Promulgation of guidelines for mucositis management: educating health care professionals and patients

Awareness of the risk of radiation-related caries in patients with head and neck cancer: A survey of physicians, dentists, and patients

OBJECTIVES

Radiation-related caries (RRC) is one of the most aggressive complications of radiotherapy (RT) in survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC). Lack of RRC awareness may contribute to the occurrence of this oral cavity complication. RRC may be considered a "forgotten oral complication" by patients with HNC, oncologists, and dentists. The present study aimed to assess the level of awareness of RRC among physicians, dentists, and patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Physicians (group 1, G1), dentists (group 2, G2), and patients with HNC undergoing RT (group 3, G3) answered questionnaires concerning their awareness of RRC. Physicians (G1) were divided into group 1A (oncological experience) and group 1B (general physicians/other specialties). Dentists (G2) were divided into group 2A (oncological experience) and group 2B (general dentists/other specialties). Personalized questionnaires were designed for each group.

RESULTS

Recruitment was as follows: physicians (n = 124): 1A (n = 64), 1B (n = 60); dentists: (n = 280), 2A (n = 160), 2B (n = 120). In addition, 58 patients answered the questionnaire. In terms of RRC awareness, 46.77% of physicians, 81.78% of dentists, and 24.13% of patients had some knowledge of the problem.

CONCLUSION

Patient awareness of RRC was poor. The heterogeneity of answers among physicians and dentists suggests an opportunity to improve patient education and prevention of this serious oral complication of RT.

Strategies for disseminating recommendations or guidelines to patients: a systematic review

Background

The aim of this systematic literature review was to assess what dissemination strategies are feasible to inform and educate patients about recommendations (also known as guidelines).

Methods

The search was performed in February 2016 in PubMed, Ebsco/PsycINFO, Ebsco/CINAHL and Embase. Studies evaluating dissemination strategies, involving patients and/or reaching patients, were included. A hand search and a search in the grey literature, also done in February 2016, were added. Searches were not restricted by language or publication type.

Publications that referred to (1) guideline(s) or recommendation(s), (2) dissemination, (3) dissemination with patients/patient organisations and (4) dissemination to patients/patient organisations were included in this article. Criteria 1 AND 2 were mandatory together with criteria 3 OR 4.

Results

The initial search revealed 3753 unique publications. Forty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria and were selected for detailed review. The hand search and grey literature resulted in four relevant articles. After reading the full text of the 47 articles, 21 were relevant for answering our research question. Most publications had low levels of evidence, 3 or 4 of the Oxford levels of evidence. One article had a level of evidence of 2(b).

This article gives an overview of tools and strategies to disseminate recommendations to patients. Key factors of success were a dissemination plan, written at the start of the recommendation development process, involvement of patients in this development process and the use of a combination of traditional and innovative dissemination tools. The lack of strong evidence calls for more research of the effectiveness of different dissemination strategies as well as the barriers for implementing a strategic approach of dissemination.

Conclusion

Our findings provide the first systematic overview of tools and strategies to disseminate recommendations to patients and patient organisations. Participation of patients in the whole process is one of the most important findings. These findings are relevant to develop, implement and evaluate more (effective) dissemination strategies which can improve health care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0447-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Supportive care treatment guidelines: value, limitations, and opportunities

Evidence-based guidelines in clinical oncology practice are now prominent, with emphasis on clinical, health outcome and economic perspectives. Given the complexity of cancer management, a multidisciplinary approach is essential. Evidence-based guidelines to address supportive cancer care have merged expert opinion, systematic evaluation of clinical and research data, and meta-analyses of clinical trials. Production of supportive care guidelines by the interdisciplinary team is dependent on sufficient high-quality research studies. Once published, it is essential they be customized at institutional and national levels. Implementation in clinical practice is perhaps the greatest challenge. Optimal management occurs through integration of country-specific issues, including care access, healthcare resources, information technology, and national coordination of healthcare practices. The purpose of this article is to: (1) provide an overview of interdisciplinary cancer management using evidence-based guidelines; (2) delineate the theory and practice of guideline dissemination, utilization and outcome assessment; and (3) recommend future research strategies to maximize guidelines use in clinical practice.

Symptom management issues in oncology nursing

Symptoms experienced by patients with cancer can occur as a direct effect of the disease process and be related to side effects of treatment. Many patients with cancer also are older in age and have comorbidities, such as diabetes and heart disease. Comorbid conditions also produce disease and treatment-related symptoms that may have an independent or compounding effect on cancer-related symptoms.

Intestinal mucositis: mechanisms and management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe the advances in the rapidly evolving field of intestinal (or alimentary) mucositis during the past year.

RECENT FINDINGS

Major advances have been made in both the clinical and preclinical setting, with the publication of a suite of articles regarding the pathobiology and management of mucositis, as well as several articles on important basic research in the area. The mechanism of mucositis development is now understood to be much more complex than previously thought, with an interplay of host and drug factors leading to overt damage, and variation in manifestation of that damage depending on the specific region of the gut. The MASCC/ISOO management guidelines for mucositis have been updated: a recommendation for the use of palifermin in the hematology transplant setting has been added, and a couple of previous recommendations have been revoked. This marks an important milestone in mucositis, as it is the first time a drug has been available that substantially reduces the occurrence and severity of mucositis.

SUMMARY

There is still much to be done to abolish the severe toxicity of chemotherapy and radiotherapy; however, progress is accelerating, and new targeted drugs are becoming available.

Nongastroesophageal reflux disease-related infectious, inflammatory and injurious disorders of the esophagus

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review recently published studies presenting novel and relevant information on some esophageal infectious, inflammatory and injurious diseases.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the treatment of Candida esophagitis, fluconazole remains the treatment of choice, but clinical failures indicate new therapeutic opportunities, like two new echinocandins, micafungin and anidulafungin. Eosinophilic esophagitis is an increasingly recognized entity. New therapeutic insights come from a six-food elimination diet in children and from fluticasone propionate in adults; humanized monoclonal IgG antibody anti-interlukin-5, mepolizumab, has been shown to decrease eosinophilia and ameliorate symptoms. There has been some advance in microscopic characterization of lymphocytic esophagitis. Esophagitis is found to be present in 67% of patients with pemphigo vulgaris, in 32.3% of patients with systemic sclerosis and to be associated with thoracic neoplasias. In the case of caustic ingestion, endoscopic ultrasound with miniprobes has proven not to be better than videoendoscopy. Recent evidence shows that systemic steroids might even be harmful. Mitomycin C applied on fresh wounds is currently being evaluated. Stenting of the stricture has been proposed for contrasting esophageal remodeling.

SUMMARY

These recent findings, together with a better understanding of diseases such as eosinophilic or lymphocytic esophagitis, allow new diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.

Updated clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of mucositis

Considerable progress in research and clinical application has been made since the original guidelines for managing mucositis in cancer patients were published in 2004, and the first active drug for the prevention and treatment of this condition has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies in Europe and Australia. These changes necessitate an updated review of the literature and guidelines. Panel members reviewed the biomedical literature on mucositis published in English between January 2002 and May 2005 and reached a consensus based on the criteria of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Changes in the guidelines included recommendations for the use of palifermin for oral mucositis associated with stem cell transplantation, amifostine for radiation proctitis, and cryotherapy for mucositis associated with high-dose melphalan. Recommendations against specific practices were introduced: Systemic glutamine was not recommended for the prevention of gastrointestinal mucositis, and sucralfate and antimicrobial lozenges were not recommended for radiation-induced oral mucositis. Furthermore, new guidelines suggested that granulocyte-macrophage-colony stimulating factor mouthwashes not be used for oral mucositis prevention in the transplantation population. Advances in mucositis treatment and research have been complemented by an increased rate of publication on mucosal injury in cancer. However, additional and sustained efforts will be required to gain a fuller understanding of the pathobiology, impact on overall patient status, optimal therapeutic strategies, and improved educational programs for health professionals, patients, and caregivers. These efforts are likely to have significant clinical and economic impact on the treatment of cancer patients. Cancer 2007;109:820-31. (c) 2007 American Cancer Society.

Developing evidence-based guidelines for management of alimentary mucositis: process and pitfalls

INTRODUCTION

It is important yet difficult to maintain currency in clinical oncology practice. The emergence of new diagnostic technologies and new paradigms for cancer treatment combine to produce a rapidly changing clinical approach to patients aided by the increasing use of multidisciplinary care teams and development of evidence-based protocols.

METHODS

Teams of experts review the literature in a given area and produce management guidelines and protocols for use by practicing clinicians. Traditionally within Hematology/Oncology, these guidelines have been directed to management of a given tumor type. However, in recent years, attention has increasingly turned to supportive oncology; for example, there are now management guidelines for conditions such as neutropenic fever [Hughes et al. Clinical Infectious Diseases 34(6):730-751, 2002], antiemetic (The Antiemetic Subcommittee of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Annals of Oncology 17:20-28, 2006) and most recently, mucositis [Rubenstein et al. Cancer 100(9 Suppl):2026-2046, 2004]. It is critical that any guideline process should include education, evaluation, and timely update in its remit, because guidelines become highly compromised if their existence is not widely known, if they do not facilitate clinical practice, or if they are not reflective of contemporary medical literature.

RESULTS

The Mucositis Study Group (MSG) of the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society for Oral Oncology was created in 1998 to specifically address the multiprofessional approach to clinical care, research, and education associated with mucosal injury in cancer patients. A specific outcome has been the development of evidence-based guidelines for the management of mucositis [Rubenstein et al. Cancer 100(9 Suppl):2026-2046, 2004; The Mucositis Study Group of MASCC/ISSO 2005]. The original guidelines [Rubenstein et al. Cancer 100(9 Suppl):2026-2046, 2004] and a companion paper discussing the science behind mucositis [Sonis et al. Cancer 100(9):1995-2025, 2004], were published in 2004. The MSG has recently updated the guidelines [The Mucositis Study Group of MASCC/ISSO 2005].

DISCUSSION

This paper discusses the process involved and the lessons learned that might help other groups planning to undertake a similar project.