Lung cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Although radiotherapy (RT) may be beneficial in the radical and/or palliative management of many lung cancer patients, it is underutilized worldwide. Population-level development of RT resources requires estimates of optimal radiotherapy utilization rates (ORUR) and actual radiotherapy utilization rate (ARUR). A systematic review of PubMed database for English-language articles from January 2009 to January 2019 was performed. Keywords included utilization, underutilization, demand, epidemiologic, benchmark, RT and cancer. Data abstracted included: study population, diagnosis, stage, year of diagnosis, timing of RT, intent of RT, ARUR, and ORUR. Eligible studies provided ARUR or ORUR for lung cancer, small cell lung cancer (SCLC), or nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Included ARUR were based on at least 1,000 patients who were diagnosed or treated in 2009 or later. Included ORUR were based on evidence review or ARUR in 2009 or later. The initial search strategy yielded 1,627 unique abstracts. After review, 105 articles were determined appropriate for full-text review. From these, a final set of 21 articles met all inclusion criteria. In eight papers, ORUR was estimated. Estimated lifetime ORUR ranged from 61% to 82%. Methods for estimation included the evidence-based guideline model, Malthus model, and criterion-based benchmarking (CBB) model. The majority of estimates (6/8) used the evidence-based guideline model. Fifteen papers provided ARUR on lung cancer, inclusive of SCLC and NSCLC. ARUR within 9 months to 1 year of diagnosis ranged from 39% to 46%. Lifetime ARUR was an estimated 52% in Ontario, Canada. Palliative intent ARUR ranged from 12% in Central Poland to 46% in Ontario, Canada. RT is underutilized for lung cancer globally, and there is wide geographical variation in the level of underutilization.

Background Valid and reliable diagnostic criteria are essential in forensic psychiatry and sexual medicine due to the severe implications of potential misdiagnoses. One challenge in this field is the poor operationalization of sexual sadism disorder (SSD) and coercive paraphilic disorder (CP+) definitions. Aim The aim of this scoping literature review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the key conceptual differences between SSD and CP+, as well as consider pragmatic and clinically useful approaches to their diagnostic formulation. Methods Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework was followed. A literature search of Medline, PsychInfo, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature electronic databases was conducted. Publications in English describing the construct and/or operational definition of SSD or CP+ were included. Full-text studies were reviewed by 2 authors and data was charted and synthesized qualitatively. Results The initial search provided 1,271 records, after which 120 full-text papers were considered for eligibility and 48 studies were ultimately included. The most common sources of definitions for SSD and CP+ were the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (n = 53) and the International Classification of Disease (n = 12). There was more variation of terms used for CP+ than SSD. Both CP+ and SSD are critiqued by reviewed literature for having low validity, reliability, and consistency, as well as being conflated with sexual crime. SSD is better described due to having diagnostic criteria and validated diagnostic tools. Clinical Implications Currently, clinicians rely mostly on the DSM to diagnose SSD or CP+. As applications of SSD and CP+ definitions vary, interpretations may not be generalizable between clinicians. Furthermore, specific diagnoses may be practically unhelpful and unreliable. It may therefore be beneficial for treatment to be determined by risk of harm. In addition to these concerns, the stigma associated with SSD and CP+ may also impact treatment. Strengths & Limitations Strengths of this study include duplicate review and charting to increase methodological rigor, transparent reporting to minimize publication bias, and encompassing a comprehensive scope. Limitations include the weaknesses of low strength of reviewed literature and risk of publication bias. Conclusion Despite their significant implications, the definitions of SSD and CP+ are inconsistent and lack reliability. Future research is necessary to develop stronger diagnostic criteria and tools.

12034 Background: In a growing number of jurisdictions, oncology patients may choose euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (EPAS). A 2016 systematic review reported that 75% of U.S. and over 70% of Dutch and Belgian EPAS cases involved oncology patients. In the Netherlands and Belgium, the percentage of deaths among oncology patients via EPAS has been increasing. We investigated the incidence and risk factors for EPAS and EPAS requests in oncology patients. Methods: A systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for articles from January 2000 to April 2020. Search terms were related to suicide, euthanasia, assisted dying, assisted death, right to die, mercy killing, and cancer. Eligible studies reported incidence and/or risk factors for EPAS/EPAS request based on at least 50 oncology patients. Eligibility for inclusion was independently reviewed by two authors, with discrepancies adjudicated by a third. Data obtained included: study type, country, cancer diagnosis, number of eligible patients, inclusion criteria, follow-up length, incidence of EPAS or EPAS request, and odds ratios (OR) for risk factors for EPAS and EPAS request. ORs and p values were extracted from studies whenever possible and were otherwise calculated based on the data provided using chi-squared test. Results: The search strategy identified 6519 results. 25 abstracts were selected for full-text review and 10 studies were included for analysis. All studies reported incidence of EPAS/EPAS request and 6 studies reported risk factors for EPAS/EPAS request. Six studies were from the Netherlands, 3 from Belgium, and 1 from Canada. Inclusion period for studies spanned from 1996 to 2018. Half of the included studies were prospectively conducted. Incidence of EPAS in cancer patients ranged from 7% to 15% and EPAS requests ranged from 8% to 27%. Factors significantly associated (p<0.05) with EPAS or EPAS request in any study are shown in the Table. Conclusions: Up to 15% of oncology patients choose euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. Potentially modifiable symptoms including severe nausea, vomiting, and pain are significantly associated with EPAS in oncology patients.[Table: see text]

No abstract