Background: Screening for and active management of comorbidity soon after cancer diagnosis shows promise in altering cancer treatment and outcomes for comorbid patients. Prior to a large multi-centre study, piloting of the intervention (comprehensive medical assessment) was undertaken to investigate the feasibility of the comorbidity screening tools and proposed outcome measures, and the feasibility, acceptability and potential effect of the intervention. Methods: In this pilot intervention study, 72 patients of all ages (36 observation/36 intervention) with newly diagnosed or recently relapsed colorectal adenocarcinoma were enrolled and underwent comorbidity screening and risk stratification. Intervention patients meeting pre-specified comorbidity criteria were referred for intervention, a comprehensive medical assessment carried out by geriatricians. Each intervention was individually tailored but included assessment and management of comorbidity, polypharmacy, mental health particularly depression, functional status and psychosocial issues. Recruitment and referral to intervention were tracked, verbal and written feedback were gathered from staff, and semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 13 patients to assess screening tool and intervention feasibility and acceptability. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. Patients were followed for 6-12 months after recruitment to assess feasibility of proposed outcome measures (chemotherapy uptake and completion rates, grade 3-5 treatment toxicity, attendance at hospital emergency clinic, and unplanned hospitalisations) and descriptive data on outcomes collated. Results: Of the 29 intervention patients eligible for the intervention, 21 received it with feedback indicating that the intervention was acceptable. Those in the intervention group were less likely to be on 3+ medications, to have been admitted to hospital in previous 12 months, or to have limitations in daily activities. Collection of data to measure proposed outcomes was feasible with 55% (6/11) of intervention patients completing chemotherapy as planned compared to none (of 14) of the control group. No differences were seen in other outcome measures. Overall the study was feasible with modification, but the intervention was difficult to integrate into clinical pathways. Conclusions: This study generated valuable results that will be used to guide modification of the study and its approaches prior to progressing to a larger-scale study.

Objective:Emerging evidence suggests that free sugars intake in many countries exceeds that recommended by the WHO. However, information regarding real-world dietary patterns associated with meeting the WHO free sugars guidelines is lacking. The current study aimed to determine dietary patterns associated with meeting the guidelines to inform effective free sugars reduction interventions in New Zealand (NZ) and similar high-income countries.Design:Dietary patterns were derived using principal component analysis on repeat 24-h NZ Adult Nutrition Survey dietary recall data. Associations between dietary patterns and the WHO guidelines (<5 and <10 % total energy intake) were determined using logistic regression analyses.Setting:New Zealand.Participants:NZ adults (n 4721) over 15 years old.Results:Eight dietary patterns were identified: ‘takeaway foods and alcohol’ was associated with meeting both WHO guidelines; ‘contemporary’ was associated with meeting the <10 % guideline (males only); ‘fast foods, sugar-sweetened beverages and dessert’, ‘traditional’ and ‘breakfast foods’ were negatively associated with meeting both guidelines; ‘sandwich’ and ‘snack foods’ were negatively associated with the <5 % guideline; and ‘saturated fats and sugar’ was negatively associated with the <10 % guideline.Conclusions:The majority of NZ dietary patterns were not consistent with WHO free sugars guidelines. It is possible to meet the WHO guidelines while consuming a healthier (‘contemporary’) or energy-dense, nutrient-poor (‘takeaway foods and alcohol’) diet. However, the majority of energy-dense patterns were not associated with meeting the guidelines. Future nutrition interventions would benefit from focusing on establishing healthier overall diets and reducing consumption and free sugars content of key foods.

Background: Screening for and active management of comorbidity soon after cancer diagnosis shows promise in altering cancer treatment and outcomes for comorbid patients. Prior to a large multi-centre study, piloting of the intervention (comprehensive medical assessment) was undertaken to investigate the feasibility of the comorbidity screening tools and proposed outcome measures, and the feasibility, acceptability and potential effect of the intervention. Methods : In this pilot intervention study, 72 patients of all ages (36 observation/36 intervention) with newly diagnosed or recently relapsed colorectal adenocarcinoma were enrolled and underwent comorbidity screening and risk stratification. Intervention patients meeting pre-specified comorbidity criteria were referred for intervention, a comprehensive medical assessment carried out by geriatricians. Each intervention was individually tailored but included assessment and management of comorbidity, polypharmacy, mental health particularly depression, functional status and psychosocial issues. Recruitment and referral to intervention were tracked, verbal and written feedback were gathered from staff, and semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with patients to assess screening tool and intervention feasibility and acceptability. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. Patients were followed for 6 - 12 months after recruitment to assess feasibility of proposed outcome measures (chemotherapy uptake and completion rates, grade 3 - 5 treatment toxicity, attendance at hospital emergency clinic, and unplanned hospitalisations) and descriptive data on outcomes collated. Results: Of the 29 intervention patients eligible for the intervention, 21 received it with feedback indicating that the intervention was acceptable. Those in the intervention group were less likely to be on 3+ medications, to have been admitted to hospital in previous 12 months, or to have limitations in daily activities. Collection of data to measure proposed outcomes was feasible with 55% (6/11) of intervention patients completing chemotherapy as planned compared to none (of 14) of the control group. No differences were seen in other outcome measures. Overall the study was feasible with modification, but the intervention was difficult to integrate into clinical pathways. Conclusions: This study generated valuable results that will be used to guide modification of the study and its approaches prior to progressing to a larger-scale study.

Background: Screening for and active management of comorbidity soon after cancer diagnosis shows promise in altering cancer treatment and outcomes for comorbid patients. Prior to a large multi-centre study, piloting of the intervention (comprehensive medical assessment) was undertaken to investigate the feasibility of the comorbidity screening tools and proposed outcome measures, and the feasibility, acceptability and potential effect of the intervention. Methods: In this pilot intervention study, 72 patients of all ages (36 observation/36 intervention) with newly diagnosed or recently relapsed colorectal adenocarcinoma were enrolled and underwent comorbidity screening and risk stratification. Intervention patients meeting pre-specified comorbidity criteria were referred for intervention, a comprehensive medical assessment carried out by geriatricians. Each intervention was individually tailored but included assessment and management of comorbidity, polypharmacy, mental health particularly depression, functional status and psychosocial issues. Recruitment and referral to intervention were tracked, verbal and written feedback were gathered from staff, and semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 13 patients to assess screening tool and intervention feasibility and acceptability. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. Patients were followed for 6 - 12 months after recruitment to assess feasibility of proposed outcome measures (chemotherapy uptake and completion rates, grade 3 - 5 treatment toxicity, attendance at hospital emergency clinic, and unplanned hospitalisations) and descriptive data on outcomes collated. Results: Of the 29 intervention patients eligible for the intervention, 21 received it with feedback indicating that the intervention was acceptable. Those in the intervention group were less likely to be on 3+ medications, to have been admitted to hospital in previous 12 months, or to have limitations in daily activities. Collection of data to measure proposed outcomes was feasible with 55% (6/11) of intervention patients completing chemotherapy as planned compared to none (of 14) of the control group. No differences were seen in other outcome measures. Overall the study was feasible with modification, but the intervention was difficult to integrate into clinical pathways. Conclusions: This study generated valuable results that will be used to guide modification of the study and its approaches prior to progressing to a larger-scale study. Trial registration: Retrospective, 26 August 2019, ACTRN12619001192178.

No abstract