Lymph node metastasis occurs in 14% of patients with high-risk cutaneous SCC. Larger studies will be required to identify which "high-risk" factors should be considered as an indication for surgical assessment of the nodal basin. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: E884-E889, 2016.

Background The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) was introduced to triage patients with low-risk symptoms of possible colorectal cancer in English primary care in 2017, underpinned by little primary care evidence. Methods All healthcare providers in the South West of England (population 4 million) participated in this evaluation. 3890 patients aged ≥50 years presenting in primary care with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer had a FIT from 01/06/2018 to 31/12/2018. A threshold of 10 μg Hb/g faeces defined a positive test. Results Six hundred and eighteen (15.9%) patients tested positive; 458 (74.1%) had an urgent referral to specialist lower gastrointestinal (GI) services within three months. Forty-three were diagnosed with colorectal cancer within 12 months. 3272 tested negative; 324 (9.9%) had an urgent referral within three months. Eight were diagnosed with colorectal cancer within 12 months. Positive predictive value was 7.0% (95% CI 5.1–9.3%). Negative predictive value was 99.8% (CI 99.5–99.9%). Sensitivity was 84.3% (CI 71.4–93.0%), specificity 85.0% (CI 83.8–86.1%). The area under the ROC curve was 0.92 (CI 0.86–0.96). A threshold of 37 μg Hb/g faeces would identify patients with an individual 3% risk of cancer. Conclusions FIT performs exceptionally well to triage patients with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer in primary care; a higher threshold may be appropriate in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis.

Our preliminary findings suggest that general and disease-specific deterioration is of most concern for stage I/II patients at 6 and 12 months and at 3 months for advanced cancer patients. For stage III/IV patients receiving S&PORT, general deterioration remains a problem after diagnosis, whereas for CRT patients, disease-specific deterioration is of most concern at 12 months.

Background: Prehabilitation aims to improve functional capacity prior to cancer treatment to achieve better psychosocial and clinical outcomes. Prehabilitation interventions vary considerably in design and delivery. In order to identify gaps in knowledge and facilitate the design of future studies, we undertook a scoping review of prehabilitation studies to map the range of work on prehabilitation being carried out in any cancer type and with a particular focus on diet or nutrition interventions.Objectives: Firstly, to describe the type of prehabilitation programs currently being conducted. Secondly, to describe the extent to which prehabilitation studies involved aspects of nutrition, including assessment, interventions, implementation, and outcomes.Eligibility Criteria: Any study of quantitative or qualitative design that employed a formal prehabilitation program before cancer treatment (“prehabilitation” listed in keywords, title, or abstract).Sources of Evidence: Search was conducted in July 2020 using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, and AMED.Charting Methods: Quantitative data were reported as frequencies. Qualitative nutrition data were charted using a framework analysis that reflects the Nutrition Care Process Model: assessment, intervention, and monitoring/evaluation of the nutrition intervention.Results: Five hundred fifty unique articles were identified: 110 studies met inclusion criteria of a formal prehabilitation study in oncology. prehabilitation studies were mostly cohort studies (41%) or randomized-controlled trials (38%) of multimodal (49%), or exercise-only (44%) interventions that were applied before surgery (94%). Nutrition assessment was inconsistently applied across these studies, and often conducted without validated tools (46%). Of the 110 studies, 37 (34%) included a nutrition treatment component. Half of these studies provided the goal for the nutrition component of their prehabilitation program; of these goals, less than half referenced accepted nutrition guidelines in surgery or oncology. Nutrition interventions largely consisted of counseling with dietary supplementation. The nutrition intervention was indiscernible in 24% of studies. Two-thirds of studies did not monitor the nutrition intervention nor evaluate nutrition outcomes.Conclusion: Prehabilitation literature lacks standardized and validated nutritional assessment, is frequently conducted without evidence-based nutrition interventions, and is typically implemented without monitoring the nutrition intervention or evaluating the intervention's contribution to outcomes. We suggest that the development of a core outcome set could improve the quality of the studies, enable pooling of evidence, and address some of the research gaps identified.