Opioid analgesics for nociceptive cancer pain: A comprehensive review.

Pain is one of the most burdensome symptoms in people with cancer, and opioid analgesics are considered the mainstay of cancer pain management. For this review, the authors evaluated the efficacy and toxicities of opioid analgesics compared with placebo, other opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and nonpharmacologic treatments for background cancer pain (continuous and relatively constant pain present at rest), and breakthrough cancer pain (transient exacerbation of pain despite stable and adequately controlled background pain). They found a paucity of placebo-controlled trials for background cancer pain, although tapentadol or codeine may be more efficacious than placebo (moderate-certainty to low-certainty evidence). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs including aspirin, piroxicam, diclofenac, ketorolac, and the antidepressant medicine imipramine, may be at least as efficacious as opioids for moderate-to-severe background cancer pain. For breakthrough cancer pain, oral transmucosal, buccal, sublingual, or intranasal fentanyl preparations were identified as more efficacious than placebo but were more commonly associated with toxicities, including constipation and nausea. Despite being recommended worldwide for the treatment of cancer pain, morphine was generally not superior to other opioids, nor did it have a more favorable toxicity profile. The interpretation of study results, however, was complicated by the heterogeneity in the study populations evaluated. Given the limited quality and quantity of research, there is a need to reappraise the clinical utility of opioids in people with cancer pain, particularly those who are not at the end of life, and to further explore the effects of opioids on immune system function and quality of life in these individuals.

Post-prostatectomy radiation therapy: consensus guidelines of the Australian and New Zealand Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Three randomised trials have demonstrated the benefit of adjuvant post-prostatectomy radiotherapy (PPRT) for high risk patients. Data also documents the effectiveness of salvage radiotherapy following a biochemical relapse post-prostatectomy. The Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group recognised the need to develop consensus guidelines on to whom, when and how to deliver PPRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Draft guidelines were developed and refined at a consensus conference in June 2006 attended by 63 delegates where urological, radiotherapy and diagnostic imaging experts spoke on aspects of PPRT. Unresolved issues were further developed by working parties and redistributed until consensus was reached. RESULTS: Central to the recommendations is that patients with positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle invasion and/or extracapsular extension have a high risk of residual local disease and should be informed of the options of either immediate adjuvant radiotherapy or active surveillance with early salvage in the event of biochemical recurrence. Salvage radiotherapy should be instituted at the earliest confirmation of biochemical recurrence. Detailed contouring guidelines have been developed, defining the regions at risk of residual microscopic disease which should be included in the clinical target volume. The recommended doses are 60-64Gy for adjuvant, and 60-66Gy for salvage radiotherapy. The role of hormone therapy in conjunction with PPRT is yet to be defined. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus guidelines have been developed to give clinical and technical guidance to radiation oncologists and urologists in the management of high risk post-prostatectomy patients.

Do multidisciplinary meetings follow guideline-based care?

PURPOSE: Multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs) are increasingly being mandated as essential to oncology practice. However, there is a paucity of data on their effectiveness. The aim of this study was to assess whether MDM recommendations were concordant with guidelines in the treatment of lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Lung Cancer Multidisciplinary Meeting in South West Sydney, Australia, prospectively collects data on all patients whose cases have been presented. New patients with lung cancer who presented between December 1, 2005, and December 31, 2007, were reviewed. Patients were assigned to treatment on the basis of evidence-based guidelines according to pathology, stage, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status. MDM recommendations were compared with guideline treatment, and reasons for discrepancy were noted. RESULTS: There were 335 patients with a median age of 69 years. Of these, 82% had non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 14% had small-cell lung cancer, and 4% had no pathologic diagnosis. Eighty-four percent had locally advanced or metastatic disease. Concordance of MDM recommendations with guideline treatment existed in 29 (58%) of 50 cases for surgery, 201 (88%) of 228 cases for radiotherapy, and 200 (77%) of 260 cases for chemotherapy. Overall concordance with guideline treatment was 71% (239 of 335 cases). On multivariate analysis, age greater than 70 years, ECOG performance status of 2 or higher, and stage III NSCLC were associated with the MDM not recommending guideline treatment. The primary reasons for this were physician decision (39%), comorbidity (25%), and technical factors (22%). CONCLUSION: MDM recommendations were largely concordant with guidelines. Physician discretion in not recommending guideline treatment was most often exercised in older patients and those with borderline performance status. Individual factors that may preclude guideline treatment cannot be accounted for by guidelines.

Why do some lung cancer patients receive no anticancer treatment?

INTRODUCTION: A significant proportion of lung cancer patients receive no anticancer treatment. This varies from 19% in USA, 33% in Australia, 37% in Scotland, and 50% in Ireland. The aim of this study was to identify the reasons behind this. METHODS: The Lung Cancer Multidisciplinary Meeting (MDM) in South-West Sydney prospectively collects data on all patients presented. All new lung cancer patients presented between December 1, 2005, and December 31, 2007, were reviewed. Patients were assigned optimal treatment based on evidence-based guidelines. Those patients in whom guidelines recommended no treatment (GNT) were compared with those whom the MDM recommended no treatment (MNT) and with those who actually received no treatment (ANT). RESULTS: There were 335 patients with a median age of 69 years. A total of 82% had non-small cell lung cancer, 14% had small cell lung cancer, and 4% had no pathologic diagnosis. Eighty-five percent had locally advanced or metastatic disease. GNT was recommended in 4% (n = 13), MNT in 10% (n = 32) but ANT comprised 20% (n = 66). The differences between GNT and MNT were mainly due to patient comorbidities and clinician decision, but the differences between MNT and ANT were due to patient preference and declining performance status. In multivariate analysis, older age, poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status, non-small cell lung cancer, and non-English language predicted for ANT. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients with lung cancer receiving no treatment is greater than that predicted by guidelines or recommended by the MDM but lower than that described in population-based studies suggesting that MDMs can improve treatment utilization in lung cancer.

Medicolegal implications of a multidisciplinary approach to cancer care: consensus recommendations from a national workshop.

Concerns about medicolegal implications of a multidisciplinary approach to cancer care may act as a barrier to the implementation of best practice approaches. While multidisciplinary meetings carry a low level of medicolegal risk, improved documentation and transparency in approach will assist in limiting liability for individual health professionals and health services. The medicolegal implications of a multidisciplinary approach are not affected by whether a health professional bills the patient for attendance at multidisciplinary meetings.

Multidisciplinary care in oncology: medicolegal implications of group decisions.

Consensus is growing that multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs) provide the best means of formulating comprehensive treatment plans for patients with cancer. Although many doctors attend MDMs and contribute to the decision-making process, only a few will become involved in a patient's care after the team meeting. Despite this, if a patient was grieved by a decision made in a MDM and wished to recover damages, all doctors present at the meeting would be personally accountable for decisions related to their area of expertise. Doctors should be made aware of the legal implications of their participation in such meetings. A greater awareness of these responsibilities and improved team dynamics should optimise outcomes for patients while limiting exposure of the participants to legal liability. Special attention should be given to providing patients with adequate information in this combined speciality setting.