Cancer is a disease of aging and, as the world's population ages, the number of older persons with cancer is increasing and will make up a growing share of the oncology population in virtually every country. Despite this, older patients remain vastly underrepresented in research that sets the standards for cancer treatments. Consequently, most of what we know about cancer therapeutics is based on clinical trials conducted in younger, healthier patients, and effective strategies to improve clinical trial participation of older adults with cancer remain sparse. For this systematic review, the authors evaluated published studies regarding barriers to participation and interventions to improve participation of older adults in cancer trials. The quality of the available evidence was low and, despite a literature describing multifaceted barriers, only one intervention study aimed to increase enrollment of older adults in trials. The findings starkly amplify the paucity of evidence-based, effective strategies to improve participation of this underrepresented population in cancer trials. Within these limitations, the authors provide their opinion on how the current cancer research infrastructure must be modified to accommodate the needs of older patients. Several underused solutions are offered to expand clinical trials to include older adults with cancer. However, as currently constructed, these recommendations alone will not solve the evidence gap in geriatric oncology, and efforts are needed to meet older and frail adults where they are by expanding clinical trials designed specifically for this population and leveraging real-world data.

Objective To evaluate Telephone-Delivered Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (T-CBT) compared to CBT face to face treatment as usual (TAU-CBT), in cancer patients with high psychological needs, in terms of mental health and coping.

A minority of symptomatic patients opt for telephone psychological therapy; however, where they do, there are significant improvements indicating that telephone-delivered therapy is feasible in patients with high needs. Findings are discussed in relation to current issues on the implementation of distress screening and psychological therapy provision within clinical settings.

No abstract

Objective: A previous equivalence randomised trial indicated that Telephone-based Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (T-CBT) was not inferior to Treatment as Usual CBT (TAU-CBT) delivered face to face in terms of psychological benefit with both groupsshowing post-therapy improvements compared to pre-therapy baseline. The aim here is to clarify costs and benefits through an economic evaluation of the two therapy models. Method:The cost-effectiveness analysis (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) was derived from a single-centre (UK-based), two-arm randomised control trial.Data from 78 patients were available for the main analysis, which includes both an NHS cost perspective and a societal perspective which includes the cost of time off work and any additional private care. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken, which included patients only completing the four core therapy sessions (46 patients) and considering only patients taking both core and the additional therapy sessions which were optional (32 patients). Results:The base-case analysis, adopting an NHS perspective, showed that T-CBT was associated with an incremental cost of £50 (95% CI: −£759 to £989) and a 0.03 QALY (95% CI: −0.09 to 0.03) decrement per patient when compared to TAU-CBT. The analysis adopting a societal perspective yielded similar results, with T-CBT providing an incremental cost of £171 (95% CI: −£769 to £1112) and a 0.03 QALY (95% CI: −0.08 to 0.03) decrement per patient in comparison to TAU-CBT. The first sensitivity analysis, considering patients only taking the core therapy sessions, showed that T-CBT provided an incremental cost of £100 (95% CI: −£945 to £1247) and yielded a decrement of 0.01 QALY (95% CI: −0.03 to 0.01) per patient compared to TAU-CBT. The second sensitivity analysis, which focused solely on patients who also underwent optional sessions, showed that T-CBT was associated with anThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.