These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent recommendations for cervical cancer screening and management of abnormal screening tests. When the NCCN Panel convened to update the NCCN Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening, they decided to adopt and endorse guidelines from other organizations to avoid duplication of effort. Therefore, in July 2013, after review and validation of consensus guidelines from the American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology, the NCCN Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening were discontinued.
Edward E. Partridge, Nadeem Abu-Rustum, Anna Giuliano, Stewart Massad, Joan McClure, Mary Dwyer and Miranda Hughes
Edward E. Partridge, Nadeem R. Abu-Rustum, Susan M. Campos, Patrick J. Fahey, Michael Farmer, Rochelle L. Garcia, Anna Giuliano, Howard W. Jones III, Subodh M. Lele, Richard W. Lieberman, Stewart L. Massad, Mark A. Morgan, R. Kevin Reynolds, Helen E. Rhodes, Diljeet K. Singh, Karen Smith-McCune, Nelson Teng, Cornelia Liu Trimble, Fidel Valea and Sharon Wilczynski
Gabrielle B. Rocque, Richard A. Taylor, Aras Acemgil, Xuelin Li, Maria Pisu, Kelly Kenzik, Bradford E. Jackson, Karina I. Halilova, Wendy Demark-Wahnefried, Karen Meneses, Yufeng Li, Michelle Y. Martin, Carol Chambless, Nedra Lisovicz, Mona Fouad, Edward E. Partridge, Elizabeth A. Kvale and the Patient Care Connect Group
Background: There is growing interest in psychosocial care and evaluating distress in patients with cancer. As of 2015, the Commission on Cancer requires cancer centers to screen patients for distress, but the optimal approach to implementation remains unclear. Methods: We assessed the feasibility and impact of using distress assessments to frame lay navigator interactions with geriatric patients with cancer who were enrolled in navigation between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014. Results: Of the 5,121 patients enrolled in our lay patient navigation program, 4,520 (88%) completed at least one assessment using a standardized distress tool (DT). Navigators used the tool to structure both formal and informal distress assessments. Of all patients, 24% reported distress scores of 4 or greater and 5.5% reported distress scores of 8 or greater. The most common sources of distress at initial assessment were pain, balance/mobility difficulties, and fatigue. Minority patients reported similar sources of distress as the overall program population, with increased relative distress related to logistical issues, such as transportation and financial/insurance questions. Patients were more likely to ask for help with questions about insurance/financial needs (79%), transportation (76%), and knowledge deficits about diet/nutrition (76%) and diagnosis (66%) when these items contributed to distress. Conclusions: Lay navigators were able to routinely screen for patient distress at a high degree of penetration using a structured distress assessment.