P21. Availability and quality of current clinical practice data on colorectal cancer management for the purpose of a guideline needs assessment report

2015 ◽  
Vol 41 (11) ◽  
pp. S274-S275
Author(s):  
Angeliki McAllister ◽  
Andrew Champion ◽  
Graeme Poston ◽  
Rachel Hargest
Endoscopy ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 44 (04) ◽  
pp. 444-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Jover ◽  
M. Herráiz ◽  
O. Alarcón ◽  
E. Brullet ◽  
L. Bujanda ◽  
...  

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 657 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Chau ◽  
Marwan Fakih ◽  
Pilar García-Alfonso ◽  
Zdenĕk Linke ◽  
Ana Ruiz Casado ◽  
...  

For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that have failed a first-line oxaliplatin-based regimen, the preferred treatment option is an irinotecan-based regimen. This prospective, observational, noncomparative, post-authorization safety study (OZONE) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of aflibercept plus fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in patients with mCRC treated in daily practice after failure of an oxaliplatin-based regimen. Patients were grouped by age, renal impairment, hepatic impairment, race, number, and type of prior anticancer therapy. Of 766 treated patients enrolled, 59.5% were male, 94.8% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, all received previous chemotherapy (97.8% including oxaliplatin), and 58.6% had prior exposure to bevacizumab. At least one grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was reported in 68.3% of patients. Neutropenia, hypertension, diarrhea, and asthenia were the most frequently occurring grade ≥ 3 TEAEs. Antivascular endothelial growth factor class events were infrequent. Subgroup analyses did not reveal major differences in the safety profile according to age, renal and hepatic status, race, or prior anticancer therapy. For the total population, median overall survival was 12.5 months, median progression-free survival was 6.1 months, and overall response rate was 16.3%. Aflibercept in combination with FOLFIRI is a safe and efficacious regimen administered in current clinical practice to patients with mCRC previously treated with oxaliplatin. The study results, conducted in real-world clinical practice with a less selected patient population, are aligned with the VELOUR (NCT00561470) trial and no new safety issues were identified.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martyna TOMCZYK ◽  
Cécile JAQUES ◽  
Ralf J. JOX

Abstract Introduction: This study aims to identify the full spectrum of ethical challenges of all forms of palliative sedation for adults as presented in current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and to determine whether CPGs specify ethical challenges of this therapy for cancer and non-cancer patients and, if so, how exactly they do this. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have yet investigated this topic. The purpose is purely descriptive; our aim is not to make any kind of normative judgements on these challenges. Nor is our aim to assess the quality of the CPGs. Methods and analysis : We will perform a systematic review of CPGs on palliative sedation for adults via five electronic databases, grey literature search tools, citation tracking, and contact with palliative care experts. Current CPGs validated by an international, national, or regional authority, published in English, German, French, Italian, or Polish, from 2000 to the date of the search, will be subjected to content analysis at the textual, linguistic, and thematic levels. This study protocol is reported in accordance with the PRISMA-P criteria and registered on PROSPERO. Discussion The results of our systematic review can help raise awareness and understanding of the complexity of ethical problems, rigorously guide reflection in this field, and be useful in elaborating ethical guidelines in an interdisciplinary approach, in order to have a positive impact on the quality of patient care, education and training, and research in respect of this complex and challenging practice.


Author(s):  
Naohiro Tomita ◽  
Hideyuki Ishida ◽  
Kohji Tanakaya ◽  
Tatsuro Yamaguchi ◽  
Kensuke Kumamoto ◽  
...  

AbstractHereditary colorectal cancer (HCRC) accounts for < 5% of all colorectal cancer cases. Some of the unique characteristics commonly encountered in HCRC cases include early age of onset, synchronous/metachronous cancer occurrence, and multiple cancers in other organs. These characteristics necessitate different management approaches, including diagnosis, treatment or surveillance, from sporadic colorectal cancer management. There are two representative HCRC, named familial adenomatous polyposis and Lynch syndrome. Other than these two HCRC syndromes, related disorders have also been reported. Several guidelines for hereditary disorders have already been published worldwide. In Japan, the first guideline for HCRC was prepared by the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR), published in 2012 and revised in 2016. This revised version of the guideline was immediately translated into English and published in 2017. Since then, several new findings and novel disease concepts related to HCRC have been discovered. The currently diagnosed HCRC rate in daily clinical practice is relatively low; however, this is predicted to increase in the era of cancer genomic medicine, with the advancement of cancer multi-gene panel testing or whole genome testing, among others. Under these circumstances, the JSCCR guidelines 2020 for HCRC were prepared by consensus among members of the JSCCR HCRC Guideline Committee, based on a careful review of the evidence retrieved from literature searches, and considering the medical health insurance system and actual clinical practice settings in Japan. Herein, we present the English version of the JSCCR guidelines 2020 for HCRC.


CJEM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 542-548
Author(s):  
Rakesh Gupta ◽  
Mathew Mercuri ◽  
Amy McCulloch ◽  
Sandra Monteiro ◽  
George Mastoras ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTObjectivesAudit and feedback is widely used to improve physician performance. Many data metrics are being provided to physicians, yet most of these are driven by the regulatory environment. We sought to conduct a needs assessment of audit and feedback metrics that were most useful to clinicians within our health care region.MethodsWe conducted a Web-based survey of five clinical practice sites in our region and asked that physicians rank 49 clinical practice metrics. In addition, we assessed their readiness for audit and feedback and their preferences for data confidentiality. We collected data on duration of training, gender, and site of practice (academic v. community) allowing for comparison between groups.ResultsA total of 104 emergency medicine physicians participated in the survey (52.3% response rate). There was a significant readiness for participation in audit and feedback activities. Top ranked metrics were emergency department return rates and colleague's assessment of collegiality and quality of care, which were common across all sites. Small yet significant differences were noted between genders and academic v. community practitioners.ConclusionThis study represents the first regional analysis of physician preferences for audit and feedback activities and implementation. It demonstrates that physicians are interested in audit and feedback activities and provides a roadmap for the development of a regional audit and feedback structure. It will also be used as a guiding document for regional change management.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document