Diagnosis and treatment of bone metastasis requires various types of measures, specialists and caregivers. To provide better diagnosis and treatment, a multidisciplinary team approach is required. The members of this multidisciplinary team include doctors of primary cancers, radiologists, pathologists, orthopaedists, radiotherapists, clinical oncologists, palliative caregivers, rehabilitation doctors, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, occupational therapists, medical social workers, etc. Medical evidence was extracted from published articles describing meta-analyses or randomised controlled trials concerning patients with bone metastases mainly from 2003 to 2013, and a guideline was developed according to the Medical Information Network Distribution Service Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. Multidisciplinary team meetings are helpful in diagnosis and treatment. Clinical benefits such as physical or psychological palliation obtained using the multidisciplinary team approaches are apparent. We established a guideline describing each specialty field, to improve understanding of the different fields among the specialists, who can further provide appropriate treatment, and to improve patients’ outcomes.

Guideline-based parenteral hydration therapy contributed to maintaining global QoL and provided satisfaction and a feeling of benefit without increasing discomfort and worsening symptoms and fluid retention signs in patients with advanced cancer.

The components of hospital PCT activities were successfully measured using the Standard Format for Reporting Hospital PCT Activity. The results of this study and the format for reporting hospital PCT activity could be effective in improving hospital PCT practice and for the education of new hospital PCT members.

Salivary CgA could potentially be used as a biomarker to measure relieving stress by hand massage in a palliative-care setting.

ObjectiveThis post hoc, pooled, subgroup analysis of two randomised studies evaluated baseline characteristics that may influence the efficacy and safety of naldemedine in patients with opioid-induced constipation (OIC) and cancer.MethodsData for patients who received 0.2 mg naldemedine or placebo were pooled from randomised, placebo-controlled, phase IIb and phase III studies. Proportions of spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) responders and patients with diarrhoea were assessed for each treatment group. For the patient subgroups with or without possible blood–brain barrier (BBB) disruptions, changes in Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and Clinical Opioid Withdrawal Scale (COWS) scores were assessed.ResultsA total of 307 patients were included in this analysis (naldemedine: n=155; placebo: n=152). The pooled proportion of SBM responders was 73.5% with naldemedine versus 35.5% with placebo. There was a significant increase in the proportion of SBM responders with naldemedine versus placebo (38.0% (95% CI 27.6% to 48.4%); p<0.0001). Greater proportions of SBM responders and patients who experienced diarrhoea were observed with naldemedine versus placebo in all subgroups. Changes from baseline in NRS and COWS scores were similar with naldemedine or placebo in patients with or without brain metastases.ConclusionsAlthough not powered to detect statistically significant differences in treatment effect among subgroups, this study demonstrated that naldemedine appeared to benefit patients with OIC and cancer, irrespective of baseline characteristics, and did not seem to affect analgesia or withdrawal–even in patients with potential BBB disruptions. Baseline characteristics did not appear to affect the incidence of diarrhoea in patients who received naldemedine.Trial registration numbersJapicCTI-111510 and JapicCTI-132340.