A first-in-human phase I study of the PD-1 inhibitor, retifanlimab (INCMGA00012), in patients with advanced solid tumors (POD1UM-101).

BACKGROUND: Retifanlimab is a humanized, hinge-stabilized immunoglobulin G4κ monoclonal antibody against human programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1). This first-in-human, phase I study assessed the safety and efficacy of retifanlimab in patients with advanced solid tumors and identified optimal dosing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: POD1UM-101 was conducted in two parts: (i) dose escalation-evaluated retifanlimab [1 mg/kg every 2 weeks (q2w), 3 or 10 mg/kg q2w or every 4 weeks (q4w)] in patients with relapsed/refractory, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors; (ii) cohort expansion-biomarker-unselected tumor-specific cohorts [endometrial, cervical, sarcoma, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)] received retifanlimab 3 mg/kg q2w, and tumor-agnostic cohorts received flat dosing [375 mg every 3 weeks (q3w), or 500 and 750 mg q4w]. Primary objectives were safety and tolerability; secondary objective was efficacy in selected tumor types. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were enrolled in dose escalation, 134 in PD-1 therapy-naïve tumor-specific cohort expansion (endometrial, n = 29; cervical, NSCLC, soft tissue sarcoma, each n = 35), and 45 in flat dosing (375 mg q3w, 500 and 750 mg q4w, each n = 15). No dose-limiting toxicities occurred during dose escalation; maximum tolerated dose was not reached and 3-mg/kg q2w expansion dose was selected based on safety and pharmacokinetic data. Immune-related adverse events were experienced by 40 patients (30%) in tumor-specific cohorts (most frequently hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, colitis, nephritis) and 6 (13%) in flat dosing (most frequently hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism). Objective response rate (95% confidence interval) was 14% (4.8 to 30.3), 14% (3.9 to 31.7), 20% (8.4 to 36.9), and 3% (0.1 to 14.9) in advanced NSCLC, endometrial, cervical, and sarcoma tumor-specific cohorts that progressed after multiple prior systemic therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Retifanlimab demonstrated clinical pharmacology, safety, and antitumor activity consistent with the programmed death (ligand)-1 inhibitor class. POD1UM-101 results support further exploration of retifanlimab as monotherapy and backbone immunotherapy in combination treatments, with recommended doses of 500 mg q4w and 375 mg q3w.

Challenges in oncology career: are we closing the gender gap? Results of the new ESMO Women for Oncology Committee survey.

BACKGROUND: Following a European Society for Medical Oncology Women for Oncology (ESMO W4O) survey in 2016 showing severe under-representation of female oncologists in leadership roles, ESMO launched a series of initiatives to address obstacles to gender equity. A follow-up survey in October 2021 investigated progress achieved. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The W4O questionnaire 2021 expanded on the 2016 survey, with additional questions on the impact of ethnicity, sexual orientation and religion on career development. Results were analysed according to respondent gender and age. RESULTS: The survey sample was larger than in 2016 (n = 1473 versus 482), especially among men. Significantly fewer respondents had managerial or leadership roles than in 2016 (31.8% versus 51.7%). Lack of leadership development for women and unconscious bias were considered more important in 2021 than in 2016. In 2021, more people reported harassment in the workplace than in 2016 (50.3% versus 41.0%). In 2021, ethnicity, sexual orientation and religion were considered to have little or no impact on professional career opportunities, salary setting or related potential pay gap. However, gender had a significant or major impact on career development (25.5% of respondents), especially in respondents ≤40 years of age and women. As in 2016, highest ranked initiatives to foster workplace equity were promotion of work-life balance, development and leadership training and flexible working. Significantly more 2021 respondents (mainly women) supported the need for culture and gender equity education at work than in 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Gender remains a major barrier to career progression in oncology and, although some obstacles may have been reduced since 2016, we are a long way from closing the gender gap. Increased reporting of discrimination and inappropriate behaviour in the workplace is a major, priority concern. The W4O 2021 survey findings provide new evidence and highlight the areas for future ESMO interventions to support equity and diversity in oncology career development.

Oncology phase I trial design and conduct: time for a change - MDICT Guidelines 2022.

In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence announced Project Optimus focusing on dose optimization for oncology drugs. The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT) Taskforce met to review and discuss the optimization of dosage for oncology trials and to develop a practical guide for oncology phase I trials. Defining a single recommended phase II dose based on toxicity may define doses that are neither the most effective nor the best tolerated. MDICT recommendations address the need for robust non-clinical data which are needed to inform trial design, as well as an expert team including statisticians and pharmacologists. The protocol must be flexible and adaptive, with clear definition of all endpoints. Health authorities should be consulted early and regularly. Strategies such as randomization, intrapatient dose escalation, and real-world eligibility criteria are encouraged whereas serial tumor sampling is discouraged in the absence of a strong rationale and appropriately validated assay. Endpoints should include consideration of all longitudinal toxicity. The phase I dose escalation trial should define the recommended dose range for later testing in randomized phase II trials, rather than a single recommended phase II dose, and consider scenarios where different populations may require different dosages. The adoption of these recommendations will improve dosage selection in early clinical trials of new anticancer treatments and ultimately, outcomes for patients.

A first-in-human study of the anti-LAG-3 antibody favezelimab plus pembrolizumab in previously treated, advanced microsatellite stable colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options are limited for participants with microsatellite stable (MSS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that progressed after two or more prior therapies. Studies have shown that blockade of both lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) can improve antitumor activity. Here, we evaluate the antitumor activity of the LAG-3 antibody favezelimab alone or in combination with pembrolizumab in participants with MSS mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible participants with MSS PD-1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) treatment-naive mCRC that progressed on two or more prior therapies received 800 mg favezelimab, 800 mg favezelimab plus 200 mg pembrolizumab, or 800 mg favezelimab/200 mg pembrolizumab co-formulation, every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was safety, the secondary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), and exploratory endpoints included duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: At the data cut-off date of 23 October 2020, a total of 20 participants received favezelimab alone, 89 received favezelimab plus pembrolizumab (including as favezelimab/pembrolizumab co-formulation); 48 had PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥1 tumors. At this interim analysis median follow-up was 5.8 months with favezelimab and 6.2 with favezelimab plus pembrolizumab. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were 65% with favezelimab and 65.2% with favezelimab plus pembrolizumab. Grade ≥3 TRAEs were 15% with favezelimab and 20% with favezelimab plus pembrolizumab. No grade 5 TRAEs occurred. Common TRAEs (≥15%) included fatigue (20.0%), nausea (15.0%) with favezelimab, and fatigue (16.9%) with favezelimab plus pembrolizumab. Confirmed ORR was 6.3% with favezelimab plus pembrolizumab, with median duration of response of 10.6 months (range 5.6-12.7 months), median OS of 8.3 months (95% confidence interval 5.5-12.9 months), and median PFS of 2.1 months (1.9-2.2 months). In an exploratory analysis of PD-L1 CPS ≥1 tumors, the confirmed ORR was 11.1%, median OS was 12.7 months (4.5 to not reached), and median PFS was 2.2 months (1.8-4.2 months) with favezelimab plus pembrolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Favezelimab with or without pembrolizumab had a manageable safety profile, with no treatment-related deaths. Promising antitumor activity was observed with combination therapy, particularly in participants with PD-L1 CPS ≥1 tumors.

Phase I, first-in-human study of MSC-1 (AZD0171), a humanized anti-leukemia inhibitory factor monoclonal antibody, for advanced solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Activation of leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) is linked to an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME), with a strong association between LIF expression and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs). MSC-1 (AZD0171) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds with high affinity to LIF, promoting antitumor inflammation through TAM modulation and cancer stem cell inhibition, slowing tumor growth. In this phase I, first-in-human, open-label, dose-escalation study, MSC-1 monotherapy was assessed in patients with advanced, unresectable solid tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using accelerated-titration dose escalation followed by a 3 + 3 design, MSC-1 doses of 75-1500 mg were administered intravenously every 3 weeks (Q3W) until progression or unmanageable toxicity. Additional patients were enrolled in selected cohorts to further evaluate safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics after escalation to the next dose had been approved. The primary objective was characterizing safety and determining the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Evaluating antitumor activity and progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1, PK and immunogenicity were secondary objectives. Exploratory objectives included pharmacodynamic effects on circulating LIF and TME immune markers. RESULTS: Forty-one patients received treatment. MSC-1 monotherapy was safe and well tolerated at all doses, with no dose-limiting toxicities. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached and the RP2D was determined to be 1500 mg Q3W. Almost half of the patients had treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), with no apparent trends across doses; no patients withdrew due to TRAEs. There were no objective responses; 23.7% had stable disease for ≥2 consecutive tumor assessments. Median PFS was 5.9 weeks; 23.7% had PFS >16 weeks. On-treatment changes in circulating LIF and TME signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 signaling, M1:M2 macrophage populations, and CD8+ T-cell infiltration were consistent with the hypothesized mechanism of action. CONCLUSIONS: MSC-1 was very well tolerated across doses, with prolonged PFS in some patients. Biomarker and preclinical data suggest potential synergy with checkpoint inhibitors.

Isatuximab plus atezolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors: results from a phase I/II, open-label, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The anti-CD38 antibody isatuximab is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, but there are no data on its efficacy in solid tumors. This phase I/II study (NCT03637764) assessed the safety and activity of isatuximab plus atezolizumab (Isa + Atezo), an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody, in patients with immunotherapy-naive solid tumors: epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), glioblastoma (GBM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Phase I assessed safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of isatuximab 10 mg/kg intravenously (i.v.) every week for 3 weeks followed by once every 3 weeks + atezolizumab 1200 mg i.v. every 3 weeks. Phase II used a Simon's two-stage design to assess the overall response rate or progression-free survival rate at 6 months (GBM cohort). Interim analysis was carried out at 6 months following first dose of the last enrolled patient in each cohort. Pharmacodynamic biomarkers were tested for CD38, PD-L1, tumor-infiltrating immune cells, and FOXP3+ regulatory T cells (Tregs) in the tumor microenvironment (TME). RESULTS: Overall, 107 patients were treated (EOC, n = 18; GBM, n = 33; HCC, n = 27; SCCHN, n = 29). In phase I, Isa + Atezo showed an acceptable safety profile, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and RP2D was confirmed. Most patients experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), with ≤48.5% being grade ≥3. The most frequent TEAE was infusion reactions. The study did not continue to stage 2 based on prespecified targets. Tumor-infiltrating CD38+ immune cells were reduced and almost cleared after treatment. Isa + Atezo did not significantly modulate Tregs or PD-L1 expression in the TME. CONCLUSIONS: Isa + Atezo had acceptable safety and tolerability. Clinical pharmacodynamic evaluation revealed efficient target engagement of isatuximab via treatment-mediated reduction of CD38+ immune cells in the TME. Based on clinical data, CD38 inhibition does not improve responsiveness to PD-L1 blockade in these patients.

Safety and efficacy of pralsetinib in RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer including as first-line therapy: update from the ARROW trial.

BACKGROUND: RET fusions are present in 1%-2% of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Pralsetinib, a highly potent, oral, central nervous system-penetrant, selective RET inhibitor, previously demonstrated clinical activity in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC in the phase I/II ARROW study, including among treatment-naive patients. We report an updated analysis from the ARROW study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ARROW is a multi-cohort, open-label, phase I/II study. Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 (later 0-1). Patients initiated pralsetinib at the recommended phase II dose of 400 mg once daily until disease progression, intolerance, consent withdrawal, or investigator's decision. The co-primary endpoints (phase II) were overall response rate (ORR) by blinded independent central review and safety. RESULTS: Between 17 March 2017 and 6 November 2020 (data cut-off), 281 patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC were enrolled. The ORR was 72% [54/75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 60% to 82%] for treatment-naive patients and 59% (80/136; 95% CI 50% to 67%) for patients with prior platinum-based chemotherapy (enrolment cut-off for efficacy analysis: 22 May 2020); median duration of response was not reached for treatment-naive patients and 22.3 months for prior platinum-based chemotherapy patients. Tumour shrinkage was observed in all treatment-naive patients and in 97% of patients with prior platinum-based chemotherapy; median progression-free survival was 13.0 and 16.5 months, respectively. In patients with measurable intracranial metastases, the intracranial response rate was 70% (7/10; 95% CI 35% to 93%); all had received prior systemic treatment. In treatment-naive patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC who initiated pralsetinib by the data cut-off (n = 116), the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were neutropenia (18%), hypertension (10%), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (9%), and lymphopenia (9%). Overall, 7% (20/281) discontinued due to TRAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Pralsetinib treatment produced robust efficacy and was generally well tolerated in treatment-naive patients with advanced RET fusion-positive NSCLC. Results from the confirmatory phase III AcceleRET Lung study (NCT04222972) of pralsetinib versus standard of care in the first-line setting are pending.

Safety and preliminary activity results of the GATTO study, a phase Ib study combining the anti-TA-MUC1 antibody gatipotuzumab with the anti-EGFR tomuzotuximab in patients with refractory solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: The phase I GATTO study (NCT03360734) explored the feasibility, tolerability and preliminary activity of combining gatipotuzumab, a novel humanized monoclonal antibody binding to the tumor-associated epitope of mucin 1 (TA-MUC1) and an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) antibody in refractory solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Initially the study enrolled primary phase (PP) patients with EGFR-positive metastatic solid tumors, for whom no standard treatment was available. Patients received gatipotuzumab administered at 1400 mg every 2 weeks, 6 weeks after the start of the glyco-optimized anti-EGFR antibody tomuzotuximab at 1200 mg every 2 weeks. As this regimen was proven safe, enrollment continued in an expansion phase (EP) of patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer, head and neck cancer and breast cancer. Tomuzotuximab and gatipotuzumab were given at the same doses and gatipotuzumab treatment started 1 week after the first dose of the anti-EGFR antibody. Additionally, investigators could use a commercial anti-EGFR antibody in place of tomuzotuximab. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients were enrolled, 20 in the PP and 32 in the EP. The combined treatment was well tolerated and no dose-limiting toxicity was observed in the whole study, nor related serious adverse event or death. Preliminary activity of the combination was observed, with one and four RECIST partial responses in the PP and EP, all in colorectal cancer patients. The trial was accompanied by a comprehensive translational research program for identification of biomarkers, including soluble TA-MUC1 (sTA-MUC1) in serum. In the EP, patients with baseline sTA-MUC1 levels above the median appeared to have improved progression-free survival and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Combination of a TA-MUC1-targeting antibody and an EGFR-targeting antibody is safe and feasible. Interesting antitumor activity was observed in heavily pretreated patients. Future studies should test this combination together with chemotherapy and explore the potential of sTA-MUC1 as a companion biomarker for further development of the combination.

Female leadership in oncology-has progress stalled? Data from the ESMO W4O authorship and monitoring studies.

BACKGROUND: Exploratory research showed that female oncologists are frequently under-represented in leadership roles. European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Women for Oncology (W4O) therefore implemented gender equality programs in career development and established international studies on female representation at all stages of the oncology career pathway. METHODS: For 2017-2019, data were collected on (i) first and last authorship of publications in five major oncology journals and (ii) representation of women in leadership positions in oncology-as invited speakers at National/International congresses, board members or presidents of National/International societies and ESMO members. The 2015/2016 data from the first published W4O Study were incorporated for comparisons. RESULTS: Across 2017-2019, female oncologists were significantly more likely to be first than last authors (P < 0.001). The proportion of female first authors was similar across years: 38.0% in 2017, 37.1% in 2018, 41.0% in 2019 (P = 0.063). The proportion of female last authors decreased from 30.4% in 2017 to 24.2% in 2018 (P = 0.0018) and increased to 28.5% in 2019 (P = 0.018). Across 2015-2019, invited speakers at International/National oncology congresses were significantly less likely to be female than male (P < 0.001; 29.7% in 2015 to 36.8% in 2019). Across 2016-2019, board members of International/National oncology societies were significantly less likely to be female than male (P < 0.001; 26.8% in 2016 to 35.8% in 2019). There were statistically significant increasing trends in female speakers and board members across the study periods (P < 0.001 for both). Societies with a female president had a higher proportion of female board members across these periods (P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Reported progress towards gender equality in career development in oncology is real but slow. Women in leadership positions are essential for encouraging young women to aspire to and work towards similar or greater success. Therefore, continued monitoring is needed to inform ESMO W4O initiatives to promote gender balance at all stages of the career pathway.

Has COVID-19 had a greater impact on female than male oncologists? Results of the ESMO Women for Oncology (W4O) Survey.

BACKGROUND: European Society for Medical Oncology Women for Oncology (ESMO W4O) research has previously shown under-representation of female oncologists in leadership roles. As early reports suggested disproportionate effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women, the ESMO W4O Committee initiated a study on the impact of the pandemic on the lives of female and male oncologists. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to ESMO members and put on the ESMO website between 8 June 2020 and 2 July 2020. Questions focused on the working (hospital tasks, laboratory tasks, science) and home (household management, childcare, parent care, personal care) lives of oncologists during and after COVID-19-related lockdowns. RESULTS: Of 649 respondents, 541 completed the questionnaire. Of these, 58% reported that COVID-19 had affected their professional career, 83% of whom said this was in a negative way (85% of women versus 76% of men). Approximately 86% reported that COVID-19 had changed their personal life and 82% their family life. Women were again significantly more affected than men: personal life (89% versus 78%; P = 0.001); family life (84% versus 77%; P = 0.037). During lockdowns, women reported increased time spent on hospital and laboratory tasks compared with men (53% versus 46% and 33% versus 26%, respectively) and a significantly higher proportion of women than men spent less time on science (39% versus 25%) and personal care (58% versus 39%). After confinement, this trend remained for science (42% versus 23%) and personal care (55% versus 36%). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected the professional and home lives of oncologists, especially women. Reduced research time for female oncologists may have long-lasting career consequences, especially for those at key stages in their career. The gender gap for promotion to leadership positions may widen further as a result of the pandemic.

Early-drug development in the era of immuno-oncology: are we ready to face the challenges?

The classical development of drugs has progressively faded away, and we are currently in an era of seamless drug-development, where first-in-human trials include unusually big expansion cohorts in the search for early signs of activity and rapid regulatory approval. The fierce competition between different pharmaceutical companies and the hype for immune combinations obliges us to question the current way in which we are evaluating these drugs. In this review, we discuss critical issues and caveats in immunotherapy development. A particular emphasis is put on the limitations of pre-clinical toxicology studies, where both murine models and cynomolgus monkeys have underpredicted toxicity in humans. Moreover, relevant issues surrounding dose determination during phase I trials, such as dose-escalation methods or flat versus body-weight dosing, are discussed. A proposal of how to face these different challenges is offered, in order to achieve maximum efficacy with minimum toxicity for our patients.

Integrated palliative care in Europe: a qualitative systematic literature review of empirically-tested models in cancer and chronic disease.

BACKGROUND: Integrated Palliative Care (PC) strategies are often implemented following models, namely standardized designs that provide frameworks for the organization of care for people with a progressive life-threatening illness and/or for their (in)formal caregivers. The aim of this qualitative systematic review is to identify empirically-evaluated models of PC in cancer and chronic disease in Europe. Further, develop a generic framework that will consist of the basis for the design of future models for integrated PC in Europe. METHODS: Cochrane, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, BNI, Web of Science, NHS Evidence. Five journals and references from included studies were hand-searched. Two reviewers screened the search results. Studies with adult patients with advanced cancer/chronic disease from 1995 to 2013 in Europe, in English, French, German, Dutch, Hungarian or Spanish were included. A narrative synthesis was used. RESULTS: 14 studies were included, 7 models for chronic disease, 4 for integrated care in oncology, 2 for both cancer and chronic disease and 2 for end-of-life pathways. The results show a strong agreement on the benefits of the involvement of a PC multidisciplinary team: better symptom control, less caregiver burden, improvement in continuity and coordination of care, fewer admissions, cost effectiveness and patients dying in their preferred place. CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, a generic framework for integrated PC in cancer and chronic disease is proposed. This framework fosters integration of PC in the disease trajectory concurrently with treatment and identifies the importance of employing a PC-trained multidisciplinary team with a threefold focus: treatment, consulting and training.

Child involvement in the paediatric consultation: a qualitative study of children and carers' views.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate child and carers' attitudes towards child involvement in paediatric consultations. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews explored child and carers' attitudes towards child involvement at different stages of the paediatric consultation process. Twenty families (21 children, 17 mothers and 5 fathers) were interviewed following a paediatric (index) consultation in two UK paediatric inpatient and outpatient departments. RESULTS: All but one family felt the child should be involved at some stage of the consultation process but the desired extent and nature of involvement depended on child, family and illness characteristics, as well as on the stages of the consultation. During history gathering, some parents and children felt it was the decision and responsibility of the parent to facilitate communication between the child and the doctor. Others expected the doctor to decide when and how to facilitate this process. At diagnosis the desired amount of information given to the child increased with increasing maturity in the child. Some felt making a diagnosis should be a collaborative process; others felt it was solely the domain of the doctor. In discussing and making a treatment plan, some children wanted to be given the choice of being involved and some wanted their parents to be responsible for implementing the plan. Some families with a seriously ill child, however, wanted the burden of involvement in the management plan taken away from them. CONCLUSIONS: Families vary in their views about involvement of children in paediatric consultations in a way that may be unique to each child, family and illness. Moreover, different views were expressed about involvement in each stage of the consultative process and in management of the child's health. The challenge for doctors is to determine the level of involvement and information exchange favoured by a particular parent and child. Good practice recommendations emerging from the analysis are described.

A child's admission to hospital: a qualitative study examining the experiences of parents.

AIMS: To compare the experiences of parents and children during inpatient admission to either a paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) or a general paediatric ward (GPW) with a specific focus on identifying factors which may influence psychological outcome. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews of 20 parents whose children had been admitted to hospital. Cases were sampled purposively to ensure representation of both groups (PICU and GPW admissions). Interviews were tape recorded, transcribed and subjected to a thematic analysis. RESULTS: The experiences of parents were explored with regard to illness onset, admission to PICU or GPW and the discharge period. In the PICU group, the sources of stress differed according to the stage: at onset, they were mainly related to their child's illness; during admission, concerns were focused on their child's appearance; finally, on discharge, possible relapse of the illness, impact of the admission on the child and family and the lack of clear follow-up were the central themes. In the GPW group, parents reported similar themes but with lower levels of associated stress. Both groups identified good communication with the medical team and opportunities for participation as helpful in reducing stress. CONCLUSIONS: Admission to hospital is stressful for parents particularly if the child is admitted to PICU. Hospital staff should enhance communication with parents and maximise opportunities for parental participation in the child's treatment. Such interventions may reduce parents' experience of stress during the admission and have the potential to improve psychological outcome.

The treatment of child and adolescent mental health problems in primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is significant potential to increase the accessibility and effectiveness of child and adolescent mental health services through the involvement of primary care professionals and the delivery of interventions in the primary care setting. However, little is known about the actual clinical and cost-effectiveness of such service delivery. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to review systematically the evidence concerning the effectiveness of interventions for child and adolescent mental health problems in primary care, and interventions designed to improve the skills of primary care staff. METHODS: Searches were made of The Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, MEDLINE, PSYCINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL, together with correspondence with subject experts and authors of studies, and checking of references in identified papers. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There was some preliminary evidence that treatments by specialist staff working in primary care were effective, although the quality of included studies was variable and no data were available on the cost-effectiveness of interventions. Equally, some educational interventions show potential for increasing the skills and confidence of primary care staff, but controlled evaluations were rare and few studies reported actual changes in professional behaviour or patient health outcomes. A significant programme of research is required if the potential for child and adolescent mental health services in primary care is to be realized in an effective and efficient way.

Child and adolescent psychiatry in general practice.

OBJECTIVE: This review discusses the role of general practitioners and primary care health staff in the assessment, treatment and prevention of child and adolescent psychiatric disorders and to consider implications for service delivery. METHOD: Literature review. Papers were selected as having an empirical evidence base or as describing and documenting new initiatives in general practice. RESULTS: A small proportion of about 3% of children present to general practice with behavioural or emotional problems, but psychiatric disorders in the context of somatic presentations are considerably more common. They are probably higher than in the general population reflecting an increased tendency by children with disorders to consult. Recognition by general practitioners is limited and few children with disorders are referred to specialist clinics. However, referrals are mostly appropriate: the more severely affected children in difficult psychosocial circumstances. A number of pilot studies have shown the feasibility and potential usefulness of setting up shifted specialist clinics in primary care and of training primary care doctors and other staff in the recognition or management of child mental heath problems. CONCLUSION: Primary care is an appropriate resource to help increase attention to child and adolescent mental health problems. Its potential requires further development and rigorous evaluation. Areas lending themselves to development include: improved medical undergraduate teaching and postgraduate training; suitable information and advice-giving on child mental health problems by the primary care team; the development of specific child and adolescent psychiatric interventions for use in the primary care setting; careful and discriminating development of shifted outpatient clinics for selected child psychiatric disorders; the development of focused protocols for referral to specialist services; further development of mental health promotion clinics in primary care.