Oncologist's knowledge and implementation of guidelines for breakthrough cancer pain in Spain: CONOCE study.

PURPOSE: Breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) has been shown to be a prevalent and poor prognostic factor for oncologic patients, which remain under diagnosed and undertreated. In 2012, the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) published a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the treatment of cancer pain which specifically addressed the management of BTcP. METHODS: Fundación ECO designed a qualitative study using an Internet-based survey to investigate the attitudes toward, compliance with, and use of SEOM Guideline. RESULTS: A total of 83 oncologists with a mean experience of 13 years responded. Overall, 82% were aware of different guidelines to manage BTcP. Notably, attitudes toward guidelines were highly positive and there was nearly unanimous agreement that CPG provided the best scientific evidence available (99%), on the minimum information to be gathered for the medical history (100%), on the need for a specific treatment for BTcP (100%), and fentanyl as the first-choice drug (99%). Interestingly, there were discrepancies between what oncologists agreed with and what they do in clinical practice. In fact, 87.6% declare full compliance with SEOM guideline, although adherence to registration of BTcP data in medical records ranged from 30.1 to 91.6% (mean 64.5%); therapeutic management compliance was higher ranging from 75.9 to 91.6%. Main barriers identified were time pressure together with vague statements and limited dissemination of the guidelines. CONCLUSION: Despite oncologist's clinical practice is increasingly guided by GPC, it suffers from limited compliance, at least in part due to suboptimal statements. Improved dissemination and education are needed to enhance guideline implementation.

Social value of a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in Spain: the point of view of oncologists.

PURPOSE: The economic situation showed that the resources devoted to health spending are limited, making rationalisation of their consumption necessary. The relevance of pharmacoeconomic analyses is becoming crucial. The ECO Foundation, promoting the quality of oncology care, set out to analyse the consensus on the new therapeutic targets inclusion and the integration of pharmacoeconomics when evaluating their effectiveness. METHODS: Study about pharmacoeconomic estimations was performed during the first ECO-Seminar (2010). It was developed using a modified Delphi method, in four stages: (1) committee coordinator establishment, (2) expert-panel selection, (3) preparation and submission of survey (1 question) by email, and (4) analysis of the degree of consensus reached. RESULTS: Results were obtained from surveys completed by 35 experts. Regarding the tolerable annual cost for the approval of new drugs, 68.8 % of the respondents considered a cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained between €30,000 and 100,000 acceptable (34.4 % €30,000-60,000; 34.4 % €60,000-100,000), 21.9 % of the respondents found costs between €100,000-150,000/QALY and 9.3 % of the respondents found costs above €150,000/QALY acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of new drugs are higher than traditional treatments, making it a priority to identify subgroups of patients with specific molecular profiles as candidates for higher-efficiency-targeted therapies. The allocation of the available resources to the most effective interventions, to achieve the best clinical outcomes with lower costs and best subjective profile possible, allows expenditure to be rationalised. Pharmacoeconomic studies are a basic tool for obtaining better health outcomes according to the available resources, while also considering the other needs of the population.