BETA.HEALTH® – An innovation platform sponsored by the Novo Nordisk Foundation’s Post

NHS services are handling a growing number of referrals for suspected cancer, yet the number of confirmed cases are not rising in line with the level of increased diagnostics. This suggests: 😓- Increased public concern about cancer is driving more people to get tested. 🧪- Screening programmes are being utilised 🏥- The Faster Diagnosis Standard - FDS, (requiring diagnosis or exclusion of cancer within 28 days), is being heavily utilised. As referrals rise, whilst good for patient diagnosis and catching cancer earlier, the NHS must expand capacity or apply new innovative solutions to meet demand. Without this, the FDS target - currently achieving 76% of patients diagnosed within 28 days (against a 75% target) may be at risk. Plus, the target is increasing to 80% by 2025/26. How can the NHS close the 4% gap within the next year? Anthony Cunliffe has written a nice article on Direct Access to diagnostics for non-specific cancer symptoms, which I think could help. We have seen this approach reduce referral-to-treatment times by 63%, for breathlessness symptoms, by integrating diagnostics early in the patient journey. Streamlining this process means fewer patient visits, faster treatment, and more efficient use of resources. Additionally, tools like Bleepa (Feedback Medical) can improve efficiency by pulling diagnostics and tagging clinicians to enable virtual, asynchronous MDTs. This elicits faster clinical decision making and reduce the need for follow-up appointments. With the majority of Community Diagnostic Centres (CDCs) now operational, there’s a significant opportunity to improve patient pathways and outcomes. There will always be concerns that GP Direct Access will open the flood gates for tests. But, roughly 90% of all hospital referrals need some form of diagnostic to make a clinical decision - therefore, why not open the gate? Would love to get opinions from the great minds of Vijay K. Luthra, Hassan Chaudhury HonFAPM, Sam Shah, Clive Flashman 💙 and Liam Cahill as to whether you think GP Direct Access can/should be opened up...?🙏

📃Scientific paper: Prevalence and Outcomes of COVID-19 among Hematology/Oncology Patients and Providers of a Community-Facing Health System during the B1.1.529 (“Omicron”) SARS-CoV-2 Variant Wave Abstract: SIMPLE SUMMARY: The COVID-19 pandemic continues, and cancer patients are at high risk for both contracting as well as dying from the infection. There is not as much data known about newer COVID-19 variants such as Omicron compared to earlier waves for patients with cancer. In this study, we retrospectively evaluated how COVID-19 positivity affected both patients and their providers in our community-facing cancer clinic. We found that 33.3% compared to 8.7% of cancer providers versus patients, respectively, tested positive for COVID-19 from December 2021 through April 2022 (p = 0.038). Furthermore, we saw that almost two-thirds of cancer patients experienced delays in receiving cancer treatments. Finally, over 10% of cancer patients (4 of 90) died during the Omicron wave. This study confirms that COVID-19 remains a formidable infection in terms of cancer patients’ treatment as well as livelihood, and continues to result in considerable health care disparities for disadvantaged populations. ABSTRACT: (1) Background: the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic continues, and patients actively receiving chemotherapy are known to be at enhanced risk for developing symptomatic disease with poorer outcomes. Our study evaluated the prevalence of COVID-19 among patients and providers of our community-facing county health system during the B1.1.529 (“Omicron”) COVID-19 variant wave. (2) Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients that received care and clinical providers whom worke... Continued on ES/IODE ➡️ https://etcse.fr/kes ------- 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.

Outcome of Cancer patients if they also had COVID: a publication from the National Covid Registry of India What this study is all about and what does it reveal? Sumnary: Study title: Insights into cancer characteristics among SARS-CoV-2 infected hospitalized patients: a comprehensive analysis from the National Clinical Registry for COVID-19 Study Design: retrospective observational study Time period: August 2020 and August 2023 Patients within the study cane from: 42 hospitals of India Inclusion criteria: Hospitalized, COVID-19 confirmed patient of any age and gender admitted to the participating sites under the National Clinical Registry For COVID-19. Total number of patients: 51,544 patients, of whom 976 were patients with cancer or 1.8% of the patients with COVID had cancer Result highlights: The findings of this study revealed that the in-hospital mortality rate among COVID-19 patients with cancer was 21.3%, with 208 out of 976 cancer patients succumbing to the illness. The in-hospital mortality among Solid and Haematological Cancer were (n = 72, 25%) & (n = 31, 21.09%) respectively. The proportion of death (in hospital mortality) was highest among solid cancer [n = 72(25%)] while lowest among no cancer group [n = 5977(11.8%)] For each cancer type, the hazard was significantly elevated compared to that of the cancer-free (Other Comorbidities and No Comorbiditiy) groups during the initial period of hospitalization The use of Remdesivir, steroids, and anticoagulants reduced mortality risk Prior COVID-19 vaccination was protective against mortality across all cancer types. The requirement of ICU or Organ Support was highest among those with solid cancer (70.4%%) The high-risk period range from 7 to 18 days depending on the type of cancer. The study highlights the need for close monitoring and personalized interventions for COVID-19 patients with cancer for at least 10 days post-hospitalization Note: In this study, the most common cancers reported in males were gastrointestinal, followed by genitourinary and lung cancers. In females, breast cancer was most common, followed by genitourinary cancers In this study, there was no discernible difference in the occurrence of thrombotic complications between patients across various groups of cancer Cancer patients exhibited higher value of d-dimer with patients having solid cancer exhibiting higher median value, a biochemical proxy indicative of thrombotic complications and disease severity. It was observed that patients with CRP levels exceeding 44.77 mg/dL were linked to an increased risk of overall mortality Source: Chatterji, S., Turuk, A., Das, P. et al. Insights into cancer characteristics among SARS-CoV-2 infected hospitalized patients: a comprehensive analysis from the National Clinical Registry for COVID-19. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 150, 500 (2024). https://lnkd.in/gY7ECewK https://lnkd.in/geXhCnWK

🚨 Blood Pressure and Cancer: A Match Made in Mortality?🚨 When we think about cancer, blood pressure often doesn’t come to mind. But it should. High blood pressure (hypertension) is more common in cancer patients than in the general population—and research has demonstrated that it's a real risk factor for both heart disease and cancer-related mortality. 🫀🎗️ Studies have shown that high blood pressure is associated with higher cancer-related mortality rates and may increase the risk of certain types of cancer. Moreover, untreated hypertension can complicate cancer treatment by raising the risk of heart failure, particularly with therapies like anthracyclines, ibrutinib, and VEGF inhibitors. This makes early detection and effective management of blood pressure in cancer patients essential. But here’s the crucial point: Hypertension isn’t just a short-term concern. It can develop during cancer treatment—or even years later. Whether it’s adjusting treatment plans, closely monitoring blood pressure or referring patients to a cardiologist, timely intervention can improve health outcomes. ⏱️👨⚕️ 💡 A large, long-term study from the Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer Project, which included over 577,000 participants across Norway, Austria, and Sweden, found that higher blood pressure levels were associated with increased cancer risk and mortality. Interestingly, the relationship between blood pressure and cancer outcomes was stronger in men compared to women. While routine blood pressure management may seem straightforward, in the context of cancer care, it is anything but. Regular monitoring and timely intervention can have a significant impact on both patients during treatment and into their survivorship journey. ✅ 🔍 When was the last time you checked the blood pressure of your cancer patients, or those with a history of cancer? References:  - Askarinejad, A., Alizadehasl, A., Jolfayi, A.G. and Adimi, S., 2023. Hypertension in Cardio-Oncology Clinic: an update on etiology, assessment, and management. Cardio-Oncology, 9(1), p.46. - Stocks, T., Van Hemelrijck, M., Manjer, J., Bjørge, T., Ulmer, H., Hallmans, G., Lindkvist, B., Selmer, R., Nagel, G., Tretli, S. and Concin, H., 2012. Blood pressure and risk of cancer incidence and mortality in the Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer Project. Hypertension, 59(4), pp.802-810. 📌 Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Individual treatment decisions should always be made in consultation with qualified healthcare professionals who can evaluate each patient's unique medical needs. Please speak with your healthcare provider for personalised advice. #CardioOncology #Hypertension #CancerCare #HeartHealth #PatientOutcomes #BloodPressure #CancerSurvivorship #OncologyCare #CardiovascularHealth #HeartFailure #CancerTreatment #OncologyNurses #HealthMonitoring #CancerSupport #Cardiology #CardioOncologyCare #LongTermHealth #PreventiveCare #oncoheart

So important to help expand the range of diagnostic tools.

Author Dr Fermin Celma. GcMAF and Multiple Myeloma. A study investigated the effects of GcMAF on human multiple myeloma cells (KMS-12-BM) and human macrophages (CRL9853). The results showed that GcMAF decreased the viability of multiple myeloma cells in a dose-dependent manner. Additionally, GcMAF activated human macrophages, which then phagocytosed (engulfed and digested) the myeloma cancer cells. This dual action—direct inhibition of cancer cell viability and activation of macrophages—suggested that GcMAF could be a promising immunotherapeutic agent.I therefore trialed this in our clinic. We have many case studies from our clinic where GcMAF is one of the therapies that we implement. 1. A case study focused on a 55-year-old male with multiple myeloma. This study highlighted the importance of innovative treatments and potential for new therapies to improve patient outcomes. The patients presented with symptoms like exertional fatigue and were diagnosed with symptomatic multiple myeloma. The study emphasized the need for comprehensive diagnostic work-ups and personalized treatment plans to manage the disease effectively. 2. 2nd case study, we examined the effects of GcMAF on a patient with multiple myeloma. The patient received GcMAF treatment, which led to a significant reduction in tumour size and an improvement in overall health. This study clearly demonstrats that the patient experienced fewer symptoms and better quality of life with GcMAF. This case highlights the potential benefits of GcMAF as part of a comprehensive treatment plan for multiple myeloma. 3. Male 36 years old, very athletic. The big issue he presented with was shortness of breath, also called dyspnea, which is a common symptom of multiple myeloma, he had a persistent cough, which also caused some bleeding. He felt he couldn't breathe, which caused the symptoms to exasperate. Following the first session of nebuliser, he coughed more for 5 minutes, the cough soon subsided, and his breathing became more normalised. With each day that passed, the coughing decreased. His oxygen levels increased. Within one week, he gained a much better quality of life. He remained in close proximity for one month to the clinic. He left with a reduction of 30% and a better outlook. We implemented nebulised gcmaf with sub-c injection at 2500ng daily in this case. Since using Gcmaf for not only multiple myeloma but other types of cancers, our results have improved. Please note that GcMAF is legal to use in all forms of administration in Mexico. Also note that GcMAF only formed part of the protocol. Our double blind studies certainly have a better outcome with all forms of Cancer than those taking the plasibo. I find Gcmaf very useful in the cases of those on the spectrum of Autism, cancer, MS, parkinsonism, HIV, HSV and dementia. We purchased gcmaf from www.dubaibioremedix.com Author Dr Fermin Celma #Drfermincelma #gcmaf #multiplemyelomaawareness #cancerawareness #dubaibioremedix

Outcome of Cancer patients if they also had COVID: a publication from the National Covid Registry of India What this study is all about & what does it reveal? Sumnary: Study title: Insights into cancer characteristics among SARS-CoV-2 infected hospitalized patients: a comprehensive analysis from the National Clinical Registry for COVID-19 Study Design: retrospective observational study Time period: August 2020 and August 2023 Patients within the study cane from: 42 hospitals of India Inclusion criteria: Hospitalized, COVID-19 confirmed patient of any age and gender admitted to the participating sites under the National Clinical Registry For COVID-19. Total number of patients: 51,544 patients, of whom 976 were patients with cancer or 1.8% of the patients with COVID had cancer Result highlights: The findings of this study revealed that the in-hospital mortality rate among COVID-19 patients with cancer was 21.3%, with 208 out of 976 cancer patients succumbing to the illness. The in-hospital mortality among Solid and Haematological Cancer were (n = 72, 25%) & (n = 31, 21.09%) respectively. The proportion of death (in hospital mortality) was highest among solid cancer [n = 72(25%)] while lowest among no cancer group [n = 5977(11.8%)] For each cancer type, the hazard was significantly elevated compared to that of the cancer-free (Other Comorbidities and No Comorbiditiy) groups during the initial period of hospitalization The use of Remdesivir, steroids, and anticoagulants reduced mortality risk Prior COVID-19 vaccination was protective against mortality across all cancer types. The requirement of ICU or Organ Support was highest among those with solid cancer (70.4%%) The high-risk period range from 7 to 18 days depending on the type of cancer. The study highlights the need for close monitoring and personalized interventions for COVID-19 patients with cancer for at least 10 days post-hospitalization Note: In this study, the most common cancers reported in males were gastrointestinal, followed by genitourinary and lung cancers. In females, breast cancer was most common, followed by genitourinary cancers In this study, there was no discernible difference in the occurrence of thrombotic complications between patients across various groups of cancer Cancer patients exhibited higher value of d-dimer with patients having solid cancer exhibiting higher median value, a biochemical proxy indicative of thrombotic complications and disease severity. It was observed that patients with CRP levels exceeding 44.77 mg/dL were linked to an increased risk of overall mortality Source: Chatterji, S., Turuk, A., Das, P. et al. Insights into cancer characteristics among SARS-CoV-2 infected hospitalized patients: a comprehensive analysis from the National Clinical Registry for COVID-19. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 150, 500 (2024). https://lnkd.in/gY7ECewK https://lnkd.in/geXhCnWK

📃Scientific paper: Is treatment in certified cancer centers related to better survival in patients with pancreatic cancer? Evidence from a large German cohort study Abstract: BACKGROUND: Treatment of cancer patients in certified cancer centers, that meet specific quality standards in term of structures and procedures of medical care, is a national treatment goal in Germany. However, convincing evidence that treatment in certified cancer centers is associated with better outcomes in patients with pancreatic cancer is still missing. METHODS: We used patient-specific information (demographic characteristics, diagnoses, treatments) from German statutory health insurance data covering the period 2009–2017 and hospital characteristics from the German Standardized Quality Reports. We investigated differences in survival between patients treated in hospitals with and without pancreatic cancer center certification by the German Cancer Society (GCS) using the Kaplan–Meier estimator and Cox regression with shared frailty. RESULTS: The final sample included 45,318 patients with pancreatic cancer treated in 1,051 hospitals (96 GCS-certified, 955 not GCS-certified). 5,426 (12.0%) of the patients were treated in GCS-certified pancreatic cancer centers. Patients treated in certified and non-certified hospitals had similar distributions of age, sex, and comorbidities. Median survival was 8.0 months in GCS-certified pancreatic cancer centers and 4.4 months in non-certified hospitals. Cox regression adjusting for multiple patient and hospital characteristics yielded a significantly lower hazard of long-term, all-cause mortality in patients treated in GCS-c... Continued on ES/IODE ➡️ https://etcse.fr/5B1 ------- 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.

New Post: A blood test for colon cancer performed well in a study, expanding options for screening – Boston Herald -By CARLA K. JOHNSON (AP Medical Writer) A blood test for colon cancer performed well in a study published Wednesday, offering a new kind of screening for a leading cause of cancer deaths. The test looks for DNA fragments shed by tumor cells and precancerous growths. It’s already for sale in the U.S. for $895,... By CARLA K. JOHNSON (AP Medical Writer) A blood test for colon cancer performed well in a study published Wednesday, offering a new kind of screening for a leading cause of cancer deaths. The test looks for DNA fragments shed by tumor cells and precancerous growths. It’s already for sale in the U.S. for $895, but has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and most insurers do not cover it. The maker of the test, Guardant Health, anticipates an FDA decision this year. In the study, the test caught 83% of the cancers but very few of the precancerous growths found by colonoscopy, the gold standard for colon cancer screening. Besides spotting tumors, colonoscopies can prevent the disease by removing precancerous growths called polyps. But some people avoid the exam because of the hassle of getting time off work or the day-ahead preparation that involves drinking a strong laxative to empty the bowels. A convenient alternative is an annual stool test, where people send a stool sample to a lab for analysis. “The best test is the one someone will actually complete,” said Dr. Douglas Corley, chief research officer for Kaiser Permanente, Northern California, who was not involved in the study. “Giving people a choice increases the number of people who will get screened.” In the U.S., screening is recommended for healthy adults ages 45 to 75 at average risk for colon cancer. Frequency depends on the test: a routine colonoscopy is every 10 years. Screening is inching up but falls well short of the 80% of age-eligible adults goal set by the American Cancer Society and other groups. Guardant recommends testing with its blood test called Shield every three years. Like a stool test, the blood test requires a follow-up colonoscopy if there’s an abnormal result, which could lead to more out-of-pocket costs. The study, sponsored by Guardant and published in the New England Journal of Medicine, involved 7,861 people in the U.S. who had both a colonoscopy and a blood test. While the blood test caught 83% of the cancers found by colonoscopy, it missed 17%. That’s on par with stool-based tests. There were also false alarms: For 10% of the people where the colonoscopy found nothing, the blood test falsely indicated they might have colon cancer. That means a sizeable number of people would face the anxiety of follow-up colonoscopies. The blood test is tuned to pick up the signature of colon cancer but more research is needed to determine if it might pick up other cancers as well and give misleading