Objective To systematically review the accuracy of physicians' clinical predictions of survival in terminally ill cancer patients. Data sources Cochrane Library, Medline (1996Medline ( -2000, Embase, Current Contents, and Cancerlit databases as well as hand searching. Study selection Studies were included if a physician's temporal clinical prediction of survival (CPS) and the actual survival (AS) for terminally ill cancer patients were available for statistical analysis. Study quality was assessed by using a critical appraisal tool produced by the local health authority. Data synthesis Raw data were pooled and analysed with regression and other multivariate techniques. Results 17 published studies were identified; 12 met the inclusion criteria, and 8 were evaluable, providing 1563 individual prediction-survival dyads. CPS was generally overoptimistic (median CPS 42 days, median AS 29 days); it was correct to within one week in 25% of cases and overestimated survival by at least four weeks in 27%. The longer the CPS the greater the variability in AS. Although agreement between CPS and AS was poor (weighted 0.36), the two were highly significantly associated after log transformation (Spearman rank correlation 0.60, P < 0.001). Consideration of performance status, symptoms, and use of steroids improved the accuracy of the CPS, although the additional value was small. Heterogeneity of the studies' results precluded a comprehensive meta-analysis. Conclusions Although clinicians consistently overestimate survival, their predictions are highly correlated with actual survival; the predictions have discriminatory ability even if they are miscalibrated. Clinicians caring for patients with terminal cancer need to be aware of their tendency to overestimate survival, as it may affect patients' prospects for achieving a good death. Accurate prognostication models incorporating clinical prediction of survival are needed.

Purpose: Personalized medicine strategies using genomic profiling are particularly pertinent for pancreas cancer. The Individualized Molecular Pancreatic Cancer Therapy (IMPaCT) trial was initially designed to exploit results from genome sequencing of pancreatic cancer under the auspices of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) in Australia. Sequencing revealed small subsets of patients with aberrations in their tumor genome that could be targeted with currently available therapies. Experimental Design: The pilot stage of the IMPaCT trial assessed the feasibility of acquiring suitable tumor specimens for molecular analysis and returning high-quality actionable genomic data within a clinically acceptable timeframe. We screened for three molecular targets: HER2 amplification; KRAS wild-type; and mutations in DNA damage repair pathways (BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM). Results: Tumor biopsy and archived tumor samples were collected from 93 patients and 76 were screened. To date 22 candidate cases have been identified: 14 KRAS wild-type, 5 cases of HER2 amplification, 2 mutations in BRCA2, and 1 ATM mutation. Median time from consent to the return of validated results was 21.5 days. An inability to obtain a biopsy or insufficient tumor content in the available specimen were common reasons for patient exclusion from molecular analysis while deteriorating performance status prohibited a number of patients from proceeding in the study. Conclusions: Documenting the feasibility of acquiring and screening biospecimens for actionable molecular targets in real time will aid other groups embarking on similar trials. Key elements include the need to better prescreen patients, screen more patients, and offer more attractive clinical trial options. Clin Cancer Res; 21(9); 2029–37. ©2015 AACR.

Measurement of quality of life (QOL) in cancer clinical trials has increased in recent years as more groups realize the importance of such endpoints. A key problem has been missing data. Some QOL data may unavoidably be missing, as for example when patients are too ill to complete forms. Other important sources are potentially avoidable and can broadly be divided into three categories: (i) methodological factors; (ii) logistic and administrative factors; (iii) patient-related factors. Logistic and administrative factors, for example, staff oversights, have proven to be most important. Since most QOL measurements require patient self-report, it is usually not possible to rectify the failure to collect baseline data or any follow-up assessments. There is strong evidence that such data are not 'missing at random', and cannot be ignored without introducing bias. Although several approaches to the analysis of partly missing data have been described, none is entirely satisfactory. Prevention of avoidable missing data is better than attempted cure. In July 1996, an international conference on missing QOL data in cancer clinical trials reported the experience of most major groups involved. This paper will serve as an introduction to the problem and provide an estimation of its magnitude, and approaches to its prevention and solution.

Aim: Multidisciplinary care is advocated as best practice in cancer care. Relatively little is documented about multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting functioning, decision making and the use of evidence to support decision making in Australia. This descriptive study aimed to examine team functioning, the role of team meetings and evidence use in MDTs whose institutions are members of Sydney Catalyst Translational Cancer Research Centre. Methods:We designed a structured 40-item survey instrument about topics that included meeting purpose, organization, resources and documentation; caseload estimates; use of evidence and quality assurance; patient involvement and supportive care needs; and open-ended items about the MDTs strengths and weaknesses. Participants were invited to participate via email and the survey was administered online. Data were analyzed using descriptive and comparative statistics.Results: Thirty-seven MDTs from seven hospitals participated (100% response) and represented common (70%) and rare tumor groups (30%). MDT meeting purpose was reported as treatment (100%) or diagnostic decision making (88%), or for education purposes (70%). Most MDTs based treatment decisions on group consensus (92%), adherence to clinical practice guidelines (57%) or other evidence-based medicine sources (33%). The majority of MDTs discussed only a proportion of new patients at each meeting emphasizing the importance of educational aspects for other cases. Barriers exist in the availability of data to enable audit and reflection on evidence-based practice. MDT strengths included collaboration and quality discussion about patients. Conclusions:MDT meetings focus on treatment decision making, with group consensus playing a significant role in translating research evidence from guidelines into clinical decision making.With a varying proportion of patients discussed in each MDT meeting, a wider audit of multidisciplinary care would enable more accurate assessments of whether treatment recommendations are in accordance with best-practice evidence.