Purpose Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) interventions are effective, but few are implemented. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators for implementing the evidence-based blended SWORD intervention in routine psycho-oncological care. Methods Semi-structured interviews with 19 cancer survivors and 18 professionals from three healthcare settings assessed barriers and facilitators in six domains as described by the determinant frameworks of Grol and Flottorp: (1) innovation, (2) professionals, (3) patients, (4) social context, (5) organization, and (6) economic and political context. Results In the innovation domain, there were few barriers. Facilitators included high reliability, accessibility, and relevance of SWORD. In the professional domain, physicians and nurses barriers were lack of self-efficacy, knowledge, and skills to address FCR whereas psychologists had sufficient knowledge and skills, but some were critical towards protocolized treatments, cognitive behavioral therapy, or eHealth. Patient domain barriers included lack of FCR awareness, negative expectations of psychotherapy, and unwillingness/inability to actively engage in treatment. A social context domain barrier was poor communication between different healthcare professionals. Organization domain barriers included inadequate referral structures to psychological services, limited capacity, and complex legal procedures. Economic and political context domain barriers included lack of a national implementation structure for evidence-based psycho-oncological interventions and eHealth platform costs. Conclusions Implementation strategies should be targeted at patient, professional, organizational and economic and political domains. Identified barriers and facilitators are relevant to other researchers in psycho-oncology that aim to bridge the research-practice gap. Implications for cancer survivors This study contributes to the implementation of evidence-based psychological interventions for cancer survivors, who can benefit from these services.

Clinical post-mortem radiology is a relatively new field of expertise and not common practice in most hospitals yet. With the declining numbers of autopsies and increasing demand for quality control of clinical care, post-mortem radiology can offer a solution, or at least be complementary. A working group consisting of radiologists, pathologists and other clinical medical specialists reviewed and evaluated the literature on the diagnostic value of post-mortem conventional radiography (CR), ultrasonography, computed tomography (PMCT), magnetic resonance imaging (PMMRI), and minimally invasive autopsy (MIA). Evidence tables were built and subsequently a Dutch national evidence-based guideline for post-mortem radiology was developed. We present this evaluation of the radiological modalities in a clinical post-mortem setting, including MIA, as well as the recently published Dutch guidelines for post-mortem radiology in foetuses, neonates, and children. In general, for post-mortem radiology modalities, PMMRI is the modality of choice in foetuses, neonates, and infants, whereas PMCT is advised in older children. There is a limited role for post-mortem CR and ultrasonography. In most cases, conventional autopsy will remain the diagnostic method of choice.Conclusion: Based on a literature review and clinical expertise, an evidence-based guideline was developed for post-mortem radiology of foetal, neonatal, and paediatric patients. What is Known: • Post-mortem investigations serve as a quality check for the provided health care and are important for reliable epidemiological registration. • Post-mortem radiology, sometimes combined with minimally invasive techniques, is considered as an adjunct or alternative to autopsy. What is New: • We present the Dutch guidelines for post-mortem radiology in foetuses, neonates and children. • Autopsy remains the reference standard, however minimal invasive autopsy with a skeletal survey, post-mortem computed tomography, or post-mortem magnetic resonance imaging can be complementary thereof.

(1) Background: Studies examining the psychosocial impact of living long term on systemic treatment in advanced cancer patients are scarce. This scoping review aimed to answer the research question “What has been reported about psychosocial factors among patients living with advanced cancer receiving life-long systemic treatment?”, by synthesizing psychosocial data, and evaluating the terminology used to address these patients; (2) Methods: This scoping review was conducted following the five stages of the framework of Arksey and O’Malley (2005); (3) Results: 141 articles published between 2000 and 2021 (69% after 2015) were included. A large variety of terms referring to the patient group was observed. Synthesizing qualitative studies identified ongoing uncertainty, anxiety and fear of disease progression or death, hope in treatment results and new treatment options, loss in several aspects of life, and worries about the impact of disease on loved ones and changes in social life to be prominent psychosocial themes. Of 82 quantitative studies included in the review, 76% examined quality of life, 46% fear of disease progression or death, 26% distress or depression, and 4% hope, while few studies reported on adaptation or cognitive aspects. No quantitative studies focused on uncertainty, loss, or social impact; (4) Conclusion and clinical implications: Prominent psychosocial themes reported in qualitative studies were not included in quantitative research using specific validated questionnaires. More robust studies using quantitative research designs should be conducted to further understand these psychological constructs. Furthermore, the diversity of terminology found in the literature calls for a uniform definition to better address this specific patient group in research and in practice.

IntroductionA better understanding of the molecular, genetic and immunological characteristics of cancer and the introduction of new systemic treatment regimens in the last decades, has led to better treatment outcomes and increased survival rates for patients with previously short lived cancers. However, there is no uniform description to refer to this growing group of patients with advanced cancer who now respond to new systemic treatments for longer periods. Furthermore, little is known about the unique psychological challenges these patients face, living with ongoing uncertainty about the course of their disease and life expectancy. The objective of this scoping review is to identify the psychological aspects experienced by, and the definitions used to refer to patients with advanced cancer receiving lifelong systemic treatment.Methods and analysisThis review will be among the first to summarise literature on the psychological issues in the growing group of advanced cancer patients undergoing long-term systemic treatment. Articles will be retrieved from six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) and reviewed for eligibility by two investigators independently. Definitions and psychological challenges will be extracted and narratively summarised following a descriptive approach. Furthermore, results will contribute in providing a uniform definition for this patient group, and help to identify knowledge gaps to give direction to further research in this field.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required. The results of the scoping review will be submitted for publication to a scientific journal and presented at relevant conferences.