Background: Disease management programmes (DMP) have been advocated to improve long term outcomes of heart failure (HF) patients. Aims: To summarise the evidence supporting DMP effectiveness in improving HF clinical outcomes. Methods: Eligible studies were located through a systematic literature search. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs), enrolling HF patients, and allocating them to DMP or usual care (UC), were included. Information on study setting and design, participants' characteristics and interventions tested were collected. A study quality assessment was performed. Main clinical outcomes assessed were: all-cause mortality and (re)hospitalisations, HF-related (re)hospitalisations and mortality. Meta-analysis was performed according to both Yusuf -Peto method and random effects model. Results: Thirty-three RCTs were included. Mortality was significantly reduced by DMP compared to UC: OR = 0.80 (CI 0.69 -0.93, p = 0.003). All-cause and HF-related hospitalisation rates were also significantly reduced: OR = 0.76 (CI 0.69 -0.94, p < 0.00001) and OR = 0.58 (CI 0.50 -0.67, p < 0.00001), respectively. Different DMP approaches appeared to be equally effective (sensitivity analyses). Conclusion: DMP reduce mortality and hospitalisations in HF patients. Because various types of DMP appear to be similarly effective, the choice of a specific programme depends on local health services characteristics, patient population, and resources available.

PURPOSE To provide recommendations on the best strategies for the management and on the best timing and treatment (surgical and radiotherapeutic) of the axilla for patients with early-stage breast cancer. METHODS Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) and ASCO convened a Working Group and Expert Panel to develop evidence-based recommendations informed by a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS This guideline endorsed two recommendations of the ASCO 2017 guideline for the use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with early-stage breast cancer and expanded on that guideline with recommendations for radiotherapy interventions, timing of staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), and mapping modalities. Overall, the ASCO 2017 guideline, seven high-quality systematic reviews, 54 unique studies, and 65 corollary trials formed the evidentiary basis of this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations are issued for each of the objectives of this guideline: (1) To determine which patients with early-stage breast cancer require axillary staging, (2) to determine whether any further axillary treatment is indicated for women with early-stage breast cancer who did not receive NAC and are sentinel lymph node–negative at diagnosis, (3) to determine which axillary strategy is indicated for women with early-stage breast cancer who did not receive NAC and are pathologically sentinel lymph node–positive at diagnosis (after a clinically node-negative presentation), (4) to determine what axillary treatment is indicated and what the best timing of axillary treatment for women with early-stage breast cancer is when NAC is used, and (5) to determine which are the best methods for identifying sentinel nodes. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

We conducted a systematic review to determine the appropriate use of bortezomib alone or in combination with other agents in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of included studies. We analyzed randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews if they involved adult MM patients treated with bortezomib and if they reported on survival, disease control, response, quality of life, or adverse effects. Twenty-six unique studies met the inclusion criteria. For patients with previously untreated MM and for candidates for transplantation, we found a statistically significant benefit in time to progression [hazard ratio (HR): 0.48, p < 0.001; and HR: 0.63, p = 0.006, respectively] and a better response with a bortezomib than with a non-bortezomib regimen (p < 0.001). Progression-free survival was longer with bortezomib and thalidomide than with thalidomide alone (p = 0.01). In non-candidates for transplantation, a significant benefit in overall survival was observed with a bortezomib regimen (HR compared with a non-bortezomib regimen: 0.61; p = 0.008), and in transplantation candidates receiving bortezomib, the response rate was improved after induction (p = 0.004) and after a first transplant (p = 0.016). In relapsed or refractory MM, overall survival (p = 0.03), time to progression (HR: 1.82; p = 0.000004), and progression-free survival (HR: 1.69; p = 0.000026) were significantly improved with bortezomib and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (compared with bortezomib alone), and bortezomib monotherapy was better than dexamethasone alone (HR: 0.77; p = 0.027). Bortezomib combined with thalidomide and dexamethasone was better than either bortezomib monotherapy or thalidomide with dexamethasone (p < 0.001). In previously untreated or in relapsed or refractory MM patients, bortezomib-based therapy has

conclusionsThis advice document advocates for a multidisciplinary approach to cancer care in response to the distress experienced by cancer patients and their families. The recommendations will be useful in future to measure performance, quality of practice, and access to psychosocial services.

No abstract