Cancer care is increasingly delivered by multidisciplinary teams. Cath Taylor and colleagues argue that stronger evidence is needed of their effectiveness

The pathophysiology and options for management of bone metastases as well as criteria for determining response to therapy are reviewed. Bone metastases are frequently one of the first signs of disseminated disease in cancer patients. In the majority of patients, the primary tumor is in the breast, prostate, or lungs. Although almost all patients will die of their disease, a proportion of the patients will survive for several years. Treatment is primarily palliative: the intention is to relieve pain, prevent fractures, maintain activity and mobility, and, if possible, to prolong survival. Therapeutic options include local treatment with radiotherapy and/or surgery, and systemic treatment using chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, radioisotopes, agents such as diphosphonates, which inhibit resorption of bone, as well as analgesic and antiinflammatory drugs. The mechanisms by which pain is relieved by several of these therapies remain unclear but actions beyond a simple tumoricidal effect appear to be important. There have been few randomized trials comparing the therapeutic options, and the criteria for assessing response to therapy have, in general, been poorly defined. There is a need for rigorous clinical investigations that assess the efficacy of the various therapeutic possibilities by using well-defined and validated criteria of response.

We performed a systematic review of studies that investigated the effect of abnormalities of the tumour suppressor gene p53 upon prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer. The methods used to assess p53 status were immunohistochemistry (IHC), indicating abnormal accumulation of p53, and sequence analysis, indicating presence of p53 mutations (mut). We identified 168 reports, with 241 comparisons of relevant end points and survival data on 18 766 patients. We found evidence of both publication bias and heterogeneity of results. Our analysis was hampered by variability in both the assessment of p53 status and the reporting of results. We used a trim and fill method to correct for publication bias and minimised heterogeneity by using well-defined clinical subgroups for the assessment of outcomes. Overall, patients with abnormal p53 were at increased risk of death: relative risk (RR) with IHC 1.32 (95% confidence interval (c.i.) 1.23 -1.42) and with mutation analysis 1.31 (95% c.i. 1.19 -1.45). The adverse impact of abnormal p53 was greater in patients with lower baseline risk of dying: good prognosis RR (mut) 1.63 (95% c.i. 1.40 -1.90) and poor prognosis RR (mut) 1.04 (95% c.i. 0.91 -1.19). We found no effect of abnormal p53 on outcome in patients treated with chemotherapy. Abnormal p53 was associated with failure of response to radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer: RR (mut) 1.49 (95% c.i. 1.25 -1.77).

No abstract

PTSD, diagnosed according to DSM-IV criteria, is more common in survivors of cancer than it is in the general population. Estimates of the occurrence of PTSD in patients with a history of cancer depend upon clinical and demographic factors, as well as upon study design.

No abstract

No abstract

Background:Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTs), also known as tumour boards or multidisciplinary case conferences, are an integral component of contemporary cancer care. There are logistical problems with setting up and maintaining participation in these meetings. An ill-defined concept, the virtual MDT (vMDT), has arisen in response to these difficulties. We have, in order to provide clarity and to generate discussion, attempted to define the concept of the vMDT, outline its advantages and disadvantages, and consider some of the practical aspects involved in setting up a virtual MDT.Methods:This is an unstructured review of published evidence and personal experience relating to virtual teams in general, and to MDTs in particular.Results:We have devised a simple taxonomy for MDTs, discussed some of the practicalities involved in setting up a vMDT, and described some of the potential advantages and disadvantages associated with vMDTs.Conclusion:The vMDT may be useful for discussions concerning rare or unusual tumours, or for helping guide the assessment and management of patients with uncommon complications related to treatment. However, the vMDT is a niche concept and is currently unlikely to replace the more traditional face-to-face MDT in the management of common tumours at specific sites.