Search

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give patients, health professionals, managers and policymakers a guide to essential care throughout the patient journey. Pancreatic cancer is an increasing cause of cancer mortality and has wide variation in treatment and care in Europe. It is a major healthcare burden and has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges. Care must be carried out only in pancreatic cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals detailed here. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer who are treated with monoclonal antibodies are at risk for developing infusion reactions. However, for some monoclonal antibodies, the incidence of infusion reactions is low or can be lowered by the use of adequate premedication schedules. It is often feasible to increase the infusion rate/lower the post-administration observation time. This review gives an overview of infusion reactions and the possibility of accelerating infusion rates.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on infusion reactions and infusion rates for all monoclonal antibodies that are licensed in the European Union for treatment of solid tumors or hematological malignancies, found by a literature search, were included in this review.RESULTS: For 11 out of the 21 monoclonal antibodies data exceeding the registration text were found and described. Faster infusion schedules are possible for bevacizumab, ipilimumab, nivolumab, panitimumab, and rituximab.CONCLUSION: We propose optimal infusion schedules for each drug.

Objectives The primary aim of the study was to compare environmental and external (cross-) contamination of traces of cytostatics, during preparation of 5-fluorouracil and cyclophosphamide using a robotic system (APOTECAchemo) or the conventional manual compounding procedure. The secondary aim was to validate the cleaning procedure of the robot. Methods Eighty ready-to-administer (RTA) infusion bags with 5-fluorouracil, cyclophosphamide or sodium chloride were compounded using both techniques on 3–5 days. Wipe samples were taken from several locations in the compounding room before and after cleaning, and also from the technician’s gloves. These samples were analysed for 5-fluorouracil and cyclophosphamide concentrations using GC/MS/MS. Key findings A total of 284 wipe samples were collected during the study (113 from the manual and 171 from the robotic process). External contamination on the outside of infusion bags was 3.75% for both manual and robotic compounding. For manual compounding, external cross-contamination occurred on 2.5% of the prepared infusion bags. External cross-contamination occurred on 1.25% of the infusion bags for the robotic procedure. Inside the compounding room, 9% of the environmental wipe samples were contaminated in case of manual production and 24% for robotic compounding. Since 50% of the contaminated environmental samples for the robotic system were taken after cleaning, the cleaning procedure was extended and parameter setting for cyclophosphamide handling was performed. After this, residual environmental or external contamination was no longer detectable. Conclusion Comparison of both preparation methods showed that external (cross-)contamination of infusion bags was lower using the robotic system. An optimized cleaning procedure showed the best results in environmental contamination for the robot.

Objectives Patients who are no longer eligible for curative treatment often suffer from multiple complaints and require a multidisciplinary treatment approach. We incorporated two pharmacists in the palliative team, one hospital pharmacist and one pharmacist who were trained as a community pharmacist. The objective of our study was to evaluate their contribution to the palliative team. Methods During 13 months, the two pharmacists participated in all regular patient reviews and rounds and were available for individual consultation by all members of the palliative team on a daily basis. Each intervention (consults at request or during the patient rounds) was logged and categorised. Key findings During the study period, 115 patients were under the care of the palliative treatment team. The pharmacists were actively involved in 107 of these (93%). Pharmacists interventions occurred in 76% of patients, with an average of 1.5 interventions per patient. The most common intervention types were giving general therapeutic advice, starting of a drug for an uncontrolled symptom and stopping a drug that was given as prophylaxis. When comparing the contribution of the hospital pharmacist and the outpatient pharmacist, their interventions overlapped with regard to starting drugs, choice of drugs and side-effect management. However, interventions on parenteral drugs or optimising the route of administration mostly came from the hospital pharmacist, whereas the outpatient pharmacist more often intervened in increasing adherence and stopping drugs. Conclusion The palliative pharmacist team adds expertise to the palliative treatment team, with an active contribution in 76% of patients.

Background Lung cancer patients have a high risk for drug–drug interactions, as they use numerous types of concomitant medicines including antineoplastic agents, cancer treatment co-medication, and medicines aimed at several types of comorbidities. Objective The primary objective of this study is to determine the incidence and the clinical relevance of the drug–drug interactions between antineoplastic agents and regular medication used by lung cancer patients. Secondary objectives are (i) to determine the effectiveness of the medication review by the hospital pharmacists concerned, (ii) to establish which patients are most at risk of drug–drug interactions and (iii) to determine whether physicians comply with advice given by hospital pharmacists. Setting This prospective study was undertaken in a Dutch hospital pharmacy, at Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis (OLVG), Amsterdam. Methods All lung cancer patients receiving one or more cytotoxic agents during the period 21 June 2010 till 2 December 2014 at OLVG were included. The medication list of the patients was obtained electronically from the community pharmacy and checked for interactions by a hospital pharmacist. Interactions that required intervention according to the national database were the only ones taken into account. Interventions were recorded in the patients’ electronic charts. All medication reviews were cross-checked and analyzed by an independent pharmacist at the end of the study period. Main outcome measure Prevalence and clinical relevance of drug–drug interactions between antineoplastic agents and other types of medication in lung cancer patients. Results A total of 298 lung cancer patients were included in this study. In 53 patients (18%), a total of 73 interactions with potential clinical relevance were found. The most frequent interaction was between cytostatics and coumarins while the most relevant one was between cisplatin and furosemide. According to statistical analysis, gender as well as the number of drugs prescribed were significant predictors for drug–drug interactions. Eighty-four percent of the interactions were discovered by pharmacists during daily routine. In 92% of the cases, the pulmonary physicians complied with the advice of the pharmacist. Conclusion Eighteen percent of lung cancer patients treated with cytotoxic therapy had one or more relevant drug–drug interactions. This study shows that medication surveillance by a hospital pharmacist is necessary to prevent possible negative drug–drug interactions. Further research should focus on the clinical outcome of the interactions as well as on interactions between cytostatics and alternative medicines and/or over-the-counter medicines.

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: essential requirements for quality care 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.

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. Sarcoma: essential requirements for quality care 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.