Improvement of decision-making criteria for the care of elderly cancer patients by general practitioners (Lorraine, France).

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify changes in the decision-making criteria of general practitioners (GPs) concerning the care of elderly cancer patients after 1 year of corrective measures for care practices in the Lorraine region, France. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2014, a postal mail questionnaire was sent to all GPs in the Lorraine region. This questionnaire was designed to identify GPs' decision-making criteria. It was based on the results of a literature review and on existing guidelines. During 1 year, corrective measures were implemented to improve practices, especially training sessions for physicians and production of specific tools, including a guide to the accepted ideas in geriatric oncology. In 2015, the same questionnaire was resent to all GPs to compare the answers. RESULTS: In 2014, 430 questionnaires were returned out of 2,048 sent, and in 2015, 378 questionnaires were returned out of 2,066 sent. Our results show for the first time that there exists a significant difference in the overall decision criteria between the two survey periods. This difference mainly concerns criteria related to the cancerous diseases. Physicians tend to consider the principal decision criteria to be less important after the training period. GPs express the importance of accessibility to specialists for additional advice in both 2014 and 2015; the distance between the patient's home and an adapted care facility and the interval before care begins are viewed as similarly important. CONCLUSION: Training and information sessions for physicians remain the most important tool for improving care practices. Such training strategies are more effective when carried out at the geographical scale at which the cancer professionals practice, allowing them to exploit their local organizational structure. The analysis of our data makes it possible to further integrate the patient into the care path, which remains a public health issue in terms of cost and organization.

Decision making affecting care of older people with cancer: a comparison between general practitioners and oncologists in Lorraine.

The main objective of this study is to identify the decision criteria of general practitioners and oncologists in the management of older patients with cancer in Lorraine. The secondary objectives are to identify the difficulties encountered and to propose solutions to improve health path of these patients. 2,995 post mail questionnaires were sent to all general practitioners and oncologists in Lorraine. Some decision criteria differ between general practitioners and oncologists: civilian age and accessibility to a specialized advice for general practitioners; type of cancer, nutritional status, application of best practice recommendations, and multidisciplinary discussion for oncologists. The main difficulties reported are organizational and relate to time interval before specific care beginning, accessibility to a medical specialist, and post-diagnosis such link between primary care and hospital. General practitioners and oncologists mainly agree with the difficulties encountered and the solutions to find, even if some decision criteria differences are highlighted. The training of professionals remains the major lever for improvement of medical practices.

[Standards, options and recommendations for the use of medical analgesics for the treatment of pain arising from excess nociception in adults with cancer (update 2002)]. / Standards, Options et Recommandations 2002 pour les traitements antalgiques médicamenteux des douleurs cancéreuses par excès de nociception chez l'adulte, mise à jour (rapport abrégé).

CONTEXT: The "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project, started in 1993, is a collaboration between the Federation of french cancer centers (FNCLCC), the 20 French cancer centers, and specialists from French public universities, general hospitals and private clinics. The main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and the outcome of cancer patients. The methodology is based on a literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts, with feedback from specialists in cancer care delivery. OBJECTIVES: To develop clinical practice guidelines for the use of medical analgesics for the treatment of pain arising from excess nociception in adults with cancer according to the definitions of the Standards, Options and Recommendations project. METHODS: In 1996, a working group, set up by the FNCLCC published clinical practice guidelines for pain management in adult and paediatric patients with cancer. In the light of the evolution of our knowledge, and practice these guidelines need to be updated. The section on "medical analgesic treatments" in the document published in 1996 was examined by the working group to identify which questions should be updated. These questions and the relevant key words were used to develop a search strategy which was used to search Medline , and for particular questions, Embase , from January 1994 to March 1999, for relevant references, published in English or French. RESULTS: For this update, only a few randomised clinical trials were identified, and their conclusions were generally weak. Thus much of the information in this document is based on the World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines and represents the "state of the art" on this subject in France and is supported by expert agreement. Some changes to the original SOR are presented, eg. methods of titration, prescription of new opioids, opioid rotation. We also present a synthesis of recent pharmacological and regulatory data. The integral version is available on the FNCLCC web site (http://www.fnclcc.fr/sor.htm).

[Standards, options and recommendations for the use of medical analgesics for the treatment of pain arising from excess nociception in adults with cancer (update 2002): opioid analgesics with the exception of morphine by mouth and the rotation]. / Standards, Options et Recommandations 2002 pour les traitements antalgiques médicamenteux des douleurs cancéreuses par excès de nociception chez l'adulte, mise à jour : place des opioïdes forts (morphine orale exclue) et rotation des opioïdes.

CONTEXT: The "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project, started in 1993, is a collaboration between the federation of French Cancer Centers (FNCLCC), the 20 French cancer centers, and specialists from French public universities, general hospitals and private clinics. The main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and the outcome of cancer patients. The methodology is based on a literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts, with feedback from specialists in cancer care delivery. OBJECTIVES: To develop clinical practice guidelines for the use of opioid analgesics with the exception of oral morphine and for opioid rotation related to the treatment of nociceptive pain in adults with cancer according to the definitions of the Standards, Options and Recommendations project. METHODS: In 1996, a working group, set up by the FNCLCC published clinical practice guidelines for pain management in adult and paediatric patients with cancer: In the light of the evolution of knowledge, and practice these guidelines need to be updated The section on "médical analgesic treatments" in the document published in 1996 was examined by the working group to identify which questions should be updated. These questions and the relevant key words were used to develop a search strategy which was used to search Medline, and for particular questions, Embase, from January 1994 to March 1999, for relevant references, published in English or French. RESULTS: For this update, only a few randomised clinical trials were identified, and their conclusions were generally weak. Thus much of the information in this document is based on the World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines and represents the "state of the art" on this subject in France and is supported by expert agreement. Some changes to the original SOR are presented, particularly for the prescription of new opioids and opioid rotation. The full text of this SOR is available on the FNCLCC web site (http ://www.fnclcc.fr).

Screening for vulnerability in older cancer patients: the ONCODAGE Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric Assessment is an appropriate method for identifying older cancer patients at risk of life-threatening events during therapy. Yet, it is underused in practice, mainly because it is time- and resource-consuming. This study aims to identify the best screening tool to identify older cancer patients requiring geriatric assessment by comparing the performance of two short assessment tools the G8 and the Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The diagnostic accuracy of the G8 and the (VES-13) were evaluated in a prospective cohort study of 1674 cancer patients accrued before treatment in 23 health care facilities. 1435 were eligible and evaluable. Outcome measures were multidimensional geriatric assessment (MGA), sensitivity (primary), specificity, negative and positive predictive values and likelihood ratios of the G8 and VES-13, and predictive factors of 1-year survival rate. RESULTS: Patient median age was 78.2 years (70-98) with a majority of females (69.8%), various types of cancer including 53.9% breast, and 75.8% Performance Status 0-1. Impaired MGA, G8, and VES-13 were 80.2%, 68.4%, and 60.2%, respectively. Mean time to complete G8 or VES-13 was about five minutes. Reproducibility of the two questionnaires was good. G8 appeared more sensitive (76.5% versus 68.7%, P =  0.0046) whereas VES-13 was more specific (74.3% versus 64.4%, P<0.0001). Abnormal G8 score (HR = 2.72), advanced stage (HR = 3.30), male sex (HR = 2.69) and poor Performance Status (HR = 3.28) were independent prognostic factors of 1-year survival. CONCLUSION: With good sensitivity and independent prognostic value on 1-year survival, the G8 questionnaire is currently one of the best screening tools available to identify older cancer patients requiring geriatric assessment, and we believe it should be implemented broadly in daily practice. Continuous research efforts should be pursued to refine the selection process of older cancer patients before potentially life-threatening therapy.

SALTO: a randomized, multicenter study assessing octreotide LAR in inoperable bowel obstruction.

This phase II, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-comparative study assessed the efficacy and safety of immediate-release octreotide and octreotide LAR, in combination with corticosteroids and standard medical care, on the symptoms of inoperable malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) due to peritoneal carcinomatosis. The primary efficacy endpoint was "success" at day 14 defined as a composite endpoint including the absence of a nasogastric tube, and vomiting less than twice per day and no use of anticholinergic agents. Patients in the octreotide arm received octreotide LAR 30 mg intramuscular (im) on days 1, 29 and 57, as well as daily immediate-release octreotide 600 µg per day plus methylprednisolone on days 1 to 6. Placebo-treated patients received methylprednisolone and matched placebo instead of octreotide. Difficulties associated with enrolling patients at palliative-care stage meant only 64 patients (instead of the planned 102 patients) were randomized, 32 to octreotide and 32 to placebo. Despite randomization, more patients in the octreotide arm (46.4%) than in the placebo arm (21.9%) had a baseline Karnofsky score less than 50. An intention-to-treat analysis showed that in the octreotide and placebo arms, 12 (38%) and nine (28%), respectively, patients were successfully treated at day 14, which increased to 9/15 (60%) and 7/25 (28%), respectively, among patients with a baseline Karnofsky score greater or equal to 50. Octreotide-treated patients reported three drug-related adverse events (AEs), and no drug-related serious AEs or deaths. Octreotide LAR may have a key role in treating patients with a MBO due to peritoneal carcinomatosis, particularly in those with moderately severe disease.

[Full version of the 2005 Standards, Options and Recommendations for the management of procedure-related pain (lumbar puncture, bone marrow aspiration or biopsy, blood sampling) in adult patients with cancer]. / Recommandations pour la pratique clinique 2005 : Standards, Options et Recommandations pour la prise en charge des douleurs provoquées lors des ponctions lombaires, osseuses et sanguines chez l'adulte atteint de cancer (rapport intégral) ,Validation du rapport original : janvier 2005.

The << Standards, Options and Recommendations >> (SOR) project, started in 1993, is a collaboration between the Federation of French Cancer Centres (FNCLCC), the 20 French cancer centres, and specialists from French public universities, general hospitals and private clinics. The main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and the outcome of cancer patients. The methodology is based on a literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts, with feedback from specialists in cancer care delivery. Objectives : To establish the Standards, Options and Recommendations clinical practice guidelines for the management of procedure related pain (lumbar puncture, bone marrow aspiration or biopsy, blood sampling) in adult oncology patients. To define, on the basis of the critical appraisal of the best available evidence and expert agreement, the clinical situations in which a pain preventive strategy should be implemented. Methods. Medline(R) was searched using specific search strategies from January 1966 to August 2003. Literature monitoring was performed to identify controlled clinical trials published between August 2003 to September 2004. In addition several Internet sites were searched in July 2003. Results. A total of 12 references, corresponding to 10 randomised clinical trials, were identified. Clinical guidelines have been defined for each invasive procedure.