Most studies confirm the beneficial effects of enteral nutrition on the quality of life, but some studies indicate an inverse association and its detrimental impacts. However, there are insufficient data on the effects of enteral nutrition on the quality of life of cancer patients. This systematic review aimed to describe the influence of applied enteral nutrition on the quality of life of cancer patients, based on the results of randomized controlled trials. It was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021261226) and conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines. The searching procedure was conducted using the PubMed and Web of Science databases, as well as Cochrane Library, and it included studies published until June 2021. It was conducted to select randomized controlled trials assessing the influence of enteral nutrition (compared with the other model of nutrition) on the quality of life of cancer patients. A general number of 761 records were screened and a final number of 16 studies were included in the systematic review. The studies were included and assessed by two independent researchers, while the risk of bias was analyzed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Studies compared patients treated with and without enteral nutrition, patients treated with various methods of enteral nutrition or with enteral diets of various content, as well as patients treated with enteral and parenteral nutrition. Within the included studies, the majority were conducted in patients with cancers located in various parts of the body, or diverse areas within the gastrointestinal system, while some studies were conducted in specific populations of patients with a defined cancer location—esophagus, stomach, or ovary. The duration of applied enteral nutrition within the included studies was diversified—from two weeks or less to half a year or even more. The vast majority of studies used well-known and validated tools to assess the quality of life, either developed for a specific group of head/neck, esophagus/stomach, and ovary cancer patients or developed for more general patient populations. Most studies concerning patients treated with and without enteral nutrition supported applying enteral nutrition, which was concluded in seven studies out of ten (including four studies with a low risk of bias). The other important observations to be emphasized—formulated based on the studies with a low risk of bias—presented the role of oral supportive nutrition guided by a dietitian, as well as the beneficial role of enteral and parenteral nutrition, combined. In spite of a relatively low number of randomized controlled trials assessing the influence of enteral nutrition on the quality of life of cancer patients, which should be considered as a limitation, the results were promising. Most studies supported the positive influence of enteral nutrition on the quality of life, either assessed based on the psychological measures of the quality of life or by considering the other potential determinants (e.g., malnutrition, complications, etc.). Taking this into account, enteral nutrition should be applied whenever possible, both to prevent and treat malnutrition in cancer patients. However, considering the limited number of studies conducted so far, further research conducted in homogenic populations of patients is necessary.

Although the role of primary care in cancer prevention has been proven, its assumptions are still insufficiently implemented and the actual rates of cancer prevention advice delivery remain low. Our study aimed to identify the actual and potential role of primary care physicians (PCPs) in the cancer prevention area. Design of the study is a cross-sectional one, based on a survey of 450 PCPs who took part in a nationwide educational project in Poland. Only 30% of PCPs provide cancer prevention advice routinely in their practice, whereas 70% do that only sometimes. PCPs’ actual role in cancer prevention is highly unexploited. They inquire routinely about the patient’s smoking history (71.1%), breast cancer screening program (43.7%), cervical cancer screening (41.1%), patient’s alcohol consumption (34%), patient’s physical activity levels (32.3%), body mass index (29.6%), the patient’s eating habits (28%) and patient’s potential for sun/UV-Ray exposure (5.7%). The potential role of PCPs in cancer prevention is still underestimated and underutilized. Action should be taken to raise awareness and understanding that PCPs can provide cancer prevention advice. Since lack of time is the main obstacle to providing cancer prevention advice routinely, systemic means must be undertaken to enable PCPs to utilize their unquestionable role in cancer prevention.

Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, tobacco research has delivered new evidence on the harmfulness of smoking in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the course of the COVID-19 disease. More and more research proves that smoking is an important risk factor contributing to increased risk of mortality among COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to assess whether and how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted decisions about quitting smoking. A total of 4072 records of anonymized data were obtained from the Polish National Quitline. Between 15 April 2020 and 31 May 2021, the callers were asked about the COVID-19 pandemic and its influence on their decisions on smoking continuation or cessation. Our results indicate that smokers are very receptive to communication concerning COVID-19 and smoking risk. This phenomenon can possibly be connected to the immediate potential health consequences of smoking and COVID-19 virus infection. Results may indicate that putting emphasis on arguments combined with short-term health consequences of smoking may result in better outcomes in smoking cessation. There is a need for further and constant education on tobacco-related health harm. Our results showed that an irregular and mass communication on health consequences may result in high effectiveness in smoking cessation.

Prevalence of smoking and e-cigarette use among teenagers in Poland is high. Polish law bans most advertising and promotion for cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and heated tobacco products (HTPs). This study investigates marketing for these products at points of sale (POS) near secondary schools in Warsaw, Poland, noting if the advertising and promotion were allowed under current Polish laws. All POS within 250 m radii of five selected secondary schools in each of three Warsaw districts were assessed for tobacco and e-cigarette direct advertising, inside and outside; offers of gifts or promotional discounts; tobacco merchandising, and tobacco displays. Of the 112 POS surveyed, 83% exposed customers to some form of advertising or promotion of cigarettes, e-cigarettes, or HTPs; in 76%, advertising or promotion that violated Polish law was present. More than 80% of POS surveyed displayed tobacco products; in 19%, these products were displayed near products of interest to minors. POS density observed here was 30.3 per km², higher than in other European cities. In Poland, a high proportion of POS near schools violates the law banning the advertisement and promotion of tobacco and nicotine consumer products through a dense tobacco retailer network.

Background/Objectives: The diminished quality of life experienced by cancer patients impacts not only the individuals but also the broader healthcare system. Despite the effect that cancer has on quality of life both during and after treatment, quality of life assessments are not yet commonly implemented, and the specific factors influencing quality of life are not well understood. The aim of this study was to conduct comprehensive multifactorial analysis to identify the factors that influence the quality of life in cancer patients. Methods: This study comprised a cohort of 108 patients diagnosed with cancer. The EORTC QLQ C-30 and EORTC QLQ-INFO 25 questionnaires were used to interview participants, along with questions related to disease course and lifestyle factors. Results: Differences were found in various subdomains among male versus female, individuals who solicited nutritional information in cancer themselves versus those who did not, individuals who reported consulting a dietitian versus those who did not, individuals who reported a recent decrease in their food intake versus those who did not report it. The results of the stepwise multiple regression show the following factors as the most important factors affecting their quality of life: patients soliciting nutritional information, reduced food intake, types of nutrition support, age, gender, seeking consultation with a dietitian, place of residence, and education level. Conclusions: In addition to sociodemographic variables and those related to the location, course, and treatment of cancer, including type of cancer, the variable related to patients’ declared need for soliciting nutritional information and seeking consultation with a dietitian may also influence quality of life. Therefore, the above factors in determining the quality of life and well-being of patients should also be considered in a holistic approach to patient care.

Patients with cancers of the head and neck and upper gastrointestinal tract are particularly susceptible to malnutrition, which worsens both their prognosis and quality of life and may result in the need for enteral or parenteral nutrition. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of enteral nutrition on the quality of life in a paired sample. This study included 50 patients with cancer in two paired subgroups: with enteral nutrition (studied group) and without enteral nutrition (matched group). This study was based on self-reports collected with the EORTC QLQ C30 questionnaire and retrospective analysis of medical records. The analysis revealed that weight loss, group type, and age were the primary factors influencing patients’ quality of life. Compared with all cancer patients and the general Polish population, the scores of patients in both groups were below reference values for functional scales and exceeded reference values or were similar for fatigue and vomiting/nausea. Patients who received enteral nutrition more frequently scored lower on the functional scales and higher on the symptomatic scales than the control group. These findings emphasize the complex relationship between cancer, nutritional status, and quality of life.