MASCC/ISOO expert opinion on the management of oral problems in patients with advanced cancer

Purpose: The Palliative Care Study Group in conjunction with the Oral Care Study Group of the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) formed a sub-group to develop evidence-based guidance on the management of common oral problems in patients with advanced cancer. Methods: This guidance was developed in accordance with the MASCC Guidelines Policy. A search strategy for Medline was developed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were explored for relevant reviews and trials, respectively. Guidance was categorised by the level of evidence, and “category of guideline” (i.e., “recommendation”, “suggestion” or “no guideline possible”). Results: Twelve generic suggestions (level of evidence – 5), three problem-specific recommendations and 14 problem-specific suggestions were generated. The generic suggestions relate to oral hygiene measures, assessment of problems, principles of management, re-assessment of problems and the role of dental/oral medicine professionals. Conclusions: This guidance provides a framework for the management of common oral problems in patients with advanced cancer, although every patient requires individualised management

Impact of premenopausal status at breast cancer diagnosis in women entered on the placebo-controlled NCIC CTG MA17 trial of extended adjuvant letrozole

MA17 showed improved outcomes in postmenopausal women given extended letrozole (LET) after completing 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen

Final results from the PERUSE study of first-line pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus a taxane for HER2-positive locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, with a multivariable approach to guide prognostication

Background: The phase III CLinical Evaluation Of Pertuzumab And TRAstuzumab (CLEOPATRA) trial established the combination of pertuzumab, trastuzumab and docetaxel as standard first-line therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC). The multicentre single-arm PERtUzumab global SafEty (PERUSE) study assessed the safety and efficacy of pertuzumab and trastuzumab combined with investigator-selected taxane in this setting. Patients and methods: Eligible patients with inoperable HER2-positive LR/mBC and no prior systemic therapy for LR/mBC (except endocrine therapy) received docetaxel, paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel with trastuzumab and pertuzumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Prespecified subgroup analyses included subgroups according to taxane, hormone receptor (HR) status and prior trastuzumab. Exploratory univariable analyses identified potential prognostic factors; those that remained significant in multivariable analysis were used to analyse PFS and OS in subgroups with all, some or none of these factors. Results: Of 1436 treated patients, 588 (41%) initially received paclitaxel and 918 (64%) had HR-positive disease. The most common grade 653 adverse events were neutropenia (10%, mainly with docetaxel) and diarrhoea (8%). At the final analysis (median follow-up: 5.7 years), median PFS was 20.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) 18.9-23.1] months overall and was similar irrespective of HR status or taxane. Median OS was 65.3 (95% CI 60.9-70.9) months overall. OS was similar regardless of taxane backbone but was more favourable in patients with HR-positive than HR-negative LR/mBC. In exploratory analyses, trastuzumab-pretreated patients with visceral disease had the shortest median PFS (13.1 months) and OS (46.3 months). Conclusions: Mature results from PERUSE show a safety and efficacy profile consistent with results from CLEOPATRA and median OS exceeding 5 years. Results suggest that paclitaxel is a valid alternative to docetaxel as backbone chemotherapy. Exploratory analyses suggest risk factors that could guide future trial design

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

The Effect of a Geriatric Oncology Clinic on Treatment Decisions in Mexican Older Adults With Cancer

OBJECTIVES: Geriatric assessment and interventions improve the care of older adults with cancer, but their effect on treatment decision making in resource-limited settings is unknown. We studied the effect of recommendations made by a consultative geriatric oncology clinic on treatment decision making by oncologists in Mexico. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective chart review of 173 consecutive patients with solid tumors referred before treatment initiation to the geriatric oncology clinic at a third-level public hospital in Mexico City between March 2015 and October 2017. Patients were evaluated by a multidisciplinary geriatric oncology clinic, and treatment recommendations were issued to treating oncologists. MEASUREMENTS: We determined the overall proportion of agreement between geriatric oncology recommendations and oncologists' treatment decisions. We assessed whether agreement increased when geriatric oncology recommendations were acknowledged in the treating oncologist's clinic note. The homogeneity of agreement was tested using the Stuart-Maxwell test. RESULTS: Median age was 79 years (range = 64-97 years). "Standard treatment" was recommended in 48% of cases, followed by "less intensive treatment" in 32%, and "best supportive care" in 20%. The overall proportion of agreement for the entire population was 80% (kappa = 0.69), although agreement was heterogeneous (X(2) = 8.16, P = .02). Geriatric oncology recommendations were acknowledged in the treating oncologists' notes in 62% of cases. Overall agreement was higher when the evaluation was acknowledged (83%, kappa = 0.74) than when it was not acknowledged (74%, kappa = 0.60). Agreement was homogeneous only when recommendations were acknowledged in the oncologist's note (X(2) = 3.0, P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: The overall proportion of agreement between geriatric oncology recommendations and final treatment decisions was high, particularly when recommendations were acknowledged in the treating oncologists' note. Including geriatric oncology evaluations in everyday clinical practice and fostering interdisciplinary communication between geriatric oncology and treating oncologists may provide valuable guidance for physicians caring for older patients with cancer in resource-limited settings. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:992-997, 2019