Background: The second leading cause of death in Italy is cancer. Substantial disparities persist in the level of care and outcomes for cancer patients across various communities, hospitals, and regions in Italy. While substantial progress has been made in medical research and treatment options, these advancements tend to disproportionately benefit the wealthier, better-educated, and more privileged areas and portions of the population. Therefore, the primary aim of the current study is to explore possible reasons for inequalities in access to and utilisation of care from the perspective of cancer patients, who are recipients of these treatments, and healthcare providers, who are responsible for their administration. Methods: After being recruited through social media platforms, patients’ organisations, and hospital websites, cancer patients (n = 22) and healthcare providers (n = 16) from various Italian regions participated in online focus group discussions on disparities in access to and provision of care. Video and audio recordings of the interviews were analysed using Thematic analysis. Results: Among cancer patients, 7 themes were identified, while 6 themes emerged from the healthcare providers highlighting encountered barriers and unmet needs in cancer care. Most of these emerging themes are common to both groups, such as geographical disparities, information deficiencies, and the importance of psycho-oncological support. However, several themes are specific to each group, for instance, cancer patients highlight the financial burden and the poor interactions with healthcare providers, while healthcare providers emphasise the necessity of establishing a stronger specialists’ network and integrating clinical practice and research. Conclusion: Current findings reveal persistent challenges in cancer care, including long waiting lists and regional disparities, highlighting the need for inclusive healthcare strategies. The value of psycho-oncological support is underscored, as well as the potential of the Internet’s use for informational needs, emphasising the imperative for improved awareness and communication to overcome disparities in cancer care.

Background: Cancer clinical trials often employ exclusion criteria that can impact vulnerable populations, particularly individuals with psychological, psychiatric, or neurological conditions.Aims: This study aimed to analyze the prevalence and nature of exclusion criteria in clinical trials for prostate, breast, and lung cancers.Methods: The EU Clinical Trials Register identified 51 protocols uploaded between 2022 and 2024. Thematic content analysis categorized exclusion criteria, and the justifications provided, while frequency analysis quantified their prevalence.Results: After excluding five protocols (two non‐English and three inaccessible), the final dataset comprised 46 protocols: 13 for prostate cancer (22.8%), 24 for breast cancer (42.1%), and 9 for lung cancer (15.8%). Exclusion criteria targeting vulnerable populations were present in 78.3% of protocols, categorized into five themes: psychiatric conditions (24.6%), neurological conditions (22.8%), other psychological conditions (22.8%), legal/guardianship status (5.3%), and unspecified conditions (24.6%). Compliance concerns (39.1%) were the most common justification, followed by informed consent challenges (32.6%), safety risks (13%), drug interference (10.9%), and not in the best interest (4.3%). Notably, 29.1% of protocols lacked justification for exclusions, raising ethical and transparency concerns.Conclusions: The exclusion of vulnerable populations may limit the inclusivity and generalizability of cancer research. Heuristic biases and systemic practices can potentially influence this. Exploring the role of these factors and considering adaptive trial designs, along with providing detailed justifications for exclusion criteria, could support more equitable and representative clinical research.

Introduction: Despite the advancements in oncological medicine and research, cancer remains the second leading cause of death in Europe with Central and Eastern European countries, such as Slovakia and Croatia, showing the highest mortality rates and disparities in access to appropriate and comprehensive cancer care. Therefore, the primary aim of the current study is to investigate cancer patients’ perspectives and experiences to understand the possible underlying reasons for cancer disparities.Methods: Croatian cancer patients (n=15) and Slovak patients (n=11) were recruited through social media platforms, patients’ organisations, and hospital websites and offered participation in online focus group discussions on perceived disparities, barriers or malfunctioning during and after their cancer journey. Transcripts of video and audio recordings of the interviews were translated and analysed using Thematic analysis.Results: Six Croatian and five Slovak themes emerged from the focus group discussions highlighting encountered barriers and perceived disparities, as well as suggestions or unmet needs. Most of the themes are common to both groups, such as the lack of information and use of the internet, and the taboos regarding cancer or psycho-oncological support. However, some themes are specific to each group, for instance, Slovak cancer patients remarked the fact that they do not mind travelling to get treatment as long as they can be treated in the west of Slovakia, while Croatian patients highlighted the need for more information after the illness and the socioeconomic impact deriving from a cancer diagnosis.Discussion: Urgent intervention is needed in addressing disparities in Central and Eastern Europe. Present results could inform dedicated guidelines or better resource allocation strategies to reduce disparities in cancer care and promote inclusive healthcare.

In the landscape of cancer treatment, particularly in the realm of breast cancer management, effective communication emerges as a pivotal factor influencing patient outcomes. This article delves into the nuanced intricacies of communication skills, specifically spotlighting the strategies embraced by breast radiologists. By examining the ramifications of communication on patient experience, interdisciplinary collaboration, and legal ramifications, this study underscores the paramount importance of empathetic and comprehensive communication approaches. A special emphasis is placed on the utilization of the SPIKES protocol, a structured method for conveying sensitive health information, and the deployment of strategies for navigating challenging conversations. Furthermore, the work encompasses the significance of communication with caregivers, the integration of artificial intelligence, and the acknowledgement of patients’ psychological needs. By adopting empathetic communication methodologies and fostering multidisciplinary collaboration, healthcare practitioners have the potential to enhance patient satisfaction, promote treatment adherence, and augment the overall outcomes within breast cancer diagnosis. This paper advocates for the implementation of guidelines pertaining to psychological support and the allocation of sufficient resources to ensure the provision of holistic and patient-centered cancer care. The article stresses the need for a holistic approach that addresses patients’ emotional and psychological well-being alongside medical treatment. Through thoughtful and empathetic communication practices, healthcare providers can profoundly impact patient experiences and breast cancer journeys in a positive manner.

Background: Accessing comprehensive oncological data is essential for efficient and quality healthcare delivery and research. However, obstacles, such as data fragmentation and privacy concerns which may hold back progress in this area, exist. The Cancer Care Beacon project addresses these barriers consolidating oncological information across the 27 member states of the European Union (EU) with the goal of creating a Beacon wiki free data online repository. Methods: The Cancer Care Beacon project involves thorough data collection from various sources, including hospital websites, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and national health institutions. The main focus of metadata retrieval is placed on descriptive details about data sources, thus warranting compliance with privacy regulations and ethical standards. In addition, manual examination and semi-automated methods are included in the process, enabling a registry of administrative databases, cancer registries, and other relevant databases. Results: Project findings demonstrate the success in the realisation of a comprehensive repository of oncological data sources across the EU assisting informed decision-making regarding the selection and utilisation of resources. Still, challenges such as limited accessibility and low engagement from database providers persist. Conclusion: The Beacon Wiki represents a significant step in addressing disparities in oncological data access and advancing cancer care and research in Europe. By providing comprehensive metadata on cancer-related data sources, Beacon Wiki empowers stakeholders and promotes collaboration in cancer care and research. Continuous efforts are needed to enhance data accessibility and engagement from database providers, ultimately improving data-driven decision-making and patient outcomes in the EU. Graphical

Background: Cancer negatively affects patients' physical status as well as their mental health, increasing the burden of family members and caregivers as well. Thus, the screening of psychological and cognitive functioning is key for the referral to mental health specialists. Aim: Identify available and validated screening tools to assess psychological, psychosocial and cognitive impairment in cancer patients (adults and children), caregivers and family members. Methods: An umbrella review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The search strategy was applied to five databases. Reviewers screened titles/abstracts, and the articles included in this initial phase were retrieved for full‐text assessment. All conflicts during the screening phase were discussed, and a third reviewer was consulted if discrepancies were not solved. A narrative synthesis and tabulated summaries of results were conducted. Results: A total of 2304 records were initially identified through systematic searches. Following screening and eligibility assessment, 67 systematic reviews were included. Across the included reviews, 586 different tools were identified and classified into nine thematic domains: (1) Anxiety and Depression, (2) General Mental Disorders, (3) Distress and Fear of Cancer Recurrence, (4) Body Image, Sexuality, and Self‐Perception, (5) Caregiving and Social Impact, (6) Cognitive Functioning, (7) Coping Assessment, (8) Unmet Needs, and (9) Other miscellaneous constructs. Conclusions: A wide variety of mental health screening tools are available, covering key psychosocial and cognitive aspects relevant to cancer care. Although most instruments were not specifically developed for oncological populations, many have been validated in this context and appear to perform adequately.