Comprendre le néphroblastome. informations à l'usage des parents et des proches d'un enfant malade

In response to the evolution of the information-seeking behaviour of patients and concerns from health professionals regarding cancer patient information, the French National Federation of Comprehensive Cancer Centres (FNCLCC) introduced, in 1998, an information and education program dedicated to patients and relatives, the SOR SAVOIR PATIENT program. The methodology of this program adheres to established quality criteria regarding the elaboration of patient information. Cancer patient information developed in this program is based on clinical practice guidelines produced by the FNCLCC and the twenty French regional cancer centres,the National League against Cancer, The National Cancer Institute, the French Hospital Federation, the National Oncology Federation of Regional and University Hospitals, the French Oncology Federation of General Hospitals, many learned societies, as well as an active participation of patients, former patients and caregivers. The handbook SOR SAVOIR PATIENT Understanding nephroblastoma is an adapted version of various scientific publications and international clinical practice guidelines, validated by oncology experts and by the Nephroblastoma Committee of the French Society against Cancers and Leukaemias in children and adolescents (SFCE). It was elaborated with the active participation of parents and other family members. It is meant to provide a basis for the explanation of the disease, to help parents asking questions, and to facilitate discussions with the healthcare team. It is available from the FNCLCC (101, rue de Tolbiac, 75013 PARIS, Tel. (0033)1 76 64 78 00, www.fnclcc.fr). This document was validated at the end of 2005 and published in May 2006. SOR SAVOIR PATIENT guides are systematically updated when new research becomes available. Information leaflets, extracted from the handbook SOR SAVOIR PATIENT Understanding nephroblastoma and published in this edition of the Cancer et Radiothérapie, describe the physiopathology of nephroblastoma, as well as treatments and follow-up. The guide allows parents and relatives to better understand the disease and the treatments proposed. It also offers health professionals a synthetic evidence-based patient information source which facilitates discussions with the patient.

Involving cancer patients in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) development in a French guidelines program: What are the key issues?

16029

Background: The translation of clinical research knowledge into CPGs involves interpretation of the evidence and value judgments. Patients’ preferences are essential in defining optimal cancer treatment because of the uncertain outcomes and important side effects. Their perspective should therefore be integrated into the development of CPGs (one item of the AGREE instrument). The Standards & Options: Recommandations program (SOR), of the French Federation of Comprehensive Cancer Centres has developed evidence-based cancer CPGs since 1993. To improve the quality and relevance of their CPGs the SOR program decided to develop a comprehensive method to involve cancer patients in the process. Methods: We developed an approach for the French context of cancer CPGs based on 3 inputs 1) Review of the literature from relevant databases and websites. 2) Review of the experiences of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the Scottish Intercollegiate Network. 3) Multidisciplinary scientific committee (clinicians, patients, psychologists, sociologists, methodologists and healthy volunteers). Results: The data and the work of the experts allowed to identify the key issues for building a French approach 1) “Patient” includes patients under treatment, former patients, carers, members of a patients’ association, healthy volunteers. Patients are recruited through patients’ associations, clinicians, educational groups, newspaper announcements. 2) The patient plays a significant role in defining the clinical question, particularly the outcomes to be considered as well in the drafting of the CPG. They ensure that a patient perspective complements (and sometimes challenges) the views of professional members of the working group. 3) The major method for involving patients is to have them participate in the working group. 4) To train and support the patients is essential. 5) Informing the working group on the importance of taking into account the patient in the drafting of the CPG is a major issue. 6) A preliminary study demonstrates the feasibility and acceptability of patients’ involvement. Conclusions: This process is valuable and will be implemented in the SOR program.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

SOR guidelines for concomitant chemoradiotherapy for patients with uterine cervical cancers: evidence update bulletin 2004

BACKGROUND

In 1993 the French National Federation of Cancer Centres (FNCLCC) initiated the Standards, Options and Recommendations (SOR) project. This is a collaboration between the FNCLCC, the 20 French cancer centres, and specialists from French public universities, general hospitals and private clinics, and some specialists learned societies. The main objective is to develop clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and the outcome of cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The SORs are developed using a methodology based on a literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts, with feedback from specialists in cancer care delivery.

RESULTS

In 1999, the initial SORs for the management of women with cervical cancer were published. At that time the use of chemoradiotherapy was considered as an option. Since this original publication, five randomised trials comparing chemoradiotherapy with radiotherapy have been published, as well as a systematic review and two other clinical practice guidelines. In the light of this additional evidence, it was decided to update the guidelines on chemoradiotherapy in women with cervical cancer.

CONCLUSION

After selection, critical analysis and integration of new evidence, chemoradiotherapy has become a standard for women with cervical cancer.

International assessment of the quality of clinical practice guidelines in oncology using the Appraisal of Guidelines and Research and Evaluation Instrument

PURPOSE

To describe the quality of oncology guidelines developed in different countries.

METHODS

The Appraisal of Guidelines and Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument was used to assess the quality of 100 guidelines (including 32 oncology guidelines) from 13 countries. The criteria of the instrument are grouped into six quality domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity and presentation, applicability, and editorial independence.

RESULTS

Oncology guidelines had significantly higher scores on rigor of development than nononcology guidelines (42.2% v 29.4%; P =.02). In particular, systematic methods to search for evidence were more often used (P =.01); the methods for formulating the recommendations were more clearly described (P =.02); and health benefits, risks, and side effects were more often considered in formulating the recommendations (P =.03). Although the standardized scores for the other domains were not significantly different, the oncology guidelines had significantly higher scores for items measuring inclusion of all relevant professional groups (P =.05), consideration of patient views (P =.04), and presentation of different options (P =.05). Only three organizations producing oncology guidelines had standardized scores more than 60% for more than three domains.

CONCLUSION

The quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is modest in general, but for certain domains, oncology guidelines seem to be of better quality than others. The experience of the organization may explain higher scores for some items. Research projects and training aimed at improving the quality of guidelines should be developed. The AGREE instrument could provide a basis for defining steps in a shared development approach to produce high-quality CPGs.

[Standards, options, and recommendation for external radiotherapy of prostatic cancer: evaluation of the effect of dosage]

CONTEXT

The "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) collaborative project was initiated in 1993 by the Federation of the French Cancer Centres (FNCLCC), with the 20 French Regional Cancer Centres, several French public university and general hospitals, as well as private clinics and medical speciality societies. Its main objective is the development of serviceable clinical practice guidelines in order to improve the quality of health care and the outcome of cancer patients. The methodology is based on a literature review, followed by critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts. Draft guidelines are produced, then validated by specialists in cancer care delivery.

OBJECTIVES

Produce clinical practice guidelines for the radiotherapy of prostate cancer using the methodology developed by the Standards, Options and Recommendations project.

METHODS

The FNCLCC and the French Urology Association (AFU) designated the multidisciplinary group of experts. Available data were collected by a search of Medline and lists selected by experts in the group. A first draft of the guidelines was written, they validated by independent reviewers.

RESULTS

The main recommendations are: 1/ a minimal dose of 70 Gy must be used, whatever the prognostic factors; 2/ it appeared that patients with favourable prognostic indicators (stage T1-2, PSA < or = 10 micrograms/L and Gleason score < or = 6) do not benefit from a dose escalation effect for doses over 70-74 Gy; 3/ patients with intermediate prognosis are the ones who benefit most from the dose escalation effect over 74 Gy, provided they receive exclusive radiation therapy; 4/ whenever possible, patients should be included in controlled trials designed to assess the effects of dose escalation and hormonotherapy.

A controlled "before-after" study: impact of a clinical guidelines programme and regional cancer network organization on medical practice

A regional cancer network has been set up in the Rhône-Alpes region in France. The aim of the project is to improve the quality of care and to rationalize prescriptions in the network. In this network, we assessed the impact of the implementation of a clinical practice guidelines project by assessing the conformity of practice with the guidelines and comparing this with the conformity in an external matched control group from another French region without a regional cancer network. Four hospitals (private and public) accepted to assess the impact of the clinical practice guidelines on the management of breast and colon cancer in the experimental group and three hospitals (private and public) in the control group. In 1994 and 1996, women with non-metastatic breast cancer (282 and 346 patients in the experimental group, 194 and 172 patients in the control group, respectively) and all new patients with colon cancer (95 and 94 patients in the experimental group, and 89 and 118 patients in the control group, respectively) were selected. A controlled "before-after" study, using institutional medical records of patients with breast and colon cancer. The medical decisions concerning the patients were analyzed to assess their compliance with the clinical practice guidelines. When medical decisions were judged to be non-compliant, we verified if they were based on scientific evidence in a published article, if they were not, the medical decision was classified as having "no convincing supporting scientific evidence". The compliance rates were significantly higher in 1996 than in 1994 in the experimental group; 36% (126 out of 346) vs 12% (34 out of 282) and 46% (56 out of 123) vs 14% (14 out of 103) (P<0.001) for breast and colon cancer, respectively. Whereas, in the control group the compliance rates were the same for the two periods; 7% (12 out of 173) vs 6% (12 out of 194) (P=0.46) and 39% (49 out of 126) vs 32% (31 out of 96), P=0.19. In the experimental group, in 1994, 101 of the 282 medical decisions (36%) and 27 of the 103 (26%) for breast and colon cancer, respectively, were classified as having "no convincing supporting scientific evidence" compare with 72 out of 346 in 1996 (21%) for breast cancer, and 21 of the 123 (17%) for colon cancer P<0.05. Whereas in the control group these results were 106 out of 194 in 1994 (55%) and 90 out of 172 in 1996 (52%), P=0.65 for breast cancer and 28 out of 96 in 1994 (29%) and 30 out of 126 in 1996 (24%), P=0.36 for colon cancer. The development and implementation strategy of the clinical practice guidelines programme for cancer management results in significant changes in medical practice in our cancer network. These results would suggest that introducing guidelines with specific implementation strategy might also increase the compliance rate with the guideline and "evidence-based medicine".

[Standards, Options, and Recommendations for brachytherapy in patients with prostate cancer: efficacy and toxicity]

CONTEXT

The "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) collaborative project was initiated in 1993 by the Federation of the French Cancer Centres (FNCLCC), with the 20 French Regional Cancer Centres, several French public university and general hospitals, as well as private clinics and medical specialty societies. Its main objective is the development of serviceable clinical practice guidelines in order to improve the quality of health care and the outcome of cancer patients. The methodology is based on a literature review, followed by a critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts. Draft guidelines are produced, then validated by specialists in cancer care delivery.

OBJECTIVES

Produce clinical practice guidelines for the brachytherapy of prostate cancer using the methodology developed by the Standards, Options and Recommendations project.

METHODS

The FNCLCC and the French Urology Association (AFU) first designated the multidisciplinary group of experts. Available data were collected by a search of Medline and lists selected by experts in the group. A first draft of the guidelines was written, they validated by independent reviewers.

RESULTS

The main recommendations are: 1/Brachytherapy with permanent seeds alone is a possible curative treatment for prostate cancer patients with the following prognosis factors: tumour stage T1 or T2a (TNM 1992), Gleason score < or = 6 and PSA < 10 micrograms/L. 2/Combined treatment with brachytherapy and hormonal therapy could be more efficient than brachytherapy alone for prostate cancer patients with Gleason score > 7 and/or PSA > 10.3/Combination of brachytherapy and external beam radiation therapy can be proposed to prostate cancer patients with intermediate prognosis. 4/Before and after seed implantation, risks of infection must be prevented by appropriate antibiotic therapy (recommendation). 5/Brachytherapy must not be performed within 2 months of transurethral prostate resection. 6/The height of the urethra receiving more than 200% of the prescribed dose must be reported. The portion of the rectum receiving 100 and 120% of the prescribed dose must be limited to 10 and 5 mm length, respectively.

Treatment strategies for metastatic Ewing's sarcoma

Therapy in metastatic Ewing's sarcoma is reviewed using the methodology recommended by the guidelines project of the Federation of French Cancer Centres (FNCLCC) Standards, Options and Recommendation (SOR) Group. Twelve articles relating to conventional dose therapy and seven articles related to high-dose therapy were judged suitable for detailed appraisal. Rates of complete response (CR) at metastatic sites and local control were high using combinations of vincristine, actinomycin, cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin with radiation or surgery. With more recent regimens, including increased doses of alkylating agents and anthracyclines the relapse-free survival has increased from <15 to 20-30%. 'Megatherapy' regimens with haematopoietic stem cell rescue are tolerable in this patient group, but to date there is little evidence of any benefit. It appears that patients with isolated lung metastases do significantly better (approximately 40% EFS) than those presenting with combined sites such as bone, bone marrow and lung. The use of lung irradiation in children with lung metastases is associated with a reduced incidence of subsequent lung recurrence and a consistently better overall relapse-free survival (RFS).