NRSs are applicable for unidimensional assessment of PI in most settings. Whether the variability in anchors and response options directly influences the numerical scores needs to be empirically tested. This will aid in the work toward a consensus-based, standardized measure.

No abstract

A B S T R A C T PurposeTo offer evidence-based clinical recommendations concerning prognosis in advanced cancer patients. MethodsA Working Group of the Research Network of the European Association for Palliative Care identified clinically significant topics, reviewed the studies, and assigned the level of evidence. A formal meta-analysis was not feasible because of the heterogeneity of published studies and the lack of minimal standards in reporting results. A systematic electronic literature search within the main available medical literature databases was performed for each of the following four areas identified: clinical prediction of survival (CPS), biologic factors, clinical signs and symptoms and psychosocial variables, and prognostic scores. Only studies on patients with advanced cancer and survival Յ 90 days were included. ResultsA total of 38 studies were evaluated. Level A evidence-based recommendations of prognostic correlation could be formulated for CPS (albeit with a series of limitations of which clinicians must be aware) and prognostic scores. Recommendations on the use of other prognostic factors, such as performance status, symptoms associated with cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome (weight loss, anorexia, dysphagia, and xerostomia), dyspnea, delirium, and some biologic factors (leukocytosis, lymphocytopenia, and C-reactive protein), reached level B. ConclusionPrognostication of life expectancy is a significant clinical commitment for clinicians involved in oncology and palliative care. More accurate prognostication is feasible and can be achieved by combining clinical experience and evidence from the literature. Using and communicating prognostic information should be part of a multidisciplinary palliative care approach.

Presence of palliative care inpatient consultation team Presence of palliative care outpatient clinic Presence of community based / home palliative care Clinical processes (*) Presence of multidisciplinary specialized palliative care team Routine symptom screening in the outpatient oncology clinic Administration of systemic cancer therapy (e.g. chemo and targeted agents) possible in patients admitted to PC service oncology-and palliative care as well as their cultures. Local variations in terms of resources and practices also probably play a role. By acknowledging integration of oncology and PC as a complex process including different parts of the health care system, both horizontally and vertically, and also involving the patient, we propose SCPs as a means for future efforts to promote integration. For the same reasons, this paper will address integration in different panels. Each panel will address different aspects of integration, ranging from how to focus on the patient, to societal changes and new research areas. Introduction of panels Policy-challenges and frameworks Societal challenges Prognostication Patient-centredness-content methodology and clinical implications Models of palliative care integration The role of education: challenges and recommendations Research The commission is an international collaboration between 30 experts in oncology, PC, public health and psycho-oncology. In October 2016 a kick-off meeting was held in Milan where panel leaders were appointed, the structure of the commission was decided, and a plan for the work was agreed upon. During the two following years each panel expanded with experts within the relevant field, conducted topical literature searches, and an interactive writing process was conducted. Both administrative and academic organization were run from Norway, by Stein Kaasa, Jon Håvard Loge and Tonje Lundeby. Policy-challenges and frameworks Questions to be addressed What type of recommendations is given for integration at the national and international level on policy and public health at present? What are the current examples of different practices in organization of palliative care in different national policies in European countries? What kind of policies and approaches are needed for integration of oncology and palliative care? Patient-centredness-content, methodology and clinical implications Questions to be addressed What is patient-centredness? What are the main elements of patient-centred care in practice? How do we involve the family? Communication-a necessary tool for patient-centred care What are the barriers and solutions to succeed? Research Questions to be addressed What are some opportunities and challenges for integrating oncology and palliative care teams to conduct research together? What are some key research priorities related to integration of palliative care and oncology? What are some key research priorities related to symptom assessment and treatment? What are some key research priorities related to psychosocial support, communication and dec...

The method for cancer pain relief proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) consists of guidelines for a three-step treatment, from non-opioids to weak and then strong opioids, according to need. Adjuvant drugs can be added to each step. This report presents the 2-year experience of the WHO Collaborating Centre at the National Cancer Institute of Milan in the use of this method. This retrospective study shows that a correct use of the analgesic ladder can reduce pain to a third of its initial intensity. The use of non-opioids had an average duration of 19.2 days; in 52% of the cases treatment was discontinued due to inefficacy and in 42%, to side effects. Weak opioids were administered on an average for 28.0 days. A shift to Strong opioids was made in 92% of the cases due to inefficacy and in 8% because of side effects. Treatment with strong opioids lasted for an average of 46.6 days and can be considered the mainstay of cancer pain therapy. Performance status was not altered considerably during the study and hours of sleep were doubled. The analgesic ladder proved efficacious in 71% of the cases. Neurolytic procedures had to be used in 29%. The authors conclude that analgesics, as proposed by WHO, are the most suitable treatment arm in controlling pain in palliative treatment for advanced cancer patients. Lack of availability or underuse of opioids constitute the real obstacle to the application of this method.

Pain in cancer patients remains common and is often associated with insufficient prescribing of targeted analgesia. An explanation for undertreatment could be the failure to identify neuropathic pain mechanisms, which require additional prescribing strategies. We wanted to identify the prevalence of neuropathic mechanisms in patients with cancer pain to highlight the need for detailed assessment and to support the development of an international classification system for cancer pain. We searched for studies that included adult and teenage patients (age above 12 years), with active cancer and who reported pain, and in which a clinical assessment of their pain had been made. We found 22 eligible studies that reported on 13,683 patients. Clinical assessment methods varied, and only 14 studies reported confirmatory testing for either sensory abnormality or diagnostic lesion to corroborate a diagnosis of neuropathic pain. We calculated that the prevalence of patients with neuropathic pain (95% confidence interval) varied from a conservative estimate of 19% (9.4% to 28.4%) to a liberal estimate of 39.1% (28.9% to 49.5%) when patients with mixed pain were included. The prevalence of pain with a neuropathic mechanism (95% confidence interval) ranged from a conservative estimate of 18.7% (15.3% to 22.1%) to a liberal estimate of 21.4% (15.2% to 27.6%) of all recorded cancer pains. The proportion of pain caused by cancer treatment was higher in neuropathic pain compared with all types of cancer pain. A standardised approach or taxonomy used for assessing neuropathic pain in patients with cancer is needed to improve treatment outcomes.

There are commonalities in the prevalence of problems across cancer and non-cancer patients, highlighting the need for palliative care to be provided irrespective of diagnosis. The methodological heterogeneity across the studies and the lack of non-cancer studies need to be addressed in future research.

The care of patients with progressive neurological disease and their families continues to improve and develop. There is a pressing need for increased collaboration between neurology and palliative care.