Preferences for the organization of long-term follow-up in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors.

PURPOSE As survival rates of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients increase, a growing number of AYA cancer survivors need follow-up care. However, there is little research on their preferences for follow-up care. We aimed to (1) describe AYA cancer survivors' preferences for the organization and content of follow-up care, (2) describe their preferences for different models of follow-up, and (3) investigate clinical and sociodemographic characteristics associated with preferences for the different models. METHODS AYA cancer survivors (diagnosed with cancer at age 16-25 years; ≥5 years after diagnosis) were identified through the Cancer Registry Zurich and Zug. Survivors completed a questionnaire on follow-up attendance, preferences for organizational aspects of follow-up care (what is important during follow-up, what should be included during appointments, what specialists should be involved, location), models of follow-up (telephone/questionnaire, general practitioner (GP), pediatric oncologist, medical oncologist, multidisciplinary team), and sociodemographic characteristics. Information on tumor and treatment was available through the Cancer Registry Zurich and Zug. RESULTS Of 389 contacted survivors, 160 (41.1 %) participated and 92 (57.5 %) reported still attending follow-up. Medical aspects of follow-up care were more important than general aspects (p < 0.001). Among different organizational models, follow-up by a medical oncologist was rated higher than all other models (p = 0.002). Non-attenders of follow-up rated GP-led follow-up significantly higher than attenders (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION Swiss AYA cancer survivors valued medical content of follow-up and showed a preference for medical oncologist-led follow-up. Implementation of different models of follow-up care might improve accessibility and attendance among AYA cancer survivors.

Improving Communication in Adolescent Cancer Care: A Multiperspective Study.

BACKGROUND Professionals treating adolescents with cancer must communicate well with them and their parents. Evidence suggests that the communication needs of this population are rarely met. Skills training can improve professional communication, but has been criticized for not being based on the experience of the participants in the clinical encounter. We took a multiperspective approach, drawing on perspectives of former adolescents with cancer, patients' parents, physicians, and nurses with the aim to provide suggestions for improvement in communication in adolescent cancer care. METHODS Adolescent cancer survivors (n = 16), parents (n = 8), pediatric oncologists (n = 12), and pediatric oncology nurses (n = 18) participated in 11 focus groups. They discussed their experiences communicating with each other. Transcripts were analyzed by thematic analysis. RESULTS We identified themes within the following sections: (1) The framework in which professionals communicate with adolescents with cancer (regression in a time of detachment, adolescents' perception and knowledge of illness, cognitive versus legal maturity, "lost in transition" between pediatric and adult oncology); (2) communication difficulties between professionals and patients and parents (professionals and patients/parents identified the other party as the source of difficulties), and (3) effective professional communication (there was some overlap on how doctors and nurses should communicate, along with substantially different expectations for the two professions). CONCLUSIONS The framework within which professionals communicate, the different perspectives on the factors that make communication difficult, and the different expectations regarding good communication by doctors and nurses should be considered when communication skills training courses are developed for professionals who work in adolescent oncology.

Nonlesions, misdiagnoses, missed diagnoses, and other interpretive challenges in fish histopathology studies: a guide for investigators, authors, reviewers, and readers.

Differentiating salient histopathologic changes from normal anatomic features or tissue artifacts can be decidedly challenging, especially for the novice fish pathologist. As a consequence, findings of questionable accuracy may be reported inadvertently, and the potential negative impacts of publishing inaccurate histopathologic interpretations are not always fully appreciated. The objectives of this article are to illustrate a number of specific morphologic findings in commonly examined fish tissues (e.g., gills, liver, kidney, and gonads) that are frequently either misdiagnosed or underdiagnosed, and to address related issues involving the interpretation of histopathologic data. To enhance the utility of this article as a guide, photomicrographs of normal and abnormal specimens are presented. General recommendations for generating and publishing results from histopathology studies are additionally provided. It is hoped that the furnished information will be a useful resource for manuscript generation, by helping authors, reviewers, and readers to critically assess fish histopathologic data.