Development of a national quality framework for palliative care in a mixed generalist and specialist care model: A whole-sector approach and a modified Delphi technique.

In a predominantly biomedical healthcare model focused on cure, providing optimal, person-centred palliative care is challenging. The general public, patients, and healthcare professionals are often unaware of palliative care's benefits. Poor interdisciplinary teamwork and limited communication combined with a lack of early identification of patients with palliative care needs contribute to sub-optimal palliative care provision. We aimed to develop a national quality framework to improve availability and access to high-quality palliative care in a mixed generalist-specialist palliative care model. We hypothesised that a whole-sector approach and a modified Delphi technique would be suitable to reach this aim. Analogous to the international AGREE guideline criteria and employing a whole-sector approach, an expert panel comprising mandated representatives for patients and their families, various healthcare associations, and health insurers answered the main question: 'What are the elements defining high-quality palliative care in the Netherlands?'. For constructing the quality framework, a bottleneck analysis of palliative care provision and a literature review were conducted. Six core documents were used in a modified Delphi technique to build the framework with the expert panel, while stakeholder organisations were involved and informed in round-table discussions. In the entire process, preparing and building relationships took one year and surveying, convening, discussing content, consulting peers, and obtaining final consent from all stakeholders took 18 months. A quality framework, including a glossary of terms, endorsed by organisations representing patients and their families, general practitioners, elderly care physicians, medical specialists, nurses, social workers, psychologists, spiritual caregivers, and health insurers was developed and annexed with a summary for patients and families. We successfully developed a national consensus-based patient-centred quality framework for high-quality palliative care in a mixed generalist-specialist palliative care model. A whole-sector approach and a modified Delphi technique are feasible structures to achieve this aim. The process we reported may guide other countries in their initiatives to enhance palliative care.

Sequential versus combination chemotherapy with capecitabine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin in advanced colorectal cancer (CAIRO): a phase III randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimum use of cytotoxic drugs for advanced colorectal cancer has not been defined. Our aim was to investigate whether combination treatment is better than sequential administration of the same drugs in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned 820 patients with advanced colorectal cancer to receive either first-line treatment with capecitabine, second-line irinotecan, and third-line capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (sequential treatment; n=410) or first-line treatment capecitabine plus irinotecan and second-line capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (combination treatment; n=410). The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov with the number NCT00312000. FINDINGS: 17 patients (nine in the sequential treatment group, eight in the combination group) were found to be ineligible and were excluded from the analysis. 675 (84%) patients died during the study: 336 in the sequential group and 339 in the combination group. Median overall survival was 16.3 (95% CI 14.3-18.1) months for sequential treatment and 17.4 (15.2-19.2) months for combination treatment (p=0.3281). The hazard ratio for combination versus sequential treatment was 0.92 (95% CI 0.79-1.08; p=0.3281). The frequency of grade 3-4 toxicity over all lines of treatment did not differ significantly between the two groups, except for grade 3 hand-foot syndrome, which occurred more often with sequential treatment than with combination treatment (13%vs 7%; p=0.004). INTERPRETATION: Combination treatment does not significantly improve overall survival compared with the sequential use of cytotoxic drugs in advanced colorectal cancer. Thus sequential treatment remains a valid option for patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

Efficacy and safety of transdermal buprenorphine: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 289 patients with severe cancer pain.

Strong opioids are recommended for treating severe cancer pain in the advanced stages of the disease. Few data are available concerning the efficacy of buprenorphine in cancer pain. We compared transdermal buprenorphine 70 microg/h (BUP TDS) to placebo in an enriched design study. Opioid-tolerant patients with cancer pain requiring strong opioids in the dose range of 90-150 mg/d oral morphine equivalents entered a two-week run-in phase, during which they were converted to BUP TDS. Patients who could be stabilized on BUP TDS were randomized to BUP TDS or placebo patch for a two-week maintenance phase. Rescue medication (buprenorphine sublingual tablets 0.2mg) was allowed as required. Response was defined as a mean pain intensity of <5 (0-10 scale) and a mean daily buprenorphine sublingual tablet intake of < or =2 tablets during the maintenance phase. Of 289 patients who entered the run-in phase, 100 discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy or adverse events; 189 patients continued treatment in the maintenance phase (94 BUP TDS, 95 placebo), of whom 31 discontinued treatment (7 BUP TDS, 24 placebo). A significant difference in the number of treatment responders was observed: 70 BUP TDS (74.5%, 65.7-83.3) vs. 47 placebo (50%, 39.9-60.1) (P=0.0003). This result was supported by a lower daily pain intensity, lower intake of buprenorphine sublingual tablets and fewer dropouts in the BUP TDS group. The incidence of adverse events was slightly higher for BUP TDS. In conclusion, BUP TDS 70 microg/h is an efficacious and safe treatment for patients with severe cancer pain.