Institutionalized seniors, even those who are physically frail, incontinent and/or have mild dementia, can respond positively to a challenging exercise program. The FFLTC program demonstrated clear benefits over typical, seated ROM exercises. Moreover, with minimal training, the program can be safely delivered at low cost by institutional staff and volunteers.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) are evidence-and consensus-based clinical practice guidelines addressing malignancies that affect more than 97% of all patients with cancer in the United States. The NCCN Guidelines are used extensively in the United States and globally. Use of the guidelines outside the United States has driven the need to adapt the guidelines based on local, regional, or national resources. The NCCN Guidelines Panels created, vetted, and continually update the NCCN Guidelines based on published scientific data on cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment efficacy. The guidelines are developed within the context of commonly available resources, methods of payment, societal and cultural expectations, and governmental regulations as they exist in the United States. Although many of the cancer management recommendations contained in the NCCN Guidelines apply broadly from a global perspective, not all do. Disparities in availability and access to health care exist among countries, within countries, and among different social groups in the same country, especially regarding resources for cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment. In addition, different drug approval and payment processes result in regional variation in availability of and access to cancer treatment, especially highly expensive agents and radiation therapy. Differences in cancer risk, predictive biomarker expression, and pharmacogenetics exist across ethnic and racial groups, and therefore across geographic locations. Cultural and societal expectations and requirements may also require modification of NCCN Guidelines for use outside the United States. This article describes the adaptation process, using the recent Latin American adaptation of the 2013 NCCN Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer as an example. (J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2014;12:643-648) NCCN has developed a comprehensive set of clinical practice guidelines across the continuum of cancer care to assist health care professionals and patients in making clinical decisions. The current set of NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) cover the malignancies that affect more than 97% of all patients with cancer in the United States and a variety of supportive care issues. The NCCN Guidelines are widely recognized as the standard for clinical policy in oncology in the United States and are used in the academic and community settings. The NCCN Guidelines are available in multiple formats and derivatives, and are used at the point of care for decision-making, in making payment decisions by third-party payers, as standards for quality of care assessment, and as educational tools.The NCCN Guidelines are developed by multidisciplinary panels of disease experts and patient advocates from the 25 NCCN Member Institutions. The panels use an evidence-based consensus process of guideline development, wherein recommendations are based on high-level evidence when available, and on expert consensus when high-level evidence...

A 26-wk group-based exercise program combined with dual-task training improved GCF in community-dwelling older adults without dementia.

Key challenges facing the oncology community today include access to appropriate, high quality, patient-centered cancer care; defining and delivering high-value care; and rising costs. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network convened a Work Group composed of NCCN Member Institution cancer center directors and their delegates to examine the challenges of access, high costs, and defining and demonstrating value at the academic cancer centers. The group identified key challenges and possible solutions to addressing these issues. The findings and recommendations of the Work Group were then presented at the Value, Access, and Cost of Cancer Care Policy Summit in September 2015 and multi-stakeholder roundtable panel discussions explored these findings and recommendations along with additional items.

Background: Serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels are inversely associated with cardiovascular disease events. Yet, emerging evidence suggests that it is the functional properties of HDL, in particular, reverse cholesterol transport, which is a key protective mechanism mediating cholesterol removal from macrophage cells and reducing plaque lipid content. Cholesterol efflux capacity (CEC) measures the capacity of HDL to perform this function. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to explore the association of CEC and adverse cardiovascular events.Methods: A comprehensive literature review of Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection from inception to September 2019 was performed for all studies that examined the association between CEC and cardiovascular outcomes. The primary outcome was adverse cardiovascular events, which were inclusive of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or mortality.Results: A total of 20 trials were included. Compared with low CEC levels, high CEC levels were associated with a 37% lower risk of adverse cardiovascular events (crude RR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52–0.76; P < 0.00001). Every SD increase of CEC was associated with a 20% lower risk of adverse cardiovascular events (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66–0.97; P = 0.02). The association remained significant after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors, medications, and HDL-C levels (HR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63–0.91; P = 0.004). A significant CEC-endpoint relationship was observed (P = 0.024) such that for every 0.1 unit increase in CEC, there was a 5% reduced risk for adverse cardiovascular events (RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91–0.99).Conclusions: Higher CEC is associated with lower adverse cardiovascular outcomes. These findings warrant further research on whether CEC is merely a biomarker or a mechanism that could be targeted as a pharmacologic intervention for improving clinical outcomes.PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42020146681; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.