Search

Background: The Sarcoma Policy Checklist was created by a multidisciplinary expert group to provide policymakers with priority areas to improve care for sarcoma patients.Main Body: This paper draws on this research, by looking more closely at how France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom are addressing each of these priority areas. It aims to highlight key gaps in research, policy and practice, as well as ongoing initiatives that may impact the future care of sarcoma patients in different European countries. A pragmatic review of the published and web-based literature was undertaken. Telephone interviews were conducted in each country with clinical and patient experts to substantiate findings. Research findings were discussed within the expert group and developed into five core policy recommendations. The five identified priority areas were: the development of designated and accredited centres of reference; more professional training; multidisciplinary care; greater incentives for research and innovation; and more rapid access to effective treatments. Most of the countries studied have ongoing initiatives addressing many of these priorities; however, many are in early stages of development, or require additional funding and resources.Conclusion: Gaps in access to quality care are particularly concerning in many of Europe's lower-resourced countries. Equitable access to information, clinical trials, innovative treatments and quality specialist care should be available to all sarcoma patients. Achieving this across Europe will require close collaboration between all stakeholders at both the national and European level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical trials for the treatment of schizophrenia now often include cognitive assessments in addition to clinical ratings of symptoms. Recently, these trials have included cross-national assessments. It is not clear if translated psychological tests produce consistent results across different languages. This paper presents the results of a study of the comparability of the results of cognitive assessments in different English-speaking countries and a number of countries where tests were translated into other languages. Performance on tests of executive functioning, verbal and visuo-spatial learning and memory, language skills, psychomotor speed, and vigilance was compared across the first episode patients with schizophrenia (n=301) assessed in six different languages (English, French, Finnish, German, Hebrew, and Afrikaans), including two different countries where patients were assessed in English and other languages: Canada (French) and South Africa (Afrikaans). The variance in performance across the sites tested in English was as large as the variance between English and non-English speakers when all tests were considered. Performance differences across English and other languages were found only for executive functions, vigilance, and psychomotor speed, with executive functioning differences nonsignificant when education was considered. No differences were found between English and non-English speakers in Canada. These results suggest that the translation of tests of memory and verbal skills can lead to consistent results across translated versions of the tests. Differences between countries were greater than differences between languages, suggesting the need to consider representativeness of patient samples in terms of local educational attainment. In general, these data support the validity of cross-national neuropsychological assessments. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Bevacizumab plus interferon-alpha2a (IFN) prolongs progression-free survival to >10 months, which is comparable with sunitinib as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). The two regimens have different tolerability profiles; therefore, costs for managing adverse events may be an important factor in selecting therapy.Methods: Costs of managing adverse events affecting patients with metastatic RCC eligible for treatment with bevacizumab plus IFN or sunitinib were evaluated using a linear decision analytical model. Management costs were calculated from the published incidence of adverse events and health-care costs for treating adverse events in the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy.Results: Adverse event management costs were higher for sunitinib than for bevacizumab plus IFN. The average cost per patient for the management of grade 3-4 adverse events was markedly lower with bevacizumab plus IFN compared with sunitinib in the United Kingdom (euro1475 vs euro804), Germany (euro1785 vs euro1367), France (euro2590 vs euro1618) and Italy (euro891 vs euro402). The main cost drivers were lymphopaenia, neutropaenia, thrombocytopaenia, leucopaenia and fatigue/asthaenia for sunitinib; and proteinuria, fatigue/asthaenia, bleeding, anaemia and gastrointestinal perforation for bevacizumab plus IFN.Conclusion: The costs of managing adverse events are lower for bevacizumab plus IFN than for sunitinib. The potential for cost savings should be considered when selecting treatments for RCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]