mortality rates in Ontario are among the highest in the world, the best opportunity to reduce this burden of disease would be through screening. The present report describes the findings and recommendations of Cancer Care Ontario's Colonoscopy Standards Expert Panel, which was convened in March 2006 by the Program in Evidence-Based Care. The recommendations will form the basis of the quality assurance program for colonoscopy delivered in support of Ontario's CRC screening program.

Background: A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the literature regarding the impact of follow-up on colorectal cancer patient survival and, in a second phase, recommendations were developed., Methods: The MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, and Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts published in the 1997 to 2002 proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were systematically searched for evidence. Study selection was limited to randomized trials and meta-analyses that examined different programs of follow-up after curative resection of colorectal cancer where five-year overall survival was reported. External review by Ontario practitioners was obtained through a mailed survey. Final approval of the practice guideline report was obtained from the Practice Guidelines Coordinating Committee., Results: Six randomized trials and two published meta-analyses of follow-up were obtained. Of six randomized trials comparing one follow-up program to a more intense program, only two individual trials detected a statistically significant survival benefit favouring the more intense follow-up program. Pooling of all six randomized trials demonstrated a significant improvement in survival favouring more intense follow-up (Relative Risk Ratio 0.80 (95%CI, 0.70 to 0.91; p = 0.0008). Although the rate of recurrence was similar in both of the follow-up groups compared, asymptomatic recurrences and re-operations for cure of recurrences were more common in patients with more intensive follow-up. Trials including CEA monitoring and liver imaging also had significant results, whereas trials not including these tests did not., Conclusion: Follow-up programs for patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer do improve survival. These follow-up programs include frequent visits and performance of blood CEA, chest x-rays, liver imaging and colonoscopy, however, it is not clear which tests or frequency of visits is optimal. There is a suggestion that improved survival is due to diagnosis of recurrence at an earlier, asymptomatic stage which allows for more curative resection of recurrence. Based on this evidence and consideration of the biology of colorectal cancer and present practices, a guideline was developed. Patients should be made aware of the risk of disease recurrence or second bowel cancer, the potential benefits of follow-up and the uncertainties requiring further clinical trials. For patients at high-risk of recurrence (stages IIb and III) clinical assessment is recommended when symptoms occur or at least every 6 months the first 3 years and yearly for at least 5 years. At the time of those visits, patients may have blood CEA, chest x-ray and liver imaging. For patients at lower risk of recurrence (stages I and Ia) or those with co-morbidities impairing future surgery, only visits yearly or when symptoms occur. All patients should have a colonoscopy before or within 6 months of initial surgery, and repeated yearly if villous or tubular adenomas >1 cm are found; otherwise repeat every 3 to 5 years. All patients having recurrences should be assessed by a multidisciplinary team in a cancer centre.

Hemodynamic responses to an anger interview and cognitive and physical stressors were compared, and the stability of associated hemodynamic reactions examined. Participants experienced control, handgrip, counting, and mental arithmetic tests and an anger interview on two occasions. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, stroke volume, and cardiac output were measured. Total peripheral resistance was also derived. The anger interview produced larger, more sustained changes in blood pressure in both sessions than the other stressors. These changes were largely a consequence of increased peripheral resistance. Consistent with previous findings, handgrip was associated with a resistance-type reaction whereas arithmetic was associated with a cardiac output-type reaction. There was low-to-modest stability of hemodynamic reactions to the interview. Further research is necessary to optimize its utility in studies of cardiovascular function. Nevertheless, the findings underscore the ability of ecologically relevant stressors to provoke unique configurations of cardiovascular activity.

Studies of emotion have provided occasional support for physiological differentiation of affective states; however, the evidence has been inconsistent. The aims of the present study were to investigate cardiovascular changes associated with relived experiences of happiness, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust and to examine the utility of methods designed to optimize the induction of emotional responses. Thirty-four undergraduates who scored 0.5 sd above the mean on Larsen and Diener's Affect Intensity Measure described their most intense experiences of five emotions. These descriptions were then used to induce those emotions while blood pressure and other hemodynamic measures were monitored. Systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and stroke volume differentiated among emotions. The results support the suggestion that cardiovascular activity differentiates emotional states and provide some insight into the physiological adjustments subserving such effects. The study demonstrates a method that may be applied to studies of discrete emotions.