Purpose The aim of this official guideline coordinated and published by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the German Cancer Society (DKG) was to optimize the screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer. Methods The process of updating the S3 guideline dating from 2012 was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines which were combined with reviews of evidence compiled using PICO (Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome) questions and the results of a systematic search of literature databases and the selection and evaluation of the identified literature. The interdisciplinary working groups took the identified materials as their starting point to develop recommendations and statements which were modified and graded in a structured consensus procedure. Recommendations Part 1 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the screening, diagnosis and follow-up care of breast cancer. The importance of mammography for screening is confirmed in this updated version of the guideline and forms the basis for all screening. In addition to the conventional methods used to diagnose breast cancer, computed tomography (CT) is recommended for staging in women with a higher risk of recurrence. The follow-up concept includes suggested intervals between physical, ultrasound and mammography examinations, additional high-tech diagnostic procedures, and the determination of tumor markers for the evaluation of metastatic disease.

Purpose The aim of this official guideline coordinated and published by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the German Cancer Society (DKG) was to optimize the screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer. Method The process of updating the S3 guideline published in 2012 was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines. They were combined with reviews of evidence compiled using PICO (Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome) questions and with the results of a systematic search of literature databases followed by the selection and evaluation of the identified literature. The interdisciplinary working groups took the identified materials as their starting point and used them to develop suggestions for recommendations and statements, which were then modified and graded in a structured consensus process procedure. Recommendations Part 2 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the therapy of primary, recurrent and metastatic breast cancer. Loco-regional therapies are de-escalated in the current guideline. In addition to reducing the safety margins for surgical procedures, the guideline also recommends reducing the radicality of axillary surgery. The choice and extent of systemic therapy depends on the respective tumor biology. New substances are becoming available, particularly to treat metastatic breast cancer.

Background: The provision of care for dying cancer patients varies on a global basis. In order to improve care, we need to be able to evaluate the current level of care. One method of assessment is to use the views from the bereaved relatives. Aim: The aim of this study is to translate and pre-test the 'Care Of the Dying Evaluation' (CODE TM) questionnaire across seven participating countries prior to conducting an evaluation of current quality of care. Design: The three stages were as follows: (1) translation of CODE in keeping with standardised international principles; (2) pre-testing using patient and public involvement and cognitive interviews with bereaved relatives; and (3) utilising a modified nominal group technique to establish a common, core international version of CODE. Setting/participants: Hospital settings: for each country, at least five patient and public involvement representatives, selected by purposive sampling, fed back on CODE TM questionnaire; and at least five bereaved relatives to cancer patients undertook cognitive interviews. Feedback was collated and categorised into themes relating to clarity, recall, sensitivity and response options. Structured consensus meeting held to determine content of international CODE (i-CODE) questionnaire. Results: In total, 48 patient and public involvement representatives and 35 bereaved relatives contributed to the pre-testing stages. No specific question item was recommended for exclusion from CODE TM. Revisions to the demographic section were needed to be culturally appropriate. Conclusion: Patient and public involvement and bereaved relatives' perceptions helped enhance the face and content validity of i-CODE. A common, core international questionnaire is now developed with key questions relating to quality of care for the dying.

Purpose of reviewThe disease-related burden of patients with hematological malignancies is comparable with patients suffering from solid tumors. Palliative care offers relief from suffering independent of type of disease and prognosis. The prevalence of hematological malignancies is expected to increase in the next 20 years because of better therapeutic options with longer survival and because of the aging population. However, patients with hematological malignancies are underrepresented in palliative care as these diseases are associated with special care needs and prognostic uncertainty, which differ from the unambiguity of terminally ill patients with solid tumors. This review describes the recent studies and guidelines addressing the problems in palliative care for patients with hematological malignancies. Recent findingsRecent research covers prognostic uncertainty, challenges in terms of the acute death setting, and blood transfusions in the terminally ill as well as interdisciplinary collaboration. In addition to qualitative approaches exploring reasons for these challenges, criteria that indicate the approaching end of life in hematological malignancies were systematically developed and tested. Further, the effectiveness of palliative care addressing the hematopoietic stem cell transplantation setting was further analyzed.

Background In the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, general and specialist Palliative Care (PC) plays an essential role in health care, contributing to symptom control, psycho-social support, and providing support in complex decision making. Numbers of COVID-19 related deaths have recently increased demanding more palliative care input. Also, the pandemic impacts on palliative care for non-COVID-19 patients. Strategies on the care for seriously ill and dying people in pandemic times are lacking. Therefore, the program ‘Palliative care in Pandemics’ (PallPan) aims to develop and consent a national pandemic plan for the care of seriously ill and dying adults and their informal carers in pandemics including (a) guidance for generalist and specialist palliative care of patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infections on the micro, meso and macro level, (b) collection and development of information material for an online platform, and (c) identification of variables and research questions on palliative care in pandemics for the national pandemic cohort network (NAPKON). Methods Mixed-methods project including ten work packages conducting (online) surveys and qualitative interviews to explore and describe i) experiences and burden of patients (with/without SARS-CoV-2 infection) and their relatives, ii) experiences, challenges and potential solutions of health care professionals, stakeholders and decision makers during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The work package results inform the development of a consensus-based guidance. In addition, best practice examples and relevant literature will be collected and variables for data collection identified. Discussion For a future “pandemic preparedness” national and international recommendations and concepts for the care of severely ill and dying people are necessary considering both generalist and specialist palliative care in the home care and inpatient setting.

Background. Recognized disparities in quality of end-of-life care exist. Our aim was to assess the quality of care for patients dying from cancer, as perceived by bereaved relatives, within hospitals in seven European and South American countries. Materials and Methods. Postbereavement survey by post, interview, or via tablet in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, U.K., Germany, Norway, and Poland. Next of kin to cancer patients were asked to complete the international version of the Care Of the Dying Evaluation (i-CODE) questionnaire 6-8 weeks postbereavement. Primary outcomes were (a) how frequently the deceased patient was treated with dignity and respect, and (b) how well the family member was supported in the patients' last days of life. Results. From 1,683 potential participants, 914 i-CODE questionnaires were completed (response rate 54%).Approximately 94% reported the doctors treated their family member with dignity and respect "always" or "most of the time"; similar responses were given about nursing staff (94%). Additionally, 89% participants reported they were adequately supported; this was more likely if the patient died on a specialist palliative care unit (odds ratio, 6.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-17.8). Although 87% participants were told their relative was likely to die, only 63% were informed about what to expect during the dying phase. Conclusion. This is the first study assessing quality of care for patients dying from cancer from the bereaved relatives' perspective across several countries on two continents. Our findings suggest many elements of good care were practiced but improvement in communication with relatives of imminently dying patients is needed. Clinical trial information: NCT03566732 The Oncologist ;9999:• •

Background: Early integration of palliative care can improve outcomes for people with cancer and non-cancer diagnoses. However, prediction of survival for individuals is challenging, in particular in patients with haematological malignancies who are known to have limited access to palliative care. The ‘Surprise’-Question can be used to facilitate referral to palliative care. Aim: To explore experiences, views and perceptions of haemato-oncologists on the use of the ‘Surprise’-Question in the haemato-oncology outpatients clinics of a university hospital in Germany. Design: A qualitative study using individual semi-structured interviews transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically based on the framework approach. Setting/participants: The study took place at the haemato-oncology outpatient clinic and the bone marrow transplantation outpatient clinic of a university hospital. Nine haemato-oncologists participated in qualitative interviews. Results: Thematic analysis identified 4 themes and 11 subthemes: (1) meaning and relevance of the ‘Surprise’-Question; (2) feasibility; (3) the concept of ‘surprise’ and (4) personal aspects of prognostication. A key function of the ‘Surprise’-Question was to stimulate intuition and promote patient-centred goals of care by initiating a process of pause → reflection → change of perspective. It was easy and quick to use, but required time and communication skills to act on. Participants’ training in palliative care enhanced their willingness to use the ‘Surprise’-Question. Conclusion: Irrespective of its use in prognostication, the ‘Surprise’-Question is a valuable tool to facilitate consideration of patient-centred goals and promote holistic care in haemato-oncology. However, prognostic uncertainty, lack of time and communication skills are barriers for integration into daily practice. Further research should involve haematology patients to integrate their needs and preferences.

Background / Aims: 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 use of SPC counselling and psychosocial support, presence of advance directives, palliative care outcome (IPOS), psychosocial distress (DT) and after 3 and 6 months. In a qualitative part, SPC consultations were analyzed using 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. 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.