ESMO expert consensus statements on the screening and management of financial toxicity in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Financial toxicity, defined as both the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress from a cancer diagnosis and its treatment, is a topic of interest in the assessment of the quality of life of patients with cancer and their families. Current evidence implicates financial toxicity in psychosocial, economic and other harms, leading to suboptimal cancer outcomes along the entire trajectory of diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, survivorship and palliation. This paper presents the results of a virtual consensus, based on the evidence base to date, on the screening and management of financial toxicity in patients with and beyond cancer organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) in 2022.

METHODS

A Delphi panel of 19 experts from 11 countries was convened taking into account multidisciplinarity, diversity in health system contexts and research relevance. The international panel of experts was divided into four working groups (WGs) to address questions relating to distinct thematic areas: patients with cancer at risk of financial toxicity; management of financial toxicity during the initial phase of treatment at the hospital/ambulatory settings; financial toxicity during the continuing phase and at end of life; and financial risk protection for survivors of cancer, and in cancer recurrence. After comprehensively reviewing the literature, statements were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment, and voting.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 25 evidence-informed consensus statements were developed, which answer 13 questions on financial toxicity. They cover evidence summaries, practice recommendations/guiding statements and policy recommendations relevant across health systems. These consensus statements aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of financial toxicity and guide clinicians globally in mitigating its impact, emphasizing the importance of further research, best practices and guidelines.

Revised European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) recommended framework on palliative sedation: An international Delphi study

BACKGROUND

The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) acknowledges palliative sedation as an important, broadly accepted intervention for patients with life-limiting disease experiencing refractory symptoms. The EAPC therefore developed 2009 a framework on palliative sedation. A revision was needed due to new evidence from literature, ongoing debate and criticism of methodology, terminology and applicability.

AIM

To provide evidence- and consensus-based guidance on palliative sedation for healthcare professionals involved in end-of-life care, for medical associations and health policy decision-makers.

DESIGN

Revision between June 2020 and September 2022 of the 2009 framework using a literature update and a Delphi procedure.

SETTING

European.

PARTICIPANTS

International experts on palliative sedation (identified through literature search and nomination by national palliative care associations) and a European patient organisation.

RESULTS

A framework with 42 statements for which high or very high level of consensus was reached. Terminology is defined more precisely with the terms suffering used to encompass distressing physical and psychological symptoms as well as existential suffering and refractory to describe the untreatable (healthcare professionals) and intolerable (patient) nature of the suffering. The principle of proportionality is introduced in the definition of palliative sedation. No specific period of remaining life expectancy is defined, based on the principles of refractoriness of suffering, proportionality and independent decision-making for hydration. Patient autonomy is emphasised. A stepwise pharmacological approach and a guidance on hydration decision-making are provided.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first framework on palliative sedation using a strict consensus methodology. It should serve as comprehensive and soundly developed information for healthcare professionals.

ePRO-based digital symptom monitoring in a community oncology practice to reduce emergency room and inpatient utilization

1508

Background: We have previously reported on the successful implementation of an electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO)-based symptom monitoring tool in a community oncology practice. Basch et al reported that use of such a tool in the academic trial setting reduced ER visits and hospitalizations. We have examined the impact of the tool on ER and inpatient utilization in this real world patient population. Methods: Highlands Oncology Group (HOG) is a 21 physician oncology group located in Northwest Arkansas. Beginning in June 2020, HOG offered patients receiving parenteral cancer therapy enrollment onto Expain, an EMR-integrated ePRO system which enables remote symptom monitoring during therapy. EMR data were linked with the Arkansas State Health Alliance for Records Exchange (SHARE), the state’s Health Information Exchange (HIE), to obtain ER visits/hospitalization data. All patients at HOG treated between September 30, 2020 and November 30, 2021 were included in this analysis. Clinical and demographic characteristics were compared in patients who enrolled on Expain versus those who did not, and corresponding p-values were calculated using Mann-Whitney and Chi-square tests. Crude rates for ER visits / hospitalizations were calculated as the total number of events per total person-time. Results: There were 855 patients enrolled on the ePRO system. Concurrently, in the same practice, 1773 patients were treated but not enrolled. Reasons for non-enrollment included patient’s choice to not participate and patient not yet offered enrollment due to rolling enrollment. The non-ePRO cohort was slightly older (66.7 vs 63.3 yrs, p <.001), more commonly male (47.3% vs 39.3%, p <.001) and less likely to be White (85.3% vs 89.4%, p = 0.003). The cohorts were comparable with respect to cancer site distribution and included a diverse and representative distribution of common malignancies receiving systemic therapy in a community practice. The proportion of patients with metastatic disease was comparable (ePRO 52.9% vs non-ePRO 51.6%, p = 0.55). Health resource utilization rates were lower for patients in the ePRO cohort: ER visits: 1.72 vs 2.34 per 100 patient-months, rate ratio and 95% CI = 0.74 (0.60, 0.92), p-value = 0.005; hospitalizations: 4.76 vs 5.41 per 100 patient-months, rate ratio and 95% CI = 0.87 (0.77, 0.99), p-value = 0.04. Conclusions: Our findings confirm the substantial benefits of using an ePRO tool in reducing health care resource utilization, and extend the initial findings of previous publications in the academic, clinical trial setting to the real world setting. This observational data is subject to confounding factors and we are evaluating the robustness using various methods to address non-comparability of the cohorts. We are further examining the benefits in specific patient subsets and attempting to correlate these benefits with improved survival.

Risk-adapted modulation through de-intensification of cancer treatments: an ESMO classification

BACKGROUND

The landscape of clinical trials testing risk-adapted modulations of cancer treatments is complex. Multiple trial designs, endpoints, and thresholds for non-inferiority have been used; however, no consensus or convention has ever been agreed to categorise biomarkers useful to inform the treatment intensity modulation of cancer treatments.

METHODS

An expert subgroup under the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Precision Medicine Working Group shaped an international collaborative project to develop a classification system for biomarkers used in the cancer treatment de-intensification, based on a tiered approach. A group of disease-oriented clinical, translational, methodology and public health experts, and patients' representatives provided an analysis of the status quo, and scanned the horizon of ongoing clinical trials. The classification was developed through multiple rounds of expert revisions and inputs.

RESULTS

The working group agreed on a univocal definition of treatment de-intensification. Evidence of reduction in the dose-density, intensity, or cumulative dose, including intermittent schedules or shorter treatment duration or deletion of segment(s) of the standard regimens, compound(s), or treatment modality must be demonstrated, to define a treatment de-intensification. De-intensified regimens must also portend a positive impact on toxicity, quality of life, health system burden, or financial toxicity. ESMO classification categorises the biomarkers for treatment modulation in three tiers, based on the level of evidence. Tier A includes biomarkers validated in prospective, randomised, non-inferiority clinical trials. The working group agreed that in non-inferiority clinical trials, boundaries are highly dependent upon the disease scenario and endpoint being studied and that the absolute differences in the outcomes are the most relevant measures, rather than relative differences. Biomarkers tested in single-arm studies with a threshold of non-inferiority are classified as Tier B. Tier C is when the validation occurs in prospective-retrospective quality cohort investigations.

CONCLUSIONS

ESMO classification for the risk-guided intensity modulation of cancer treatments provides a set of evidence-based criteria to categorise biomarkers deemed to inform de-intensification of cancer treatments, in risk-defined patients. The classification aims at harmonising definitions on this matter, therefore offering a common language for all the relevant stakeholders, including clinicians, patients, decision-makers, and for clinical trials.

Successful implementation of an ePRO remote monitoring system in patients receiving chemotherapy in a community oncology practice

1526

Background: Remote symptom monitoring of patients receiving cancer treatment has been shown to improve patient outcomes in the research setting. However, there is little evidence that this technology can be implemented and scaled in the real world with the same benefits. Methods: Highlands Oncology Group (HOG) is a 19 physician medical oncology group in Northwest Arkansas. Beginning in June 2020, HOG offered patients receiving parenteral cancer therapy enrollment onto Expain: an EMR-integrated, electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) system which enables remote symptom monitoring during systemic cancer therapy. Patients reported distress and symptoms using the NCCN Distress Thermometer and Problem List instrument. The practice prospectively defined patient reporting intervals based on disease and treatment protocol, as well as thresholds for each symptom that would trigger a nursing notification. Following clinical review, nurses initiated interventions including a telephone call, urgent office visit, or referral to an emergency room when necessary. Results: From June 2020 – January 2021, HOG treated 1261 patients with IV chemotherapy. 769 patients were offered enrollment and 569 (73.9%) were successfully enrolled onto the ePRO system. At the time of enrollment 419 (73.6%) of enrolled patients were in an Oncology Care Model (OCM) episode. Common reasons for declined enrollment were: low symptom burden, non-English speaker, and approaching the end of treatment. Of enrolled patients, the most common tumor types were: gastrointestinal (21.8%), breast (17.5%), and thoracic (16.1%). Patients reported using Expain’s mobile app (89.1%) or Interactive Voice Response interface (IVR, 10.1%) with the following frequency: once a month (12%), twice a month (30%), 3 reports a month (35%), and 4 reports or more (23%); Of patients successfully enrolled 52.72% were still reporting after 3 months. The most common reasons specified for opting-out were: death, hospice admission, and completion of the treatment course. 50% of reports exceeded the practice-defined threshold for a nursing notification. The nurses initiated a follow-up call in response to 78.8% of notifications, and of these calls, 21.2% resulted in an urgent office evaluation. The most common problems triggering an office evaluation were: high NCCN Distress Thermometer score (17.1%), fatigue (16.1%), pain (11.5%), nausea (9.4%), and dyspnea (4.5%). Conclusions: ePRO-based remote monitoring of patients receiving parenteral cancer therapy in routine clinical care is feasible. Patient enrollment and retention are high across all tumor types. Symptoms reported by patients were concordant with previous publications, and a small percent (7% of reports) required an acute office visit. It is expected that office intervention will reduce the use of ER and inpatient services.

A phase 1b study of chemoimmunotherapy with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and pembrolizumab in estrogen receptor-positive, endocrine-resistant breast cancer

1049

Background: This is a single center phase 1b study of a regimen of pembrolizumab (PBZ) and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in endocrine-resistant breast cancer. PLD was chosen as chemotherapy component because it is mildly myelosuppressive and non-immunosuppressive and contains doxorubicin, a strong immunogenic cell death inducer. Methods: Patients with estrogen receptor positive, HER2 negative, metastatic breast cancer, whose disease progressed on hormonal and biological therapy and up to 2 chemotherapy lines were eligible for enrollment. PLD, 30 mg/m2, and PBZ, 200 mg flat dose, were infused on day 1 of every 3-week cycles. The main study objectives were safe dose clearance, characterization of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), tumor response, and pharmacokinetic analysis of PLD and PBZ during the first 3 cycles of treatment in a 1st cohort of 6 patients and a 2nd confirmatory cohort of 6-9 patients. Patients with partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) continued on the extended phase of the study consisting of 9 additional cycles during which further safety information was collected. All patients were followed-up for survival. Results: 12 patients were recruited (median age 61 y, range 45-91). 9 patients had received prior doxorubicin treatment. 82 treatments have been administered (median: 7, range 2-13). Overall, treatment was well tolerated. DLT including infusion reactions, grade ≥2 myelosuppression, hair loss and mucocutaneous toxicity were not observed in the first 3 cycles. Subsequently, skin toxicity (grade 2-3 palmar-plantar erythema) was observed forcing treatment delays of 1-2 weeks. Except for 2 cases of subclinical hypothyroidism, there were no other apparent PBZ-related side-effects. There was no evidence of cardiac toxicity. There were 2 early deaths (days 25 and 45) probably related to disease progression. Upon reevaluation on week 9, we observed: 2 patients with PD, 4 with SD, 2 with PR (15+ and 5+ mth), 1 with no measurable disease, and 1 early to evaluate. Three out of 5 patients responded well to post-study chemotherapy with durable improvement or stabilization (range, 5 to 11+ mth). Median follow-up is 14 mth. Median survival has not been reached with 4 deaths and a longest survivor of 19+ mth. Median progression-free survival is 6.0 mth. The clearance of PLD was slow with high Cmax, long T½ and small Vd. There was a significant increase in the AUC of PLD between the 1st and 3rd cycle (median: 2,649 vs 3,422 mg*h/l, p = 0.039). Analysis of PBZ plasma levels is ongoing. Conclusions: The combination of PLD and PBZ is well tolerated and feasible for extended treatment. Dose interval of PLD should be lengthened to 4 weeks after 2-3 cycles to prevent skin toxicity. The late appearance of skin toxicity is probably related to a delay in PLD clearance after 2 treatment cycles with PLD and PBZ. Clinical trial information: NCT03591276 .

Access to essential anticancer medicines for children and adolescents in Europe

BACKGROUND

Essential anticancer medicines are an indispensable component of multidisciplinary treatment of paediatric malignancies. A European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) study reported inequalities in the availability of anticancer medicines for adult solid tumours and provided a model for the present survey. The aim of this survey was to assess the accessibility of essential medicines used in paediatric cancer patients aged 0 to 18 years across Europe from 2016 to 2018.

METHODS

A list of medicines was drawn with input from the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP Europe) Clinical Research Council referring to the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines for Children (WHO EMLc) 2017. A survey was sent to nominated national clinician and pharmacist rapporteurs and parent associations in up to 37 countries; answers were obtained from 34 countries.

RESULTS

The full survey list contained 68 medicines, including 24 on the WHO EMLc 2017. Health professionals reported that 35% of all medicines were prescribed off-label in at least one country and that 44% were always available in >90% of countries. Only 63% of the EMLc 2017 medicines were reported as always available. The main determinant of unavailability was shortages, reported for 72% of medicines in at least one country. Out-of-pocket costs were reported in eight countries. Twenty-seven percent of orally administered medicines were never available in child-friendly formulations. Parents detailed individual efforts and challenges of facilitating ingestion of oral medicines as prescribed. Inequalities in access to pain control during procedures were reported by parents across Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

Children and adolescents with cancer in Europe experience lack of access to essential medicines. Urgent actions are needed to address shortages, financial accessibility, availability of safe age-appropriate oral formulations, and pain management across Europe.

"Death is inevitable - a bad death is not" report from an international workshop

Palliative care is an approach meant to improve the quality of life of patients facing life-threatening illness and to support their families. An international workshop on palliative care took place in Caesarea, Israel under the auspices of the National Institute for Health Policy Research on July 4-5th, 2018, with the goal of discussing challenges to the development and integration of palliative care services in Israel. At the workshop, both national and international figures in the field of palliative care and health policy addressed several issues, including truth telling, religious approaches to end of life care, palliative care in the community, pediatric palliative care, Israel’s Dying Patient Act, the Ministry of Health’s National Plan for palliative care, and challenges in using advance directives. We summarize the topics addressed, challenges highlighted, and directions for further advancement of palliative care in the future, emphasizing the critical role of the Ministry of Health in providing a framework for development of palliative care.

The 'critical mass' survey of palliative care programme at ESMO designated centres of integrated oncology and palliative care

Background

The ESMO Designated Centres (ESMO-DCs) of Integrated Oncology and Palliative Care (PC) Incentive Programme has grown steadily. We aimed to characterise the level of PC clinical services, education and research at ESMO-DCs.

Methods

We sent all 184 ESMO-DCs an electronic survey consisting of 78 questions examining the DC characteristics, palliative care clinical programme (structure, processes, and outcomes), primary PC delivery by oncologists, education, research and attitudes and beliefs towards the ESMO-DC programme.

Results

The response rate was 83% (152/184). 115 (76%) ESMO-DCs were from Europe, 87 (57%) were tertiary care centres. 136 (90%) had inpatient consultation teams, 135 (89%) had outpatient PC clinics, 107 (71%) had dedicated acute care beds, and 75 (50%) offered community-based PC. An estimated 70% (interquartile range [IQR] 28-80%) of patients with advanced cancer had a PC consultation before death, occurring 90 days before death (median, IQR 40-150 days) for outpatients and 21 days (IQR 14-45 days) for inpatients. 59 (39%) offered PC fellowship programme; 47 (32%) had mandatory PC rotations for oncology fellows. Ninety-nine (65%) had double-boarded palliative oncologists. 118 (78%) of the ESMO-DCs reported that routine symptom screening was offered in the oncology clinic and 30% of patients had documented end-of-life discussions by their oncologists. Most centres (>80%) perceived the ESMO-DC programme to increase their status.

Conclusions

The ESMO-DCs had a high level of PC infrastructure and provided access to a large proportion of patients with advanced cancer. The survey supports that the 13 criteria required for ESMO designation set a robust framework for integration, stimulated investment of resources into some palliative care programmes prior to accreditation, and raised the interest about palliative care among clinicians, trainees and patients.

Automatic referral to standardize palliative care access: an international Delphi survey

PURPOSE

Palliative care referral is primarily based on clinician judgment, contributing to highly variable access. Standardized criteria to trigger automatic referral have been proposed, but it remains unclear how best to apply them in practice. We conducted a Delphi study of international experts to identify a consensus for the use of standardized criteria to trigger automatic referral.

METHODS

Sixty international experts stated their level of agreement for 14 statements regarding the use of clinician-based referral and automatic referral over two Delphi rounds. A consensus was defined as an agreement of ≥70% a priori.

RESULTS

The response rate was 59/60 (98%) for the first round and 56/60 (93%) for the second round. Twenty-six (43%), 19 (32%), and 11 (18%) respondents were from North America, Asia/Australia, and Europe, respectively. The panel reached consensus that outpatient palliative care referral should be based on both automatic referral and clinician-based referral (agreement = 86%). Only 18% felt that referral should be clinician-based alone, and only 7% agreed that referral should be based on automatic referral only. There was consensus that automatic referral criteria may increase the number of referrals (agreement = 98%), facilitate earlier palliative care access, and help administrators to set benchmarks for quality improvement (agreement = 86%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our panelists favored the combination of automatic referral to augment clinician-based referral. This integrated referral framework may inform policy and program development.

ESMO European Consortium Study on the availability, out-of-pocket costs and accessibility of antineoplastic medicines in Europe

BACKGROUND

The management of cancer is predicated on the availability and affordability of anticancer therapies, which may be either curative or noncurative.

AIM

The primary aims of the study were to evaluate (i) the formulary availability of licensed antineoplastic medicines across Europe; (ii) patient out-of-pocket costs for the medications and (iii) the actual availability of the medication for a patient with a valid prescription.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The survey tool was based on the previous ESMO studies that addressed the availability and accessibility of opioids for the management of cancer pain. A total of 185 field reporters from 49 countries were invited to participate. The preliminary set of data was posted on the ESMO website for open peer-review, and amendments have been incorporated into the final report.

RESULTS

There are substantial differences in the formulary availability, out-of-pocket costs and actual availability for many anticancer medicines. The most profound lack of availability is in countries with lower levels of economic development, particularly in Eastern Europe, and these are largely related to the cost of targeted agents approved in the last 10 years. Discrepancies are less profound among medications on the WHO model essential medicines list (EML) for cancer and in curative settings. However, medicine shortages also affect WHO EML medicines, with relevant therapeutic implications for many patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost and affordability of anticancer treatments with recent market approval is the major factor contributing to inequity of access to anticancer medications. This is especially true with regards to new medications used in the management of EGFR- or ALK-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer, metastatic melanoma, metastatic renal cell cancer, RAS/RAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, HER2 overexpressed breast cancer and castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer.

Referral criteria for outpatient specialty palliative cancer care: an international consensus

Although outpatient specialty palliative-care clinics improve outcomes, there is no consensus on who should be referred or the optimal timing for referral. In response to this issue, we did a Delphi study to develop consensus on a list of criteria for referral of patients with advanced cancer at secondary or tertiary care hospitals to outpatient palliative care. 60 international experts (26 from North America, 19 from Asia and Australia, and 11 from Europe) on palliative cancer care rated 39 needs-based criteria and 22 time-based criteria in three iterative rounds. Nearly all experts responded in each round. Consensus was defined by an a-priori agreement of 70% or more. Panellists reached consensus on 11 major criteria for referral: severe physical symptoms, severe emotional symptoms, request for hastened death, spiritual or existential crisis, assistance with decision making or care planning, patient request for referral, delirium, spinal cord compression, brain or leptomeningeal metastases, within 3 months of advanced cancer diagnosis for patients with median survival of 1 year or less, and progressive disease despite second-line therapy. Consensus was also reached on 36 minor criteria for specialist palliative-care referral. These criteria, if validated, could provide guidance for identification of patients suitable for outpatient specialty palliative care.

Indicators of integration of oncology and palliative care programs: an international consensus

BACKGROUND

Recently, the concept of integrating oncology and palliative care has gained wide professional and scientific support; however, a global consensus on what constitutes integration is unavailable. We conducted a Delphi Survey to develop a consensus list of indicators on integration of specialty palliative care and oncology programs for advanced cancer patients in hospitals with ≥100 beds.

METHODS

International experts on integration rated a list of indicators on integration over three iterative rounds under five categories: clinical structure, processes, outcomes, education, and research. Consensus was defined a priori by an agreement of ≥70%. Major criteria (i.e. most relevant and important indicators) were subsequently identified.

RESULTS

Among 47 experts surveyed, 46 (98%), 45 (96%), and 45 (96%) responded over the three rounds. Nineteen (40%) were female, 24 (51%) were from North America, and 14 (30%) were from Europe. Sixteen (34%), 7 (15%), and 25 (53%) practiced palliative care, oncology, and both specialties, respectively. After three rounds of deliberation, the panelists reached consensus on 13 major and 30 minor indicators. Major indicators included two related to structure (consensus 95%-98%), four on processes (88%-98%), three on outcomes (88%-91%), and four on education (93%-100%). The major indicators were considered to be clearly stated (9.8/10), objective (9.4/10), amenable to accurate coding (9.5/10), and applicable to their own countries (9.4/10).

CONCLUSIONS

Our international experts reached broad consensus on a list of indicators of integration, which may be used to identify centers with a high level of integration, and facilitate benchmarking, quality improvement, and research.

How well is palliative care integrated into cancer care? A MASCC, ESMO, and EAPC Project

INTRODUCTION

The benefits of integration of palliative care into oncology have become evidence-based. How palliative care is perceived and structured in various settings and countries would be of interest.

METHOD

We used a previously published questionnaire to survey multiple institutions with members in MASCC and ESMO. The survey was made available on the MASCC website for approximately 6 months and repeated requests were made to complete the survey. Comparisons were made between NCI/ESMO designated cancer centers, nondesignated cancer centers, and urban hospitals.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-three different institutions completed this survey, 28 % of ESMO designated centers. Most institutions had palliative care programs and most programs consisted of an inpatient consult service and outpatient clinics. A minority had inpatient palliative care beds and institution supported hospice services. Barriers to palliative care were largely financial. Integration of palliative care into oncology was highly desirable but only a minority of respondents felt that their institution would financially support expanded services and additional palliative care personnel. Designated centers were more likely to have expanded palliative care services.

DISCUSSION

Our findings are very similar to those previously published. Multiple studies have demonstrated that though palliative care integration into oncology is highly beneficial as measured by patient related outcomes, there is a great concern about reimbursement for services and budget constraints which prevent expansion of services.

CONCLUSION

Palliative care integration into cancer care is largely through consulting services for inpatients and outpatient clinics. Financial concerns limit integration and expansion of palliative care services. Designated cancer centers have more extensive palliative care services relative to nondesignated cancer centers and urban hospitals.

Integration of oncology and palliative care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Both the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology strongly endorse integrating oncology and palliative care (PC); however, a global consensus on what constitutes integration is currently lacking. To better understand what integration entails, we conducted a systematic review to identify articles addressing the clinical, educational, research, and administrative indicators of integration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBase between 1948 and 2013. Two researchers independently reviewed each citation for inclusion and extracted the indicators related to integration. The inter-rater agreement was high (κ = 0.96, p < .001).

RESULTS

Of the 431 publications in our initial search, 101 were included. A majority were review articles (58%) published in oncology journals (59%) and in or after 2010 (64%, p < .001). A total of 55 articles (54%), 33 articles (32%), 24 articles (24%), and 14 articles (14%) discussed the role of outpatient clinics, community-based care, PC units, and inpatient consultation teams in integration, respectively. Process indicators of integration include interdisciplinary PC teams (n = 72), simultaneous care approach (n = 71), routine symptom screening (n = 25), PC guidelines (n = 33), care pathways (n = 11), and combined tumor boards (n = 10). A total of 66 articles (65%) mentioned early involvement of PC, 18 (18%) provided a specific timing, and 28 (28%) discussed referral criteria. A total of 45 articles (45%), 20 articles (20%), and 66 articles (65%) discussed 8, 4, and 9 indicators related to the educational, research, and administrative aspects of integration, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Integration was a heterogeneously defined concept. Our systematic review highlighted 38 clinical, educational, research, and administrative indicators. With further refinement, these indicators may facilitate assessment of the level of integration of oncology and PC.

MASCC/ESMO/EAPC survey of palliative programs

BACKGROUND

Palliative care program structure is important to integrating palliative services into cancer care. A first step in understanding the structure of palliative care programs is to survey existing programs.

METHOD

This data was generated from members of MASCC, the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and the European Association of Palliative Care (EAPC) who completed the surveys on the website. A survey questionnaire was developed using the survey tool developed by Dr. Hui and colleagues by permission which was modified for the purposes of this study. Findings were described in number and percentages. Inferential statistics involved the Fisher's exact test for factors with two levels, chi-Square test for unordered categorical factors with greater than two levels, Cochran-Armitage trend test for ordered categorical factors, and the Wilcoxon rank sum test for measured factors.

RESULTS

Sixty-two program leaders completed the survey. Most programs had been in existence greater than 5 years and were led by oncology trained physicians who had an additional specialty. Most programs had consultative services and outpatient clinics with fewer having inpatient beds and institutionally associated hospices. Most programs provided patient continuity. Patients were generally seen late in the course of illness with the average survival of 23 days when seen as inpatients and 40 days when seen as outpatients. Less than half had palliative care fellowship training programs. Most had research structures in place.

DISCUSSION

These findings differ from results reported in a previous survey which may reflect a European palliative care program structure. However, there were similarities which include a high inpatient palliative care unit mortality and short survival of patients seen as outpatients, indicating that referrals to palliative care occur late in the course of cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

This study not only differs in some respects to a previous survey of palliative care programs but also confirms the late referral of patients to palliative care.

Integration of oncology and palliative care (PC): A systematic review

13

Background: Both ASCO and ESMO strongly endorse integrating oncology and PC; however, a global consensus on indicators of integration is currently lacking. To better understand what “integration” entails, we conducted a systematic review to identify articles addressing the clinical, education, and administrative indicators of integration. Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBase between 1948 to 2013 using the search terms “neoplasms”, “integration”, and “Palliative Care” or “Supportive Care”. Two researchers independently reviewed each citation for inclusion, and then extracted the indicators related to integration. The inter-rater agreement was high (kappa=0.96, P<0.001). Results: Our initial search identified 411 publications, and 97 were included in the final sample. 58 (60%) were review articles and 31 (32%) were original articles. The number of articles on integration increased significantly between 1991 and 2013 (P<0.001), with 63 (65%) articles published in 2010 or later. Among these articles, 30 (31%), 16 (16%), 15 (15%) and 8 (8%) articles, respectively, discussed the role of outpatient clinics, community care, PC units, and inpatient consultation teams in integration. 53 (55%) articles addressed various processes for integration, including routine symptom screening (N=16), interdisciplinary teams (N=16), guidelines (N=11), referral criteria (N=10), embedded clinics (N=5) and clinical care pathways (N=5). 31 (32%) mentioned “early” involvement of PC, 11 (11%) provided a specific timing, and 24 (25%) discussed referral criteria. 33 (34%) articles addressed educational strategies for integration, such as training programs (N=13), PC rotations (N=3), and continuing medical education (N=4). 14 (14%) articles described research indicators and 21 (22%) on administrative indicators. No articles specifically defined the term “integration” nor discussed standardized outcomes of integration. Conclusions: Integration was a heterogeneously defined concept. Our systematic review highlighted 40 clinical, educational, research and administrative indicators on integration. This study is part of an international effort to further develop refined and widely endorsed criteria for broad application.

Best supportive care (BSC) in published clinical trials

9560

Background: BSC as a control arm in clinical trials is poorly defined. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate clinical trial concordance with published, consensus-based framework for BSC delivery in trials. Methods: A consensus-based Delphi panel previously identified 4 key domains of BSC delivery in trials: multidisciplinary care; supportive care documentation; symptom assessment at least as often as the intervention arm; and guideline-based symptom management. A systematic review of trials including BSC control arms assessed BSC concordance to the consensus-based domains. Databases were searched from 2002-2012 using search strings: “cancer”; “best supportive care”; “randomized” or “random allocation”; and “supportive” or “palliative.” Exclusion criteria were: no BSC arm, non-human trial, not randomized, not English, not advanced cancer, or not including anticancer therapy. Data were independently extracted by 2 reviewers and scored by 4 reviewers for conformance with consensus-based BSC framework. Results: 373 articles were retrieved, 17 retained after applying exclusion criteria. Overall, trials conformed to <18% of the consensus-based BSC standards. 35% of articles offered a detailed description of BSC. 65% reported baseline and regular symptom assessment, and 47% reported using validated symptom assessment measures. 35% reported symptom assessment at identical intervals in both experimental and BSC arms. None listed an evidence-based guideline for symptom management. None of the multicenter trials reported standardization of BSC across sites. No studies reported educating patients on symptom management or goals of anti-cancer therapy. No studies reported offering access to palliative care specialists, social workers, financial or spiritual counseling. Conclusions: Reporting of BSC in trials is incomplete, resulting in uncertain internal and external validity. Such poorly defined interventions and variation between sites is unacceptable for other aspects of a clinical trial. Unless it is truly best supportive care, such studies may risk systematically over-estimating the clinical effect of the comparator arms. Standardization of a BSC delivery framework is needed to improve trial design and data generalization.

Use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of cancer pain: evidence-based recommendations from the EAPC

Here we provide the updated version of the guidelines of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) on the use of opioids for the treatment of cancer pain. The update was undertaken by the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative. Previous EAPC guidelines were reviewed and compared with other currently available guidelines, and consensus recommendations were created by formal international expert panel. The content of the guidelines was defined according to several topics, each of which was assigned to collaborators who developed systematic literature reviews with a common methodology. The recommendations were developed by a writing committee that combined the evidence derived from the systematic reviews with the panellists' evaluations in a co-authored process, and were endorsed by the EAPC Board of Directors. The guidelines are presented as a list of 16 evidence-based recommendations developed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.

Consensus-based standards for best supportive care in clinical trials in advanced cancer

Best supportive care is poorly defined in clinical trials, and a standard framework for delivery of such care is needed, using best available evidence and allowing replication of studies. We convened a panel of 36 experts to develop consensus statements via the Delphi method. The first round included open-ended questions; subsequent rounds sought to develop consensus-based standards. Consensus was assessed by use of a 5-point Likert agreement scale; more than 70% of panellists had to give a score of 5 to meet a-priori levels of consensus. The panel identified four key domains of best supportive care in clinical trials: multidisciplinary care; supportive care documentation; symptom assessment; and symptom management. Consensus was reached on 11 statements within these four domains. For example, 24 (96%) panellists recommended that the intervals between symptom assessments should be identical for control and experimental groups. Availability of resources was cited as a challenge to implementation of best supportive care standards.

Best supportive care: a euphemism for no care or a standard of good care?

This article seeks to address the question: Is best supportive care (BSC) in research a euphemism for no care or a standard of good care? The data regarding the ethical and methodological validity of BSC studies are reviewed. Most of the BSC studies published over the past 25 years are really treatment versus no treatment studies represented as BSC studies. By ignoring the best contemporaneous standards of BSC, standardizing practices in multicenter studies, validating participating centers, or documenting treatment delivery, researchers belie the stated intention of studying BSC. Most studies sought to evaluate if there was any benefit of a new anti-tumor treatment versus discontinuation of anti-tumor therapies. Overwhelmingly, and with few exceptions, the impact of BSC practices was not really part of the key research question. To be ethical and methodologically valid, BSC studies must incorporate standards consistent with contemporaneous, proven BSC practice standards. Work is underway to develop widely validated standards of practice for the control arm of best supportive care studies. These can be readily incorporated in to study development and evaluation.

Is oral methadone better than placebo or other oral/transdermal opioids in the management of pain?

AIM

To address the question: is oral methadone better than placebo, or other oral/transdermal opioids in the management of cancer pain?

METHOD

A literature search was performed to identify relevant studies. Search strategies included: (1) methadone (title) AND placebo (title or abstract) AND pain (title or abstract); (2) methadone (title) AND randomized (title or abstract) AND pain (title or abstract) AND cancer (title or abstract). Papers were reviewed for relevance to first-line opioid therapy.

RESULTS

No studies were identified comparing methadone to placebo for cancer pain. A single study compared methadone to placebo for neuropathic pain and demonstrated evidence of analgesic effect at a dose of 20 mg/day but not at a dose of 10 mg/day. Four studies compared oral methadone to either oral morphine, or oral morphine and transdermal fentanyl in a first-line setting: Gourlay 1986 (N = 18), Ventafridda 1986 (N =54), Bruera 2004 (N = 106) and Mercadante 2008 (N = 108). All studies demonstrated comparable, but not superior, analgesia with, overall, a comparable adverse effect profile. The duration of the study period for the three largest studies was 28 days. Two of these studies, Ventafridda 1986 and Mercadante 2008, indicated that, over time, the opioid escalation index was lower for methadone than for morphine. One study that used a 2:1 dose ratio between morphine and methadone was associated with a high attrition rate in the first week because of excessive sedation. This effect was not seen in the study that used a 4:1 morphine to methadone dose ratio with dose titration.

CONCLUSION

This limited data suggests that (1) methadone may be an equally effective candidate for first-line opioid therapy, (2) that it is possibly less expensive, (3) that there may be a propensity to sedation and dose accumulation unless there is close monitoring and conservative dose selection and (4) that it should be initiated with a calculated dose based on a morphine to methadone dose ratio of not less than 4:1.

Palliative Cancer Care a Decade Later: Accomplishments, the Need, Next Steps—From the American Society of Clinical Oncology

Purpose

In 1998, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) published a special article regarding palliative care and companion recommendations. Herein we summarize the major accomplishments of ASCO regarding palliative cancer and highlight current needs and make recommendations to realize the Society's vision of comprehensive cancer care by 2020.

Methods

ASCO convened a task force of palliative care experts to assess the state of palliative cancer care in the Society's programs. We reviewed accomplishments, assessed current needs, and developed a definition of palliative cancer. Senior ASCO members and the Board of Directors reviewed and endorsed this article for submission to Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Results

Palliative cancer care is the integration into cancer care of therapies that address the multiple issues that cause suffering for patients and their families and impact their life quality. Effective provision of palliative cancer care requires an interdisciplinary team that can provide care in all patient settings, including outpatient clinics, acute and long-term care facilities, and private homes. Changes in current policy, drug availability, and education are necessary for the integration of palliative care throughout the experience of cancer, for the achievement of quality improvement initiatives, and for effective palliative cancer care research.

Conclusion

The need for palliative cancer care is greater than ever notwithstanding the strides made over the last decade. Further efforts are needed to realize the integration of palliative care in the model and vision of comprehensive cancer care by 2020.

Cancer-related pain: a pan-European survey of prevalence, treatment, and patient attitudes

BACKGROUND

The European Pain in Cancer survey sought to increase understanding of cancer-related pain and treatment across Europe.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with all stages of cancer participated in a two-phase telephone survey conducted in 11 European countries and Israel in 2006-2007. The survey screened for patients experiencing pain at least weekly, then randomly selected adult patients with pain of at least moderate intensity occurring several times per week for the last month completed a detailed attitudinal questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of 5084 adult patients contacted, 56% suffered moderate-to-severe pain at least monthly. Of 573 patients randomly selected for the second survey phase, 77% were receiving prescription-only analgesics, with 41% taking strong opioids either alone or with other drugs for cancer-related pain. Of those prescribed analgesics, 63% experienced breakthrough pain. In all, 69% reported pain-related difficulties with everyday activities; however, 50% believed that their quality of life was not considered a priority in their overall care by their health care professional.

CONCLUSIONS

Across Europe and Israel, treatment of cancer pain is suboptimal. Pain and pain relief should be considered integral to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer; management guidelines should be revised to improve pain control in patients with cancer.

Patient demographics and centre description in European palliative care units

Patients in palliative care are elderly, frail and in decline with multisystem disease. These and other factors make palliative care research particularly challenging, and has been one of several reasons why relatively little systematic research has been performed. The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) is seeking to emphasise the importance of research. The present project is the first empirical multicentre study organised by the EAPC Research Network, with the aim of identifying the patient population using specialised palliative care, and identifying a network of palliative care services across Europe, able to participate in a multicentre collaboration for research. During a designated week in the autumn of 2000, data on patients were recorded from 143 centres. The survey was carried out by means of two questionnaires, one centre questionnaire and one patient questionnaire. Data were submitted on 3013 patients from 22 different European countries. Almost all patients had cancer (94%), while some had neurological disease (3%). The majority (75%) had been referred to a palliative care service during the six to seven months before the survey was performed. Very few patients had less than one week of expected survival (6%), the majority were expected to live one to six months, while as many as 16% were expected to live more than one year. The majority of the patients (27%) were fully ambulatory--the ability to walk independently without any assistance. The majority of the patients (60%) received care as an outpatient, either at a traditional clinic in an outpatient cancer hospital (12%), in home-care programs from a specialised advisory service (24%), or external nursing care (24%). The population of patients included in this survey was not a sample of dying patients. There were a substantial number of patients with an anticipated life expectancy of more than six months. The study demonstrated a considerable enthusiasm for research in the palliative care community across Europe. The heterogeneity of the sample is evident, and this will need careful consideration for future clinical trials. This calls for an international consensus on how to report on patient characteristics within palliative care research. This is necessary in order to be able to evaluate the representativity of the study population, as well as to compare data between studies. The range of services encountered in the survey highlights the need for the organisational and clinical standards for palliative care, which can be audited.

Pain and pain treatments in European palliative care units. A cross sectional survey from the European Association for Palliative Care Research Network

The Research Network of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) performed a survey of 3030 cancer patients from 143 palliative care centres in 21 European countries. The survey addressed pain intensity and the use of non-opioid analgesics, adjuvant analgesics and opioids. Patients were treated with analgesics corresponding to the WHO pain ladder step I (n = 855), step II (n = 509) and step III (n = 1589). The investigators assessed 32% of the patients as having moderate or severe pain. In general there were small differences between pain intensities across different countries. Cancer primary sites and the presence of metastasis had only minor influences on pain intensity. The most frequently used non-opioid analgesics were NSAIDs (26%) and paracetamol (23%). Adjuvant analgesics or co-analgesics used by >1% of the patients were corticosteroids (39%), tricylic antidepressants (11%), gabapentin (5%), bisphosphonates (4%), clonazepam (2%), carbamazepine (4%) and phenytoin (2%). The use of non-opioid analgesics and co-analgesics varied widely between countries. Opioids administered for mild to moderate pain were codeine (8%), tramadol (8%), dextropropoxyphene (5%) and dihydrocodeine (2%). Morphine was the most frequently used opioid for moderate to severe pain (oral normal release morphine: 21%; oral sustained-release morphine: 19%; i.v. or s.c. morphine: 10%). Other opioids for moderate to severe pain were transdermal fentanyl (14%), oxycodone (4%), methadone (2%), diamorphine (2%) and hydromorphone (1%). We observed large variations in the use of opioids across countries. Finally, we observed that only a minority of the patients who used morphine needed very high doses.

Use of tranquilizers and sleeping pills among cancer patients is associated with a poorer quality of life

PURPOSE

To evaluate the association between sleeping pill/tranquilizer (SP/T) use and quality of life (QOL) among cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Oncology patients (n = 909) in three Israeli hospitals were interviewed in clinics, day centers and in-patient departments regarding SP/T use in the previous week. Crude and adjusted QOL scores, measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), were compared in users vs. non-users.

RESULTS

Sleeping pill/tranquilizer use was self-reported by 234 (25.7%) participants, but rarely documented in medical charts. Factors associated with SP/T use were female gender (adjusted Odds ratio, OR: 1.79; 95% Confidence interval, CI: 1.22-2.62, age (OR: 4.6; 95% CI: 1.66-12.53 for age 70+), place of birth (OR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.19-3.26 for Eastern Europe compared with Israel), concomitant use of painkillers (OR: 2.88; 95% CI: 1.97-4.20) and presence of cardiovascular disease (OR: 2.41; 95% CI: 1.48-3.91). Controlling these factors as well as disease status, users had a poorer QOL on all functional scales (p < 0.001) as well as global QOL. Furthermore, users reported increased severity of symptoms, especially fatigue, insomnia, pain, dyspnea and constipation (p < 0.01), compared to non-users.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of SP/T, reported by one fourth of cancer patients, was associated with substantially poorer QOL and increased severity of symptoms. Causal inference is not possible given the cross-sectional design. Periodic inquiry regarding use of these medications in the Oncology Clinic is recommended since it may identify patients with poor QOL and unmet needs.

The Correlation Between Palliation of Bone Pain by Intravenous Strontium-89 and External Beam Radiation to Linked Field in Patients With Osteoblastic Bone Metastases

We studied the correlation between the efficacy of local external beam radiotherapy and the efficacy of strontium-89 in the palliation of osteoblastic metastatic bone pain in 43 patients with cancer. All 43 had been treated with hormonal or chemotherapy according to the primary malignancies and analgetic pharmacotherapy as needed, 36 received local external beam radiotherapy as a palliative before strontium-89 injection, and all 43 were ultimately treated with strontium-89 as salvage therapy. Responses to the first strontium treatment, and to the first radiation treatment if given, were taken from patient files. Pain was evaluated by Karnofsky performance status, analgesic dosage, and duration of response to treatment translated into numeric scores on a pain duration scale and an integrated response scale. The efficacy of limited field external radiation in metastatic bone pain palliation was 80.6% versus 58.1% for strontium-89. Patients treated with both external radiation and strontium had a positive correlation of 0.4 with a probability of P = 0.0158 between the responses to the 2 treatments, indicating that response to external radiotherapy could be viewed as an indicator of strontium-89 efficacy in metastatic osteoblastic bone pain palliation in the same patient. No significant correlation was found between strontium efficacy and gender, location of metastases to weight-bearing bones, duration of hormonal therapy or chemotherapy, or type of primary neoplasm.

Pain measurement tools and methods in clinical research in palliative care: recommendations of an Expert Working Group of the European Association of Palliative Care

An Expert Working Group was convened under the auspices of the Steering Committee of the Research Network of the European Association of Palliative Care to review the status of the use of pain measurement tools (PMTs) in palliative care research conducted in a multilingual-multicenter setting. Based on a literature review and on the experts' opinion, the present work recommends that standardized methods should be applied for the use of PMTs in research in palliative care. Visual analogue scales, numerical rating scales, and verbal rating scales are considered valid to assess pain intensity in clinical trials and in other types of studies. Among the multidimensional questionnaires designed to assess pain, the McGill Pain Questionnaire and Brief Pain Inventory are valid in many multilingual versions. Specific recommendations for PMT use and administration, depending on the study type and aim, are reviewed. Special population requirements specific of clinical situations encountered in palliative care (elderly, terminal, cognitively impaired patients, pediatric patients) are also considered.

Episodic (breakthrough) pain: consensus conference of an expert working group of the European Association for Palliative Care

BACKGROUND

Breakthrough pain is transitory exacerbation of pain that occurs in addition to otherwise stable persistent pain. The wide differences in estimation of incidence reported in literature are probably because of different settings and meanings attributed to the definition of breakthrough pain.

METHODS

A panel of experts met to establish the actual knowledge on breakthrough pain, according to the evidence in literature and experience. They agreed that episodic or transient pain could be a more simple and adequate term in most languages, including English, French, Italian, and Spanish.

RESULTS

A specific assessment and precise pain characterization are essential to plan the most appropriate treatments. Despite the relevance of this temporal pain pattern for the influence on the outcome and quality of life, few controlled studies have been performed to give evidence of a specific approach. Several experiences have reported the possible efficacy of different drugs, route of administration, and modalities of administration in different circumstances.

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective studies with previous treatments using similar terminologies are necessary to find the most convenient therapeutic intervention, according to the temporal pattern characteristics and the pain mechanism involved.

Strategies to manage the adverse effects of oral morphine: an evidence-based report

Successful pain management with opioids requires that adequate analgesia be achieved without excessive adverse effects. By these criteria, a substantial minority of patients treated with oral morphine (10% to 30%) do not have a successful outcome because of (1) excessive adverse effects, (2) inadequate analgesia, or (3) a combination of both excessive adverse effects along with inadequate analgesia. The management of excessive adverse effects remains a major clinical challenge. Multiple approaches have been described to address this problem. The clinical challenge of selecting the best option is enhanced by the lack of definitive, evidence-based comparative data. Indeed, this aspect of opioid therapeutics has become a focus of substantial controversy. This study presents evidence-based recommendations for clinical-practice formulated by an Expert Working Group of the European Association of Palliative Care (EAPC) Research NETWORK: These recommendations highlight the need for careful evaluation to distinguish between morphine adverse effects from comorbidity, dehydration, or drug interactions, and initial consideration of dose reduction (possibly by the addition of a co analgesic). If side effects persist, the clinician should consider options of symptomatic management of the adverse effect, opioid rotation, or switching route of systemic administration. The approaches are described and guidelines are provided to aid in selecting between therapeutic options.

Determinants of the use of complementary therapies by patients with cancer

PURPOSE

We performed a survey of Israeli oncology patients to examine the extent of their use of complementary therapies (CT) and to compare sociodemographic, psychologic, and medical characteristics, attitudes, and quality of life of users and nonusers of CT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Questionnaires were administered to 1,027 patients attending ambulatory and inpatient hematology or oncology facilities at three hospitals. Medical information was extracted from charts. Univariate and multivariate comparisons of users and nonusers of CT were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 526 participants (51.2%) had used CT since their diagnosis, and 357 patients (34.9%) had used CT recently (in the past 3 months). Factors that multivariate analysis found to be significantly associated (P <.05) with recent CT use were as follows: female sex; age 35 to 59 years; more education; coming to the hospital by private car; advanced disease status; having a close friend or a relative with cancer; and attending support groups or individual counseling. After controlling for these factors, individually examined psychosocial variables associated with recent CT use included the following (odds ratios [OR] with 95% confidence intervals [CI]): needs unmet by conventional medicine (OR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.95 to 3.89); helplessness (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.91); incomplete trust in the doctor (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.06); and changed outlook or beliefs since the diagnosis of cancer (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.07 to 2.02). Functional quality of life (including physical, emotional, social, and role function) and symptom (fatigue and diarrhea) scores were significantly worse for recent CT users compared with nonusers, controlling for age, sex, and current disease status.

CONCLUSION

Characteristics associated with CT use include age, sex, education, and advanced disease. Significant associations between CT use and attending supportive psychotherapy, unmet needs, helplessness, and worse emotional and social function indicate considerable distress, suggesting that increased attention to psychosocial needs within oncologic settings is warranted.

Morphine and alternative opioids in cancer pain: the EAPC recommendations

An expert working group of the European Association for Palliative Care has revised and updated its guidelines on the use of morphine in the management of cancer pain. The revised recommendations presented here give guidance on the use of morphine and the alternative strong opioid analgesics which have been introduced in many parts of the world in recent years. Practical strategies for dealing with difficult situations are described presenting a consensus view where supporting evidence is lacking. The strength of the evidence on which each recommendation is based is indicated.