Search

Background/Aims: The aim of this study is to investigate the acceptance and benefits of two different strategies to timely integrate specialist palliative care (SPC) in routine cancer care: commonly recommended early SPC counselling versus an informational brochure plus SPC counselling upon patients' request. Methods: Patients diagnosed with incurable cancer within the last 6–12 weeks were sequentially randomized. Endpoints were acceptance of the two strategies after 3 months as well as the use of SPC counselling and psychosocial support, presence of advance directives, palliative care outcome (Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale [IPOS]), and psychosocial distress (Distress Thermometer [DT]) after 3 and 6 months. In a qualitative part, SPC consultations were analyzed using a content analysis. Results: Overall, 43 patients received SPC counselling and 37 a brochure with SPC counselling on demand. In the brochure group, only one patient later registered for SPC counselling from own initiative. SPC timing was appropriate in 70% of patients (75% counselling/61% brochure, n.s.). Sufficiency, helpfulness and relevance of information, provision of security, and help with finding contacts for specific support were perceived adequate in both groups. No significant differences were found regarding potential effects of the interventions on IPOS or DT after 3 and 6 months. The use of psychosocial support was comparable between the groups and 4 patients had new advance directives (3 counselling/1 brochure). Five key themes of SPC consultations were identified: symptoms, rapport, coping, illness understanding, and advance care planning. Conclusions: Both SPC integration strategies were well accepted. However, patients seem not to benefit from a brochure in terms of initiating SPC counselling timely after a palliative cancer diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) may enable more focused and highly personalized cancer treatment, with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines now recommending NGS for daily clinical practice for several tumor types. However, NGS implementation, and therefore patient access, varies across Europe; a multi-stakeholder collaboration is needed to establish the conditions required to improve this discrepancy. In that regard, we set up European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM)-led expert panels during the first half of 2021, including key stakeholders from across 10 European countries covering medical, economic, patient, industry, and governmental expertise. We describe the outcomes of these panels in order to define and explore the necessary conditions for NGS implementation into routine clinical care to enable patient access, identify specific challenges in achieving them, and make short- and long-term recommendations. The main challenges identified relate to the demand for NGS tests (governance, clinical standardization, and awareness and education) and supply of tests (equitable reimbursement, infrastructure for conducting and validating tests, and testing access driven by evidence generation). Recommendations made to resolve each of these challenges should aid multi-stakeholder collaboration between national and European initiatives, to complement, support, and mutually reinforce efforts to improve patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]