Search

Background: The Sarcoma Policy Checklist was created by a multidisciplinary expert group to provide policymakers with priority areas to improve care for sarcoma patients.Main Body: This paper draws on this research, by looking more closely at how France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom are addressing each of these priority areas. It aims to highlight key gaps in research, policy and practice, as well as ongoing initiatives that may impact the future care of sarcoma patients in different European countries. A pragmatic review of the published and web-based literature was undertaken. Telephone interviews were conducted in each country with clinical and patient experts to substantiate findings. Research findings were discussed within the expert group and developed into five core policy recommendations. The five identified priority areas were: the development of designated and accredited centres of reference; more professional training; multidisciplinary care; greater incentives for research and innovation; and more rapid access to effective treatments. Most of the countries studied have ongoing initiatives addressing many of these priorities; however, many are in early stages of development, or require additional funding and resources.Conclusion: Gaps in access to quality care are particularly concerning in many of Europe's lower-resourced countries. Equitable access to information, clinical trials, innovative treatments and quality specialist care should be available to all sarcoma patients. Achieving this across Europe will require close collaboration between all stakeholders at both the national and European level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: This opinion paper describes the regulatory hurdles for a clinical oncologist and physician scientist to activate an Investigator-Initiated Trial (IIT) before and after 2004 with German regulation as an example. Changes in legal framework with impacts on time and costs to activate a clinical trial are described. Evidence needed to reach the objective of higher patient safety and trial quality by European Union (EU) Clinical Trial Directive (CTD) 2001/20 is discussed. Shortly after the beginning of the year 2000, multiple legal changes with impacts on the regulatory framework of clinical trials became effective almost simultaneously. They included the European Union (EU) Clinical Trial Directive (CTD) 2001/20 followed by major changes in national drug laws, the change in the legal status of German University Hospitals (1998), and a new disease-related groups (DRG)-based reimbursement system for hospitals in Germany (2000). Together, these changes created enormous bureaucratic and financial inhibition of activation and conduct of academic investigator-initiated clinical trials (IIT). Examples for activating clinical trials in oncology before and after 2004 are outlined and discussed, focussing on extended time frames, the establishment of centralized responsibility structures and the exploding financial consequences. In addition, the evolution of trial numbers and the distribution of trial initiators between "commercial" and "academic" over time are discussed together with the occurrence of clinical registries. At the same time, progress in molecular biology led to a plethora of new targets for effective pharmacological therapy of life-threatening diseases such as cancer, and the overall number of clinical trials has not decreased. Yet, judging the regulatory and administrative hurdles between scientific study design and first-patient on trial before and after 2004 and weighing these against the lack of evidence that this regulation has achieved its goal to enhance patient safety and trial quality, the necessity to completely overhaul this CTD becomes obvious. A main goal of such an initiative should be to minimize bureaucracy. For the specific situation in Germany, relocation of responsibility and freedom to operate in University Hospitals and Medical Faculties back to the physician–scientists and reduction in interference by legal divisions should be a goal as well as increasing the public financial support for IITs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: More than half of the unaccompanied young refugees (UYRs) resettled in Europe report elevated levels of posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) and comorbid symptoms. Earlier studies have highlighted the effectiveness of the trauma-focused preventive group intervention "Mein Weg" (English "My Way"), and the feasibility of trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) for UYRs. Both interventions are deemed to be empirically supported treatments (ESTs). However, UYRs seldom receive ESTs or, in fact, any treatment at all. In view of the high need and the limited treatment resources available, a stepped-care approach is indicated but has not been evaluated so far. The purpose of this trial is to compare the stepped-care approach BETTER CARE with usual care enhanced with screening and indication (usual care+).Methods: In a cluster randomized controlled trial involving N = 540 UYRs living in up to N = 54 child and youth welfare service (CYWS) facilities, BETTER CARE will be compared with usual care+. We will randomize clusters comprising a CYWS facility with at least one eligible psychotherapist. BETTER CARE consists of step (1) screening and indication and either step (2) preventive trauma-focused group intervention "Mein Weg" delivered by trained CYWS staff or step (3) TF-CBT delivered by trained community therapists and supported by trained translators if necessary. Participants will be assessed 6 and 12 months after randomization. The primary outcome is the severity of PTSS after 12 months. Secondary outcomes are depressive and anxiety symptoms, quality of life, and proxy reported PTSS. Furthermore, drug use, health costs, benefits, and long-term effects on integration/acculturation will be assessed.Discussion: The trial will directly integrate a stepped-care approach into existing structures of the German child welfare and (mental) health system. It could, therefore, serve as a blueprint for how to implement ESTs for UYRs. If successful, screening, prevention, and intervention will be sustainably implemented in CYWS in southern Germany.Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00017453 . Registered on 11 December 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We aimed to investigate the effects of fish oil (FO) supplementation to pregnant women on the maternal and fetal fatty acid profile in plasma and erythrocyte phospholipids (PL) and to identify the best compartment for the assessment of fatty acid status. A multi-centre, double-blind, controlled trial was conducted. Healthy pregnant women from three European centres were randomly assigned to receive from week 20 of gestation until delivery a daily dietary supplement with either FO (500 mg DHA+150 mg EPA), 400 μg 5-methyltetrahydrofolate, both or placebo. Fatty acids in plasma and erythrocyte PL were determined in maternal blood (week 20, week 30 of pregnancy and delivery) and in cord blood (delivery). FO supplementation increased DHA levels in maternal and cord plasma and erythrocyte PL. Higher percentage changes were observed in erythrocyte PL than in plasma PL. There were significant correlations between plasma and erythrocyte fatty acid levels in maternal and cord blood. Significant correlations between maternal and cord fatty acid levels at delivery in plasma and erythrocytes were also observed; however, correlation coefficients were higher for erythrocyte phophatidylethanolamine. FO supplementation increases maternal and fetal DHA status. Both plasma and erythrocytes appear to be suitable to evaluate the fatty acid status of mothers but erythrocytes seem to be a more reliable marker in neonates. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]