Anticancer Drugs-Related Hypogonadism in Male Patients with Advanced Cancers on Active Treatment: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: In male patients with cancer treated with antineoplastic drug, hypogonadism is a neglected cause of diminished quality of life. This condition may be cancer related as well as toxicity related. The role of antineoplastic drug in causing hypogonadism is poorly understood. The aim of this systematic review was to establish the prevalence, nature (primary/secondary), and impact of hypogonadism on quality of life in male patients with cancer on antineoplastic therapy. METHODS: The search strategy used PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to select articles in English language that described hypogonadism in male patients with cancer. The search period was from January 1, 1945 to February 28, 2023. We included observational studies, case reports or case series and excluded studies concerning hematological malignancies, prostate cancer, female patients, and survivors. FINDINGS: Of 4488 records identified, 28 studies met inclusion criteria (17 observational studies, 11 case reports or case series). Anti-angiogenic drugs and crizotinib were found to have a role in the development of hypogonadism. Patients treated with immune checkpoint-inhibitors developed secondary hypogonadism due to immune-related hypophysitis or orchitis. As for active chemotherapy, platinum salts were often associated with hypogonadism, followed by antimetabolites and taxanes. Selected studies were heterogeneous for populations, interventions, and outcomes assessments. Thus, a generalization is difficult. Moreover, the role of concurrent etiologies cannot be excluded in most studies. CONCLUSION: Our research emphasizes the importance of evaluating the gonadal axis before treatment in patients considered at risk and testing it at regular intervals or in case of clinical suspicion.

Barriers and facilitators of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (e-PROMs) for patients in home palliative cancer care: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals' perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes in palliative care enable early monitoring and management of symptoms that most impact patients' daily lives; however, there are several barriers to adopting electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures (e-PROMs) in daily practice. This study explored the experiences of health care professionals (HCPs) regarding potential barriers and facilitators in implementing e-PROMs in palliative cancer care at home. METHODS: This was a qualitative descriptive study. The data were collected from two focus groups structured according to the conceptual framework of Grol. HCPs involved in home palliative cancer care of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori of Milan were enrolled. Data were analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 245 codes were generated, 171 for the first focus group and 74 for the second focus group. The results were subdivided into subthemes according to Grol's themes: Innovation, Individual professional, Patient, Social context, Organizational context, except Economic Political context. Nine HCPs attended the first focus group, and ten attended the second. According to these participants, e-PROMs could be integrated into clinical practice after adequate training and support of HCPs at all stages of implementation. They identified barriers, especially in the social and organizational contexts, due to the uniqueness of the oncological end-of-life setting and the intangible care interventions, as well as many facilitators for the innovation that these tools bring and for improved communication with the patient and the healthcare team. CONCLUSIONS: e-PROMs are perceived by HCPs as adding value to patient care and their work; however, barriers remain especially related to the fragility of these patients, the adequacy of technological systems, lack of education, and the risk of low humanization of care.

Occurrence of breast-cancer-related lymphedema after reverse lymphatic mapping and selective axillary dissection versus standard surgical treatment of axilla: A two-arm randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The need for axillary dissection (AD) is declining, but it is still essential for many patients with nodal involvement who risk developing breast-cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) with lifelong consequences. Previous nonrandomized studies found axillary reverse mapping and selective axillary dissection (ARM-SAD) a safe and feasible way to preserve the arm's lymphatic drainage. METHODS: The present two-arm prospective randomized clinical trial was held at a single comprehensive cancer center to ascertain whether ARM-SAD can reduce the risk of BCRL, compared with standard AD, in patients with node-positive breast cancer. Whatever the type of breast surgery or adjuvant treatments planned, 130 patients with nodal involvement met our inclusion criteria: 65 were randomized for AD and 65 for ARM-SAD. Twelve months after surgery, a physiatrist assessed patients for BCRL and calculated the excess volume of the operated arm. Lymphoscintigraphy was used to assess drainage impairment. Self-reports of any impairment were also recorded. RESULTS: The difference in the incidence of BCRL between the two groups was 21% (95% CI, 3-37; p = .03). A significantly lower rate of BCRL after ARM-SAD was confirmed by a multimodal analysis that included the physiatrist's findings, excess arm volume, and lymphoscintigraphic findings, but this was not matched by a significant difference in patients' self-reports. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings encourage a change of surgical approach when AD is still warranted. ARM-SAD may be an alternative to standard AD to reduce the treatment-related morbidity.

Knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals towards patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of the positive impact of routine assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), their systematic collection is not widely implemented in cancer care. AIM: To assess the knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards PROMs and electronically collected PROMs (ePROMs) in clinical practice and research and to explore respondent-related factors associated with the above dimensions. METHOD: An ad hoc developed online survey was administered to all HCPs employed in clinical activity in an Italian comprehensive cancer center. The survey investigated which PROMs were known and used, as well as HCPs' opinions on the advantages and drawbacks of routine PROM assessment, including electronic assessment (ePROM). Linear and logistic regression models were used for association analyses. RESULTS: Five Hundred Eleven of nine hundred ninety-two invited HCPs (52%) provided analyzable responses. 68% were women, 46% were nurses and 42% physicians, and 52.5% had > 20 years seniority. The average number of PROMs known was six among 17 proposed. All proved to be under-used (< 28%) except unidimensional and multidimensional pain scales (77 and 36%). Respondents expressed an overall positive attitude towards PROMs, with strengths outweighing weaknesses (mean overall scores 3.6 and 2.9, respectively, on a 1-5 scale). 67% of respondents preferred electronic collection over paper and pencil. Profession was associated with knowledge and use (physicians reported knowing more PROMs than other professionals) and with a preference for electronic collection (nurses were less likely to prefer the electronic format than physicians). Senior HCPs were slightly more critical about both PROMs and electronic administration. CONCLUSIONS: This survey indicates an acceptable level of knowledge of common PROM tools but low usage in practice. Based on the generally positive attitude of HCPs, routine implementation of ePROMs can be promoted as long as adequate resources and training are provided. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not registered.

Clown therapy for procedural pain in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Among the distraction techniques used for the non-pharmacological management of acute pediatric pain, one of the most performed is clown therapy. Despite the presence in the literature of some systematic reviews that evaluate its effectiveness, none of them examines its outcomes on procedural pain which has therefore been investigated in this study. The literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus over a time frame ranging from each database setup date to 31 July 2021. The primary outcome was the procedural pain of children. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Six RCTs were selected for this review, which included a total of 517 pediatric subjects. Children undergoing clown therapy during the venipuncture or peripheral vein cannulation procedure reported less pain than those exposed to the standard of care (SMD = -0.55; 95% CI: -1.23, 0.13) but the result was not found to be statistically significant. School-aged children and adolescent reported significantly less pain (SMD = -0.51; 95% CI: -0.92, -0.09). Compared to the standard of care, children's anxiety was significantly lower with clown therapy (SMD = -0.97; 95% CI: -1.38, -0.56). CONCLUSION: Clown therapy seems effective in reducing procedural pain in children, particularly for older age groups, but due to poor methodological quality and the high risk of bias of the studies included, the results obtained should be considered with caution. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Clown therapy is one of the most used techniques in the non-pharmacological management of acute pediatric pain. • Laughter physiologically stimulates the production of beta-endorphins, substances with an effect similar to opiates. WHAT IS NEW: • Clown therapy seems effective in reducing procedural pain and anxiety in children. • The intervention in school-age children or adolescents produces a statistically significant decrease in the symptom.

Cancer pain: Results of a prospective study on prognostic indicators of pain intensity including pain syndromes assessment.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a prevalent symptom in patients with advanced cancer. Recognition of prognostic factors associated with pain intensity, could help provide better assessment, leading to better pain management. AIM: identifying prognostic factors which could guide improvements on cancer pain classification. DESIGN: a prospective observational study on chronic cancer pain, exploring the association between average mean pain intensity during a 28 days study follow-up and patients' clinical and pain-related characteristics, including pain syndromes. To evaluate these associations, a mixed model was built. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients attending a Palliative Care and Pain Outpatient Clinic from May 2015 to June 2019 were screened. Patients with moderate to severe cancer pain who were already receiving or needed treatment with third step WHO ladder opioids were enrolled in the study. Data from 342 patients with at least one follow-up visit were analyzed. RESULTS: Pain intensity decreased significantly for all patients during time (p < 0.001). Age, sex, emotional distress, pain duration and neuropathic pain presence evaluated by the Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) questionnaire were not significantly associated to pain intensity. Breakthrough/episodic pain was associated with higher pain intensity during follow-up (p < 0.001). The diagnosis of pain syndrome was overall significantly associated with mean pain intensity during follow-up (p = 0.016). Particularly, the concurrent presence of visceral and soft (p = 0.026) or soft and nervous tissue pain (p = 0.043) were significantly related to worse outcome, whereas pain due to only soft tissue damage with better outcome (p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: The recognition of specific pain syndromes may help to better classify cancer pain.

Development of the palliative care referral system: proposal of a tool for the referral of cancer patients to specialized palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Early palliative care (PC) has shown beneficial effects for advanced cancer patients. However, it is still debated what criteria to use to identify patients for PC referral. AIM: To document the initial steps of the development of the Palliative Care Referral System (PCRS), a tool to be used by oncologists in clinical practice. METHODS: A multiprofessional working group developed the PCRS based on the results of a scoping literature review on PC referral criteria. PCRS criteria were evaluated by experts via a nominal group technique (NGT). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize expert scores on relevance, appropriateness and perceived feasibility of the criteria proposed. Quotations of participants during the discussion were also reported. RESULTS: Sixteen studies, including PC referral criteria/tools, emerged from the scoping review. Severe symptoms, poor performance status, comorbidities and prognosis were the most commonly used criteria. The PCRS included nine major criteria and nine assessment methods; a scoring procedure was also proposed. Answers to the questionnaire during the NGT showed that five criteria reached full agreement on all items, while four did not, and were then discussed within the group. Participants agreed on the relevance of all criteria and on the appropriateness of methods proposed to assess most of them, while issues were raised about potential feasibility of the overall assessment of the PCRS in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: The PCRS has been developed as an help for oncologists to timely identify patients for specialized PC referral. Since feasibility emerged as the main concern, implementation strategies have to be tested in subsequent studies.

Development and field testing of a neuro psychomotor multidimensional grid for the assessment of children with cns tumor.

Central Nervous System (CNS) tumors are the most common pediatric solid tumor and development neuro psychomotor (DNPM) therapy can contribute to the rehabilitation of these children. This paper describes the development of a DNPM multidimensional assessment grid for children with CNS tumor (DNPM-CNS grid).The development process included 4 phases: (P1) literature review and grid development (Version 1.0), (P2) two rounds consultations with experts (Version 1.1 and 2.0), (P3) field testing, (P4) final revision (Version 3.0).(P1) The DNPM-CNS grid was developed based on previous tools and manuals and on clinical experience with this patient population. (P2) A total of 52 questionnaires were filled in by experts about relevance of assessment areas, pertinence, comprehensibility and feasibility of the grid. Average scores ranged from 7.6 to 10. (P3) At case level, good inter-rater agreement scores (78%) and limited non-evaluability rates (18%) emerged. At item level, 27% of items reached high disagreement and 26% high not-evaluability rates. The qualitative assessment was judged clinically useful for planning the neuro-oncology rehabilitation treatment and a good feasibility of the DNPM-CNS grid emerged both for preschool and school-age children. (P4) The final version of the grid consists of 8 assessment areas with 133 items.The DNPM-CNS grid is a comprehensive tool that can guide the overall DNPM assessment in a limited amount of time. It can be used as a screening tool to customize more specific assessments. Further research is needed to better characterize grid psychometric properties.Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/08880018.2021.1948648 .

A Qualitative Study on the Needs of Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Few studies have investigated the needs of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), and none have been conducted in Italy. Three categories of needs have been identified from the literature: information, support, and practical resources. The present study aims to achieve an in-depth understanding of the patients' needs related to the MBC care pathway. In-depth interviews were conducted and analyzed by thematic analysis. The participants were 9 women with MBC (age range 36-74) who were enrolled at the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionalde dei tumori, in Milan. The analysis enabled us to identify four themes (which reflect the needs of the participants), each divided into numerous sub-themes: (1) the need for clinical recognition, (2) the need for more attention from healthcare professionals, (3) the need for more and better services to be available at the hospital, (4) the need for specific public health policies. Since the metastatic phase of breast cancer seems to elicit additional, specific needs and multi-level management, changes in attitudes and multidisciplinary practices should be tested in order to ascertain how these needs can be met.

A Prospective Observational Study of Multivisceral Resection for Retroperitoneal Sarcoma: Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes 1 Year After Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Primary retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) may require multivisceral resection (MVR). Clinical outcome (morbidity and renal function) and quality of life (QoL) are not as well reported as the oncologic outcome. METHODS: Patients with primary RPS who underwent surgery between 2014 and 2016 were prospectively enrolled in an observational longitudinal study. At baseline, then at 4 and 12 months, the study measured Clavien-Dindo morbidity, estimated glomerular filtration rate (EGFR), EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR29, DN4 (neuropathic pain [NP]), lower-extremity functional scale (LEFS), and the brief pain inventory. The primary end point was the difference in global health status (GHS/QoL). The secondary end points were EGFR changes, difference in other QLQ-C30 scales, pain intensity, NP, and LEFS. The study is registered at ClinTrials.gov (NCT03480399). RESULTS: Of 74 patients, 58 were evaluable. Morbidity grade 3 or higher was 24.1%, and mortality was 1.3%. After nephrectomy, the mean 1-year EGFR change was -33.9%. The GHS/QoL at baseline was 58.6 and had increased of 6.9 points at 1 year, comparable with that of the general population. A transient worsening in pain and diarrhea had recovered at 12 months. Average pain was mild and did not differ at 12 months. However, NP was found in 41.4% of the patients and was significantly associated with resection of the psoas muscle. At baseline, LEFS was already lower than the normative value, and worsening after surgery was not clinically relevant. CONCLUSION: A QoL measure after MVR in primary RPS is complex and requires multiple tools. Whereas overall MVR is safe and associated with an improvement in GHS/QoL, chronic NP is frequent and deserves specific attention. Pre-surgery rehabilitation tracks may help to prevent or reduce chronic NP.

Breakthrough Cancer Pain in Patients Receiving Low Doses of Opioids for Background Pain.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the characteristics of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) in patients receiving low doses of opioids for background pain in comparison with patients receiving at least 60 mg of oral morphine equivalents (OME). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer receiving less than 60 mg/day of OME with episodes of BTcP were included in the analysis (group L). Data were compared with patients receiving doses of opioids ≥60 mg of OME (group H). Pain intensity, current analgesic therapy, number of BTcP episodes, intensity of BTcP, its predictability and triggers, onset duration, interference with daily activities, BTcP medications, and time to meaningful pain relief were collected. Adverse effects imputable to a BTcP medication were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 1,418 and 2,474 patients were included in groups L and H, respectively. A lower number of BTcP episodes (p = .005), a lower BTcP intensity (p = .0001), a faster BTcP onset (p = .024), and a longer time to meaningful pain relief after taking a BTcP medication (p = .009) were found in group L as compared with group H. In group L, BTcP interference on daily activity was less than in group H (p = .009). Patients in group L were less likely to be prescribed an opioid as BTcP medication in comparison with patients in group H (p = .0001). Opioid doses used for BTcP were significantly higher in group H. Patients in group L were more likely to be less satisfied (p = .003) than patients in group H. No adverse effects of severe intensity were reported in both groups. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving lower doses of opioids exhibit some differences in BTcP presentation: fewer episodes with lower intensity and a faster onset, a longer time to meaningful pain relief, and less satisfaction with BTcP medication. A relevant percentage of patients was receiving fentanyl preparations normally reserved for patients receiving higher doses of opioids. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Breakthrough pain is present in patients receiving low doses of opioids. It has its own peculiarities: less frequent, lower intensity, faster onset, longer time to meaningful pain relief, and less satisfaction with medication. Many patients were prescribed fentanyl preparations, which are normally reserved for patients receiving higher doses of opioids.

PATIENT VOICES, a project for the integration of the systematic assessment of patient reported outcomes and experiences within a comprehensive cancer center: a protocol for a mixed method feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Listening to "patient voices" in terms of symptoms, emotional status and experiences with care, is crucial for patient empowerment in clinical practice. Despite convincing evidence that routine patient reported outcomes and experience measurements (PRMs) with rapid feed-back to oncologists can improve symptom control, patient well-being and cost effectiveness, PRMs are not commonly used in cancer care, due to barriers at various level. Part of these barriers may be overcome through electronic PRMs collection (ePRMs) integrated with the electronic medical record (EMR). The PATIENT VOICES initiative is aimed at achieving a stepwise integration of ePRMs assessment into routine cancer care. The feasibility project presented here is aimed at assessing the knowledge, use and attitudes toward PRMs in a comprehensive cancer centre; developing and assessing feasibility of a flexible system for ePRM assessment; identifying barriers to and developing strategies for implementation and integration of ePRMs clinical practice. METHODS: The project has been organized into four phases: a) pre-development; b) software development and piloting; c) feasibility assessment; d) post-development. A convergent mixed method design, based on concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection will be applied. A web-survey on health care providers (HCPs), qualitative studies on patients and HCPs (semi-structured interviews and focus groups) as well as longitudinal and cross-sectional quantitative studies will be carried out. The quantitative studies will enroll 600 patients: 200 attending out-patient clinics (physical symptom assessement), 200 attending inpatient wards (psychological distress assessment) and 200 patients followed by multidisciplinary teams (patient experience with care assessment). The Edmonton symptom assessment scale, the Distress Thermometer, and a tool adapted from existing patient reported experience with cancer care questionnaires, will be used in quantitative studies. A multi-disciplinary stakeholder team including researchers, clinicians, health informatics professionals, health system administrators and patients will be involved in the development of potentially effective implementation strategies in the post development phase. DISCUSSION: The documentation of potential advantages and implementation barriers achieved within this feasibility project, will serve as a starting point for future and more focused interventions aimed at achieving effective ePRMs routine assessment in cancer care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03968718 ) May 30th, 2019.

Integration of oncology and palliative care: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Full integration of oncology and palliative care relies on the specific knowledge and skills of two modes of care: the tumour-directed approach, the main focus of which is on treating the disease; and the host-directed approach, which focuses on the patient with the disease. This Commission addresses how to combine these two paradigms to achieve the best outcome of patient care. Randomised clinical trials on integration of oncology and palliative care point to health gains: improved survival and symptom control, less anxiety and depression, reduced use of futile chemotherapy at the end of life, improved family satisfaction and quality of life, and improved use of health-care resources. Early delivery of patient-directed care by specialist palliative care teams alongside tumour-directed treatment promotes patient-centred care. Systematic assessment and use of patient-reported outcomes and active patient involvement in the decisions about cancer care result in better symptom control, improved physical and mental health, and better use of health-care resources. The absence of international agreements on the content and standards of the organisation, education, and research of palliative care in oncology are major barriers to successful integration. Other barriers include the common misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care only, stigmatisation of death and dying, and insufficient infrastructure and funding. The absence of established priorities might also hinder integration more widely. This Commission proposes the use of standardised care pathways and multidisciplinary teams to promote integration of oncology and palliative care, and calls for changes at the system level to coordinate the activities of professionals, and for the development and implementation of new and improved education programmes, with the overall goal of improving patient care. Integration raises new research questions, all of which contribute to improved clinical care. When and how should palliative care be delivered? What is the optimal model for integrated care? What is the biological and clinical effect of living with advanced cancer for years after diagnosis? Successful integration must challenge the dualistic perspective of either the tumour or the host, and instead focus on a merged approach that places the patient's perspective at the centre. To succeed, integration must be anchored by management and policy makers at all levels of health care, followed by adequate resource allocation, a willingness to prioritise goals and needs, and sustained enthusiasm to help generate support for better integration. This integrated model must be reflected in international and national cancer plans, and be followed by developments of new care models, education and research programmes, all of which should be adapted to the specific cultural contexts within which they are situated. Patient-centred care should be an integrated part of oncology care independent of patient prognosis and treatment intention. To achieve this goal it must be based on changes in professional cultures and priorities in health care.

Automatic referral to standardize palliative care access: an international Delphi survey.

PURPOSE: Palliative care referral is primarily based on clinician judgment, contributing to highly variable access. Standardized criteria to trigger automatic referral have been proposed, but it remains unclear how best to apply them in practice. We conducted a Delphi study of international experts to identify a consensus for the use of standardized criteria to trigger automatic referral. METHODS: Sixty international experts stated their level of agreement for 14 statements regarding the use of clinician-based referral and automatic referral over two Delphi rounds. A consensus was defined as an agreement of ≥70% a priori. RESULTS: The response rate was 59/60 (98%) for the first round and 56/60 (93%) for the second round. Twenty-six (43%), 19 (32%), and 11 (18%) respondents were from North America, Asia/Australia, and Europe, respectively. The panel reached consensus that outpatient palliative care referral should be based on both automatic referral and clinician-based referral (agreement = 86%). Only 18% felt that referral should be clinician-based alone, and only 7% agreed that referral should be based on automatic referral only. There was consensus that automatic referral criteria may increase the number of referrals (agreement = 98%), facilitate earlier palliative care access, and help administrators to set benchmarks for quality improvement (agreement = 86%). CONCLUSIONS: Our panelists favored the combination of automatic referral to augment clinician-based referral. This integrated referral framework may inform policy and program development.

The Palliative Radiotherapy and Inflammation Study (PRAIS) - protocol for a longitudinal observational multicenter study on patients with cancer induced bone pain.

BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy (RT) results in pain relief for about 6 of 10 patients with cancer induced bone pain (CIBP) caused by bone metastases. The high number of non-responders, the long median time from RT to pain response and the risk of adverse effects, makes it important to determine predictors of treatment response. Clinical features such as cancer type, performance status and pain intensity, and biomarkers for osteoclast activity are proposed as predictors of response to RT. However, results are inconsistent and there is a need for better predictors of RT response. A similar argument can be stated for the development of cachexia; there are currently no predictors that can identify patients who will develop cachexia later in the cancer disease trajectory. Experimental and preclinical studies show that pain, depression and cachexia are related to inflammation. However, it is not known if inflammatory biomarkers can predict CIBP, depression or development of cachexia. METHODS: This multicenter, multinational longitudinal observational study will include 600 adult patients receiving RT for CIBP. Demographic data, clinical variables, osteoclast and inflammatory biomarkers will be assessed before start of RT, and 3, 8, 16, 24 and 52 weeks after last course of RT. The primary aim of the study is to identify potential predictors for pain relief from RT. Secondary aims are to explore potential predictors for development of cachexia, the longitudinal relationship between pain intensity and depression, and if inflammatory biomarkers are associated with changes in pain intensity, cachexia and depression during one-year follow up. DISCUSSION: The immediate clinical implication of the PRAIS study is to identify potential predictive factors for a RT response on CIBP, and thereby reduce non-efficacious RT. Patient benefits are fewer hospital visits, reduced risk of adverse effects and more individualized pain treatment. The long-term clinical implication of the PRAIS study is to improve the knowledge about inflammation in relation to CIBP, cachexia and depression and potentially identify associations and mechanisms that can be targeted for treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02107664 , date of registration April 8, 2014 (retrospectively registered). TRIAL SPONSOR: The European Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, NTNU, Faculty of medicine and Health Sciences, Trondheim, N-7491, Norway.

An observational time and motion study of denosumab subcutaneous injection and zoledronic acid intravenous infusion in patients with metastatic bone disease: results from three European countries.

PURPOSE: Denosumab (administered via subcutaneous injection) demonstrated superior efficacy versus the intravenously administered zoledronic acid in the prevention of skeletal-related events in an integrated analysis of three head-to-head phase III trials in patients with bone metastases secondary to solid tumors. To date, no studies have evaluated treatment administration duration endpoints of these two agents. METHODS: A multinational, multi-site, observational time and motion study conducted in 10 day oncology units (DOUs) across Belgium, Germany, and Italy. Observations of process time included task time and active healthcare professional (HCP) time for pre-defined tasks. Patient time measurements included entering/exiting the DOU, treatment room, and treatment chair or examination table. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients were enrolled (82 received zoledronic acid and 107 received denosumab) and 238 observations were recorded (104 for zoledronic acid and 134 for denosumab). Mean total task time was reduced by 81% when denosumab was used versus zoledronic acid (8.4 versus 44.2 min; p < 0.0001; pooled analysis across all countries). Pooled estimates for active HCP time were 12.2 min for zoledronic acid and 6.9 min for denosumab (44% reduction; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In the countries studied, using denosumab compared with zoledronic acid reduced total task time and active HCP time. Thus, HCPs have more time to dedicate to other patients or care activities. An ability to increase the volume of appointments within DOUs could reduce waiting lists in sites operating at full capacity and increase overall productivity and efficiency in hospital processes.

Evidence on the analgesic role of bisphosphonates and denosumab in the treatment of pain due to bone metastases: A systematic review within the European Association for Palliative Care guidelines project.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates and denosumab are well-established therapies to reduce the frequency and severity of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastasis. However, the analgesic effect of these medications on bone pain is uncertain. AIM: To identify, critically appraise and synthesize existing evidence to answer the following questions: 'In adult patients with metastatic bone pain, what is the evidence that bisphosphonates and denosumab are effective and safe in controlling pain?' and 'What is the most appropriate schedule of bisphosphonate/denosumab administration to control bone pain?'. This review also updates the 2002 Cochrane review 'Bisphosphonates for the relief of pain secondary to bone metastases'. DESIGN: Standard systematic review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched for relevant articles published through 31 January 2014. A manual search was also performed. Study inclusion criteria were: a) conducted in adult patients; b) randomized controlled trial or meta-analisys; c) reported efficacy of bisphosphonates or denosumab on pain and/or decribed side effects versus placebo or other bisphosphonate; and d) English language. RESULTS: The database search yielded 1585 studies, of which 43 (enrolling 8595 and 7590 patients, respectively, in bisphosphonate and denosumab trials) met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two (79%) of the 28 placebo-controlled trials found no analgesic benefit for bisphosphonates. None of the denosumab studies assessed direct pain relief. CONCLUSION: Evidence to support an analgesic role for bisphosphonates and denosumab is weak. Bisphosphonates and denosumab appear to be beneficial in preventing pain by delaying the onset of bone pain rather than by producing an analgesic effect per se.

Referral criteria for outpatient specialty palliative cancer care: an international consensus.

Although outpatient specialty palliative-care clinics improve outcomes, there is no consensus on who should be referred or the optimal timing for referral. In response to this issue, we did a Delphi study to develop consensus on a list of criteria for referral of patients with advanced cancer at secondary or tertiary care hospitals to outpatient palliative care. 60 international experts (26 from North America, 19 from Asia and Australia, and 11 from Europe) on palliative cancer care rated 39 needs-based criteria and 22 time-based criteria in three iterative rounds. Nearly all experts responded in each round. Consensus was defined by an a-priori agreement of 70% or more. Panellists reached consensus on 11 major criteria for referral: severe physical symptoms, severe emotional symptoms, request for hastened death, spiritual or existential crisis, assistance with decision making or care planning, patient request for referral, delirium, spinal cord compression, brain or leptomeningeal metastases, within 3 months of advanced cancer diagnosis for patients with median survival of 1 year or less, and progressive disease despite second-line therapy. Consensus was also reached on 36 minor criteria for specialist palliative-care referral. These criteria, if validated, could provide guidance for identification of patients suitable for outpatient specialty palliative care.