The optimization of outcomes for pediatric cancer patients relies on the successful advancement of supportive care to ease the treatment burden and mitigate the long-term impacts of cancer therapy. Advancing pediatric supportive care requires research prioritization as well as the development and implementation of innovations. Like the prevailing theme throughout pediatric oncology, there is a clear need for personalized or precision approaches that are consistent, evidence-based, and guided by clinical practice guidelines. By incorporating technology and datasets, we can address questions which may not be feasible to explore in clinical trials. Now is the time to listen to patients’ voices by using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to ensure that their contributions and experiences inform clinical care plans. Furthermore, while the extrapolation of knowledge and approaches from adult populations may suffice in the absence of pediatric-specific evidence, there is a critical need to specifically understand and implement elements of general and developmental pediatrics like growth, nutrition, development, and physical activity into care. Increased research funding for pediatric supportive care is critical to address resource availability, equity, and disparities across the globe. Our patients deserve to enjoy healthy, productive lives with optimized and enriched supportive care that spans the spectrum from diagnosis to survivorship.

Objectives: Brain tumors are the most common and fatal of all solid tumors for children and adolescents; those who survive live with long‐term physical and emotional consequences, as do their families. We aimed to synthesize relevant qualitative evidence on families’ experiences and psychosocial service needs across the lifespan to identify gaps in care delivery and research.Methods: Searches were conducted in Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Embase, and Web of Science. Identified papers were assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. Data were extracted into NVivo12 and analyzed by qualitative description and, where appropriate, thematic analysis.Results: The search yielded 628 papers, of which 40 (33 studies) were eligible (6%). Although the methodological quality of the papers was low, we identified concerns that were consistently reported over time and from different perspectives. Individual family members had varying psychosocial needs to be addressed within healthcare, schooling, and public policy. These include for survivor’s mental health (particularly for body image), and to the disproportionate biopsychosocial burden faced by mother‐caregivers.Conclusions: Addressing the biological aspects of brain tumor cannot be our only focus. We have an obligation to provide services that meet the needs of families across diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, palliative care, and bereavement.

Objective: The prevalence of life-limiting conditions in children in Australia is unknown; such data are needed to inform health service planning for paediatric palliative care. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of life-limiting conditions for children and young people aged 0–21 years living in Queensland, Australia. Methods: An observational study using linked administrative health data from the 2011 and 2016 calendar years was performed for all individuals with an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision Australian Modification code relating to a life-limiting condition eligible for palliative care recorded against an admission to a public or private hospital and health service provider in Queensland or against a cause or underlying cause of death in the Queensland Registrar General Deaths. Results: The overall prevalence of life-limiting conditions per 10 000 population increased from 35.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 34.2–36.2) in 2011 to 43.2 (95% CI 42.1–44.4) in 2016. This increase in prevalence was greatest for children <1 year of age and for those who identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. Conclusion: This study has estimated the prevalence of life-limiting conditions for children and young people aged 0–21 years living in Queensland. Estimation of the number of children and young people with life-limiting conditions can inform health service planning for paediatric palliative care in Queensland. Future research is needed to identify the number of children and young people with life-limiting conditions who do not have an admitted episode. What is known about the topic?: Data from the UK indicate that the prevalence of life-limiting conditions among children and young people is increasing. However, such data are not available for the Australian population. Because prevalence data can be affected by population characteristics, it is important to establish country-specific epidemiological data rather than extrapolating data from other countries. Country-specific data can inform health planners and policy makers of the scale of the problem within a geographical and demographic context. This is essential for Australia given the diverse geographical and demographic characteristics and specific needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. What does this paper add?: This study is the first to provide an estimate of the prevalence of life-limiting conditions in children and young people aged 0–21 years in Queensland. Estimates include the prevalence of life-limiting conditions in children and young people who identify as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander descent. What are the implications for practitioners?: The prevalence of life-limiting conditions in Queensland is greater than previously thought. There is a need to grow both a generalist and specialist paediatric palliative care workforce in response to this increasing prevalence. The estimates of prevalence proportions from this study provide the foundation on which future health service activities can be built because they provide country-specific clinical and demographic characteristics.

Medicinal cannabis might have a role in supporting the mental health of people with cancer. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the efficacy and safety of medicinal cannabis, compared with any control, as an intervention for depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms in people living with cancer. A secondary aim was to examine the effect of low versus high Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) dose on these outcomes. Five databases were systematically searched, and complemented with a snowball search from inception to May 2023, for any type of interventional study that included humans of any age with any cancer type. Primary outcomes were incidence and severity of depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms. Secondary outcomes were mood, cognition, quality of life, appetite, nutrition status, gastrointestinal symptoms, and adverse events. Data were pooled using Review Manager. Evidence was appraised using Cochrane risk of bias tools. Confidence in the estimated effect of pooled outcomes was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Fifteen studies (n = 11 randomized trials, n = 4 non-randomized trials) of 18 interventions (N = 1898 total participants; 100 % ≥18 years of age) were included. Ten studies examined THC (70 % synthetic), two synthetic cannabidiol with or without THC, and six whole-plant extracts. No clinically significant effects of medicinal cannabis were found on primary outcomes. The likelihood of anxiety events increased with higher-dose synthetic THC compared with a lower dose (OR: 2.0; 95 % CI: 1.4, 2.9; p < 0.001; Confidence: very low). Medicinal cannabis (THC, cannabidiol, and whole-plant extract) increased the likelihood of improved appetite (OR: 12.3; 95 % CI: 3.5, 45.5; p < 0.001; n = 3 interventions; Confidence: moderate) and reduced severity of appetite loss (SMD: -0.4; 95 % CI: -0.8, -0.1; p = 0.009; Confidence: very low). There was very low confidence that higher doses of synthetic THC increased the likelihood of any adverse event (OR: 0.5; 95 % CI: 0.3, 0.7; p < 0.001). Medicinal cannabis had no effect on emotional functioning, mood changes, confusion, disorientation, quality of life, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Confidence in findings was limited by some studies having high or unclear risk of bias and imprecise pooled estimates. There was insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of medicinal cannabis as a therapeutic intervention for depression, anxiety, or stress in people with active cancer. Further research should explore whether medicinal cannabis might improve and maintain appetite and if high-dose synthetic THC might increase the incidence of side-effects, including anxiety. To inform clinical practice, well-powered and rigorously designed trials are warranted that evaluate the effects of medicinal cannabis prescribed to target anxiety, depression, and stress.