Purpose: To develop a transdisciplinary conceptualization of social belonging that could be used to guide measurement approaches aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of community-based programs for people with disabilities. Method: We conducted a narrative, scoping review of peer reviewed English language literature published between 1990 and July 2011 using multiple databases, with “sense of belonging” as a key search term. The search engine ranked articles for relevance to the search strategy. Articles were searched in order until theoretical saturation was reached. We augmented this search strategy by reviewing reference lists of relevant papers. Results: Theoretical saturation was reached after 40 articles; 22 of which were qualitative accounts. We identified five intersecting themes: subjectivity; groundedness to an external referent; reciprocity; dynamism and self-determination. Conclusion: We define a sense of belonging as a subjective feeling of value and respect derived from a reciprocal relationship to an external referent that is built on a foundation of shared experiences, beliefs or personal characteristics. These feelings of external connectedness are grounded to the context or referent group, to whom one chooses, wants and feels permission to belong. This dynamic phenomenon may be either hindered or promoted by complex interactions between environmental and personal factors.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) has increasingly recognized the need for more personalized probabilistic predictions than those delivered by ordinal staging systems, particularly through the use of accurate risk models or calculators. However, judging the quality and acceptability of a risk model is complex. The AJCC Precision Medicine Core conducted a 2‐day meeting to discuss characteristics necessary for a quality risk model in cancer patients. More specifically, the committee established inclusion and exclusion criteria necessary for a risk model to potentially be endorsed by the AJCC. This committee reviewed and discussed relevant literature before creating a checklist unique to this need of AJCC risk model endorsement. The committee identified 13 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria for AJCC risk model endorsement in cancer. The emphasis centered on performance metrics, implementation clarity, and clinical relevance. The facilitation of personalized probabilistic predictions for cancer patients holds tremendous promise, and these criteria will hopefully greatly accelerate this process. Moreover, these criteria might be useful for a general audience when trying to judge the potential applicability of a published risk model in any clinical domain. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:370–374. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Objective To determine the association between exposure to radiotherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer and subsequent second malignancies (second primary cancers). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Data sources Medline and Embase up to 6 April 2015 with no restrictions on year or language. Study selection Comparative studies assessing the risk of second malignancies in patients exposed or unexposed to radiotherapy in the course of treatment for prostate cancer were selected by two reviewers independently with any disagreement resolved by consensus. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Outcomes were synthesized with random effects models and Mantel-Haenszel weighting. Unadjusted odds ratios and multivariable adjusted hazard ratios, when available, were pooled. Main outcome measures Second cancers of the bladder, colorectal tract, rectum, lung, and hematologic system. Results Of 3056 references retrieved, 21 studies were selected for analysis. Most included studies were large multi-institutional reports but had moderate risk of bias. The most common type of radiotherapy was external beam; 13 studies used patients treated with surgery as controls and eight used patients who did not undergo radiotherapy as controls. The length of follow-up among studies varied. There was increased risk of cancers of the bladder (four studies; adjusted hazard ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.55 to 1.80), colorectum (three studies; 1.79, 1.34 to 2.38), and rectum (three studies; 1.79, 1.34 to 2.38), but not cancers of the hematologic system (one study; 1.64, 0.90 to 2.99) or lung (two studies; 1.45, 0.70 to 3.01), after radiotherapy compared with the risk in those unexposed to radiotherapy. The odds of a second cancer varied depending on type of radiotherapy: treatment with external beam radiotherapy was consistently associated with increased odds while brachytherapy was not. Among the patients who underwent radiotherapy, from individual studies, the highest absolute rates reported for bladder, colorectal, and rectal cancers were 3.8%, 4.2%, and 1.2%, respectively, while the lowest reported rates were 0.1%, 0.3%, and 0.3%. Conclusion Radiotherapy for prostate cancer was associated with higher risks of developing second malignancies of the bladder, colon, and rectum compared with patients unexposed to radiotherapy, but the reported absolute rates were low. Further studies with longer follow-up are required to confirm these findings.

Purpose: Improvement in the quality of life of patients with cancer requires attention to symptom burden across the continuum of care, with the use of patient-reported outcomes key to achieving optimal care. Yet there have been few studies that have examined symptoms in the early postdiagnosis period during which suboptimal symptom control may be common. A comprehensive analysis of temporal trends and risk factors for symptom burden in newly diagnosed patients with cancer is essential to guide supportive care strategies. Methods: A retrospective observational study was performed of patients who were diagnosed with cancer between January 2007 and December 2014 and who survived at least 1 year. Patient-reported Edmonton Symptom Assessment System scores, which are prospectively collected at outpatient visits, were linked to provincial administrative health care data. We described the proportion of patients who reported moderate-to-severe symptom scores by month during the first year after diagnosis according to disease site. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to identify risk factors for moderate-to-severe symptom scores. Results: Of 120,745 patients, 729,861 symptom assessments were recorded within 12 months of diagnosis. For most symptoms, odds of elevated scores were highest in the first month, whereas nausea had increased odds of elevated scores up to 6 months after diagnosis. On multivariable analysis, cancer site, younger age, higher comorbidity, female sex, lower income, and urban residence were associated with significantly higher odds of elevated symptom burden. Conclusion: A high prevalence of moderate-to-severe symptom scores was observed in cancers of all sites. Patients are at risk of experiencing multiple symptoms in the immediate postdiagnosis period, which underscores the need to address supportive care requirements early in the cancer journey. Patient subgroups who are at higher risk of experiencing moderate-to-severe symptoms should be targeted for tailored supportive care interventions.