| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Beets, G., et al.
(författare)
-
ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care: Colorectal Cancer. A critical review
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Critical Reviews in Oncology Hematology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1040-8428. ; 110, s. 81-93
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: ECCO essential requirements for quality cancer care (ERQCC) are checklists and explanations of organisation and actions that are necessary to give high-quality care to patients who have a specific tumour type. They are written by European experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care. ERQCC papers give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of the elements needed in any healthcare system to provide high quality of care throughout the patient journey. References are made to clinical guidelines and other resources where appropriate, and the focus is on care in Europe. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer death in Europe and has wide variation in outcomes among countries. Increasing numbers of older people are contracting the disease, and treatments for advanced stages are becoming more complex. A growing number of survivors also require specialist support. High-quality care can only be a carried out in specialised CRC units or centres which have both a core multidisciplinary team and an extended team of allied professionals, and which are subject to quality and audit procedures. Such units or centres are far from universal in all European countries. It is essential that, to meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations implement the essential requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship. Conclusion: Taken together, the information presented in this paper provides a comprehensive description of the essential requirements for establishing a high-quality CRC service. The ECCO expert group is aware that it is not possible to propose a 'one size fits all' system for all countries, but urges that access to multidisciplinary units or centres must be guaranteed for all those with CRC. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Andritsch, E., et al.
(författare)
-
ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care: Soft Tissue Sarcoma in Adults and Bone Sarcoma. A critical review
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Critical Reviews in Oncology Hematology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1040-8428. ; 110, s. 94-105
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: ECCO essential requirements for quality cancer care (ERQCC) are checklists and explanations of organisation and actions that are necessary to give high-quality care to patients who have a specific tumour type. They are written by European experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care. ERQCC papers give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of the elements needed in any healthcare system to provide high quality of care throughout the patient journey. References are made to clinical guidelines and other resources where appropriate, and the focus is on care in Europe. Sarcomas - which can be classified into soft tissue and bone sarcomas - are rare, but all rare cancers make up more than 20% of cancers in Europe, and there are substantial inequalities in access to high-quality care. Sarcomas, of which there are many subtypes, comprise a particularly complex and demanding challenge for healthcare systems and providers. This paper presents essential requirements for quality cancer care of soft tissue sarcomas in adults and bone sarcomas. High-quality care must only be carried out in specialised sarcoma centres (including paediatric cancer centres) which have both a core multidisciplinary team and an extended team of allied professionals, and which are subject to quality and audit procedures. Access to such units is far from universal in all European countries. It is essential that, to meet European aspirations for high-quality comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations implement the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis and follow-up, to treatment, to improve survival and quality of life for patients. Conclusion: Taken together, the information presented in this paper provides a comprehensive description of the essential requirements for establishing a high-quality service for soft tissue sarcomas in adults and bone sarcomas. The ECCO expert group is aware that it is not possible to propose a 'one size fits all' system for all countries, but urges that access to multidisciplinary teams is guaranteed to all patients with sarcoma. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
|
|
| 5. |
- Cornell, Robert F, et al.
(författare)
-
Maintenance versus Induction Therapy Choice on Outcomes after Autologous Transplantation for Multiple Myeloma
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Biology of blood and marrow transplantation. - : Elsevier BV. - 1083-8791 .- 1523-6536. ; 23:2, s. 269-277
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R), cyclophosphamide (C), and dexamethasone (D) are components of the most commonly used modern doublet (RD, VD) or triplet (VRD, CVD) initial induction regimens before autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) for multiple myeloma (MM) in the United States. In this study we evaluated 693 patients receiving "upfront" AHCT after initial induction therapy with modern doublet or triplet regimens using data reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research from 2008 to 2013. Analysis was limited to those receiving a single AHCT after 1 line of induction therapy within 12 months from treatment initiation for MM. In multivariate analysis, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were similar irrespective of induction regimen. However, high-risk cytogenetics and nonreceipt of post-transplant maintenance/consolidation therapy were associated with higher risk of relapse. Patients receiving post-transplant therapy had significantly improved 3-year PFS versus no post-transplant therapy (55% versus 39%, P = .0001). This benefit was most evident in patients not achieving at least a complete response post-AHCT (P = .005). In patients receiving upfront AHCT, the choice of induction regimen (doublet or triplet therapies) appears to be of lower impact than use of post-transplant therapy.
|
|
