Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a pathological process characterized by atherosclerotic plaque accumulation in the epicardial arteries, whether obstructive or non-obstructive. This process can be modified by lifestyle adjustments, pharmacological therapies, and invasive interventions designed to achieve disease stabilization or regression. The disease can have long, stable periods but can also become unstable at any time, typically due to an acute atherothrombotic event caused by plaque rupture or erosion. However, the disease is chronic, most often progressive, and hence serious, even in clinically apparently silent periods. The dynamic nature of the CAD process results in various clinical presentations, which can be conveniently categorized as either acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). The Guidelines presented here refer to the management of patients with CCS. The natural history of CCS is illustrated in Figure 1.

/pdf/2019-esc-guidelines-for-the-diagnosis-and-management-of-5b7mv2v506.pdf

2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes.

Although there has been considerable progress in reducing cancer incidence in the United States, the number of cancer survivors continues to increase due to the aging and growth of the population and improvements in survival rates. As a result, it is increasingly important to understand the unique medical and psychosocial needs of survivors and be aware of resources that can assist patients, caregivers, and health care providers in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship. To highlight the challenges and opportunities to serve these survivors, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute estimated the prevalence of cancer survivors on January 1, 2012 and January 1, 2022, by cancer site. Data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries were used to describe median age and stage at diagnosis and survival; data from the National Cancer Data Base and the SEER-Medicare Database were used to describe patterns of cancer treatment. An estimated 13.7 million Americans with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2012, and by January 1, 2022, that number will increase to nearly 18 million. The 3 most prevalent cancers among males are prostate (43%), colorectal (9%), and melanoma of the skin (7%), and those among females are breast (41%), uterine corpus (8%), and colorectal (8%). This article summarizes common cancer treatments, survival rates, and posttreatment concerns and introduces the new National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center, which has engaged more than 100 volunteer survivorship experts nationwide to develop tools for cancer survivors, caregivers, health care professionals, advocates, and policy makers.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.3322/caac.21149

Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2012

physical activity and cancer fact sheet national cancer on this page what is physical activity what is known about the relationship between physical activity and cancer risk how might physical activity be, diet and cancer report american institute for cancer the american institute for cancer research aicr is the cancer charity that fosters research on diet and cancer prevention and educates the public about the results, download resources and toolkits world cancer research downloads for scientists from the wcrf aicr third expert report diet nutrition physical activity and cancer a global perspective, nutritional science university of washington school of public health school of public health nutritional science detailed course offerings time schedule are available for spring quarter 2019, 2019 aicr research conference american institute for about aicr we fund cutting edge research and give people practical tools and information to help them prevent and survive cancer more about aicr, agence fruits et l gumes frais aprifel the global fruit and veg newsletter is a monthly newsletter distributing to 29 countries involved in the promotion of the consumption of fruit and vegetable worldwide, world cancer research fund international we are experts in cancer prevention we analyse global research on diet nutrition physical activity cancer and make public health policy recommendations, the fractions of cancer attributable sciencedirect com a proportion of cancers at many body sites are attributable to potentially modifiable factors no global summaries of the preventable cancer burden have been, who controlling the global obesity epidemic more information obesity and overweight fact sheet who global strategy on diet physical activity and health who global database on body mass index, espen guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients gl nutrition in cancer patients outline o methods o1 basic information o2 methods o3 post publication impact a background a1 catabolic alterations in, un news global perspective human stories un news produces daily news content in arabic chinese english french kiswahili portuguese russian and spanish and weekly programmes in hindi urdu and bangla, recommended community strategies and measurements to table continued summary of recommended community strategies and measurements to prevent obesity in the united states strategies to encourage physical, food as medicine preventing treating the most dreaded food as medicine preventing treating the most dreaded diseases with diet, video resources bc cancer these videos help patients learn about their cancer and its treatment, prostate cancer nutrition and dietary supplements pdq nutrition methods and dietary supplements have been studied for prostate cancer prevention or treatment read about the history of research laboratory, who europe food safety food safety ingestion and handling of contaminated food causes significant illness and death worldwide across the who european region foodborne diseases, creating healthy food and eating environments policy and food and eating environments likely contribute to the increasing epidemic of obesity and chronic diseases over and above individual factors such as knowledge skills, health risks obesity prevention source harvard t h obesity and reproduction obesity can influence various aspects of reproduction from sexual activity to conception among women the association between, top nutrition schools undergraduate degree programs ncr want to know the top nutrition schools and best undergraduate degree programs here we review analyze rank rate them figure out which is best for you , overeating caloric restriction and breast cancer risk by this study analyzes the association of excessive energy intake and caloric restriction with breast cancer bc risk taking into account the individual, calcium what s best for your bones and health the possible increased risk of ovarian cancer high levels of galactose a sugar released by the digestion of lactose in milk have been studied as being, cancer protocol nutrition supplements cancer protocol nutrition supplements herbs enzymes note do not email me unless you would like a personalized protocol free with a suggested donation of 250

Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer : a Global Perspective : 食物、栄養、身体活動とがんの予防 : 世界的展望(後篇)

BACKGROUND: The aim of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This reduces withdrawal symptoms associated with smoking cessation thus helping resist the urge to smoke cigarettes. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review were to determine the effectiveness of the different forms of nicotine replacement therapy (chewing gum, transdermal patches, nasal spray, inhalers and tablets) in achieving abstinence from cigarettes, or a sustained reduction in amount smoked; to determine whether the effect is influenced by the clinical setting in which the smoker is recruited and treated, the dosage and form of the NRT used, or the intensity of additional advice and support offered to the smoker; to determine whether combinations of NRT are more effective than one type alone; and to determine its effectiveness compared to other pharmacotherapies. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register in July 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials in which NRT was compared to placebo or no treatment, or where different doses of NRT were compared. We excluded trials which did not report cessation rates, and those with follow-up of less than six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate on the type of subjects, the dose and duration and form of nicotine therapy, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months of follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed effects model (Peto). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 110 trials; 96 with a non NRT control group. The odds ratio for abstinence with NRT compared to control was 1.74 (95% confidence interval 1.64 - 1.86), The odds ratios for the different forms of NRT were 1.66 for gum, 1.74 for patches, 2.27 for nasal spray, 2.08 for inhaled nicotine and 2.08 for nicotine sublingual tablet/lozenge. These odds were largely independent of the duration of therapy, the intensity of additional support provided or the setting in which the NRT was offered. In highly dependent smokers there was a significant benefit of 4 mg gum compared with 2mg gum (odds ratio 2.67, 95% confidence interval 1.69 - 4.22). There was weak evidence that combinations of forms of NRT are more effective. Higher doses of nicotine patch may produce small increases in quit rates. Only one study directly compared NRT to another pharmacotherapy, in which bupropion was significantly more effective than nicotine patch or placebo. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: All of the commercially available forms of NRT (nicotine gum, transdermal patch, the nicotine nasal spray, nicotine inhaler and nicotine sublingual tablets/lozenges) are effective as part of a strategy to promote smoking cessation. They increase quit rates approximately 1.5 to 2 fold regardless of setting. The effectiveness of NRT appears to be largely independent of the intensity of additional support provided to the smoker. Provision of more intense levels of support, although beneficial in facilitating the likelihood of quitting, is not essential to the success of NRT. There is promising evidence that bupropion may be more effective than NRT (either alone or in combination). However, its most appropriate place in the therapeutic armamentarium requires further study and consideration.

Nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation.

NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines

Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. BACKGROUND: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. People who smoke report using ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organisations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records to January 2020, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. To be included, studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer and/or data on adverse events (AEs) or other markers of safety at one week or longer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, AEs, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included changes in carbon monoxide, blood pressure, heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of known carcinogens/toxicants. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We include 50 completed studies, representing 12,430 participants, of which 26 are RCTs. Thirty-five of the 50 included studies are new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated four (all which contribute to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 37 at high risk overall (including the 24 non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.27; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 1498 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 8). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) of no difference in the rate of adverse events (AEs) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs occurred rarely, with no evidence that their frequency differed between nicotine EC and NRT, but very serious imprecision led to low certainty in this finding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.41: I2 = n/a; 2 studies, 727 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 802 participants). In absolute terms, this might again lead to an additional four successful quitters per 100 (95% CI 0 to 12). These trials used EC with relatively low nicotine delivery. There was low-certainty evidence, limited by very serious imprecision, that there was no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 346 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.19; I2 = n/a; 4 studies, 494 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.04; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 2312 participants). In absolute terms this represents an increase of six per 100 (95% CI 1 to 14). However, this finding was very low-certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence that the rate of SAEs varied, but some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (AEs: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; I2 = 28%; 3 studies, 516 participants; SAEs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.25 to 6.96; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 842 participants). Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate over time with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons and hence evidence for these is limited, with confidence intervals often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine and compared to NRT. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the degree of effect, particularly when using modern EC products. Confidence intervals were wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect any clear evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the overall number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates. Further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information for decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We will run searches monthly from December 2020, with the review updated as relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status.

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

Objective To systematically review the evidence that smoking cessation after diagnosis of a primary lung tumour affects prognosis

Design Systematic review with meta-analysis

Data sources CINAHL (from 1981), Embase (from 1980), Medline (from 1966), Web of Science (from 1966), CENTRAL (from 1977) to December 2008, and reference lists of included studies

Study selection Randomised controlled trials or observational longitudinal studies that measured the effect of quitting smoking after diagnosis of lung cancer on prognostic outcomes, regardless of stage at presentation or tumour histology, were included

Data extraction Two researchers independently identified studies for inclusion and extracted data Estimates were combined by using a random effects model, and the I2 statistic was used to examine heterogeneity Life tables were used to model five year survival for early stage non-small cell lung cancer and limited stage small cell lung cancer, using death rates for continuing smokers and quitters obtained from this review

Results In 9/10 included studies, most patients studied were diagnosed as having an early stage lung tumour Continued smoking was associated with a significantly increased risk of all cause mortality (hazard ratio 294, 95% confidence interval 115 to 754) and recurrence (186, 101 to 341) in early stage non-small cell lung cancer and of all cause mortality (186, 133 to 259), development of a second primary tumour (431, 109 to 1698), and recurrence (126, 106 to 150) in limited stage small cell lung cancer No study contained data on the effect of quitting smoking on cancer specific mortality or on development of a second primary tumour in non-small cell lung cancer Life table modelling on the basis of these data estimated 33% five year survival in 65 year old patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer who continued to smoke compared with 70% in those who quit smoking In limited stage small cell lung cancer, an estimated 29% of continuing smokers would survive for five years compared with 63% of quitters on the basis of the data from this review

Conclusions This review provides preliminary evidence that smoking cessation after diagnosis of early stage lung cancer improves prognostic outcomes From life table modelling, the estimated number of deaths prevented is larger than would be expected from reduction of cardiorespiratory deaths after smoking cessation, so most of the mortality gain is likely to be due to reduced cancer progression These findings indicate that offering smoking cessation treatment to patients presenting with early stage lung cancer may be beneficial

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/340/bmj.b5569.full.pdf

Influence of smoking cessation after diagnosis of early stage lung cancer on prognosis: systematic review of observational studies with meta-analysis

Background: Motivational interviewing is widely used to help people to stop smoking. It is a counselling style which helps people to explore and resolve their uncertainties about changing their behaviour. It tries to avoid an aggressive or confrontational approach and instead steer people towards choosing to change their behaviour, and encouraging their self belief. The aim of this review is to discover whether motivational interviewing helps more people to quit than brief advice or usual care, when used to help people to stop smoking. Study characteristics: We searched for new studies to add to this review in August 2014 and found 14 new studies. Twenty-eight randomized or cluster-randomized controlled trials are now included in this review. Studies were included if participants were tobacco users; provided participants were not pregnant women or adolescents; if the intervention being tested was based on motivational interviewing principles; if the study included some kind of monitoring of the motivational interviewing intervention, such as staff training or a measure of the quality of counselling delivered, or both; if the control/comparison condition was brief advice or usual care; and if the study reported smoking abstinence at least six months after the start of the programme. Between them these studies recruited 16,803 tobacco users. Two of the studies recruited smokeless tobacco users, and the rest recruited cigarette smokers. The majority of studies provided motivational interviewing support face-to-face; however seven studies delivered the support by telephone only. Key findings: Our review found that motivational interviewing appears to help more people to quit smoking than brief advice or usual care when provided by general practitioners and by trained counsellors. Motivational interviewing carried out by general practitioners appeared to be more successful than when carried out by nurses or counsellors. Shorter motivational interviewing sessions (less than 20 minutes per session) were more effective than longer ones. A single session of treatment appeared to be marginally more successful than multiple sessions, but both delivered successful outcomes. The evidence for the value of follow-up telephone support was unclear, and face-to-face counselling did not help more people to quit than telephone counselling. Both approaches were more successful than brief advice or usual care. Quality of evidence: We have assessed the evidence presented in this review as of moderate quality. Our results should be interpreted with caution, due to variations in study characteristics and how the treatment was delivered. In a number of cases it was difficult to assess the quality of included studies due to a lack of reporting of study details. Finally there is some evidence that studies which did not find an effect of motivational interviewing were less likely to be published and therefore this may impact upon our results.

Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation

Aims This study aimed to assess the effects of opportunistic brief physician advice to stop smoking and offer of assistance on incidence of attempts to stop and quit success in smokers not selected by motivation to quit. Methods We included relevant trials from the Cochrane Reviews of physician advice for smoking cessation, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), varenicline and bupropion. We extracted data on quit attempts and quit success. Estimates were combined using the Mantel-Haentszel method and heterogeneity assessed with the I 2 statistic. Study quality was assessed by method of randomization, allocation concealment and follow-up blind to allocation. Results Thirteen studies were included. Compared to no intervention, advice to quit on medical grounds increased the frequency of quit attempts [risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16-1.33], but not as much as behavioural support for cessation (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.52-3.11) or offering NRT (RR 1.68, 95% CI: 1.48-1.89). In a direct comparison, offering assistance generated more quit attempts than giving advice to quit on medical grounds (RR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.24-2.31 for behavioural support and 1.39, 95% CI: 1.25-1.54 for offering medication). There was evidence that medical advice increased the success of quit attempts and inconclusive evidence that offering assistance increased their success. Conclusions Physicians may be more effective in promoting attempts to stop smoking by offering assistance to all smokers than by advising smokers to quit and offering assistance only to those who express an interest in doing so. © 2011 The Authors, Addiction © 2011 Society for the Study of Addiction.

Brief opportunistic smoking cessation interventions: a systematic review and meta‐analysis to compare advice to quit and offer of assistance

https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/portal/files/33283878/Aveyard_et_al_Screening_brief_intervention_Lancet.pdf

Rachna Begh

Papers

Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation

Influence of smoking cessation after diagnosis of early stage lung cancer on prognosis: systematic review of observational studies with meta-analysis

Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation

Brief opportunistic smoking cessation interventions: a systematic review and meta‐analysis to compare advice to quit and offer of assistance

Screening and brief intervention for obesity in primary care: a parallel, two-arm, randomised trial.