Search

Background: Provision of paediatric palliative care for children with life-threatening or life-limiting conditions and their families is often complex. Guidelines can support professionals to deliver high quality care. Stakeholders expressed the need to update the first Dutch paediatric palliative care guideline with new scientific literature and new topics. This paper provides an overview of the methodology that is used for the revision of the Dutch paediatric palliative care guideline and a brief presentation of the identified evidence. Methods: The revised paediatric palliative care guideline was developed with a multidisciplinary guideline panel of 72 experts in paediatric palliative care and nine (bereaved) parents of children with life-threatening or life-limiting conditions. The guideline covered multiple topics related to (refractory) symptom treatment, advance care planning and shared-decision making, organisation of care, psychosocial care, and loss and bereavement. We established six main working groups that formulated 38 clinical questions for which we identified evidence by updating two existing systematic literature searches. The GRADE (CERQual) methodology was used for appraisal of evidence. Furthermore, we searched for additional literature such as existing guidelines and textbooks to deal with lack of evidence. Results: The two systematic literature searches yielded a total of 29 RCTs or systematic reviews of RCTs on paediatric palliative care interventions and 22 qualitative studies on barriers and facilitators of advance care planning and shared decision-making. We identified evidence for 14 out of 38 clinical questions. Furthermore, we were able to select additional literature (29 guidelines, two textbooks, and 10 systematic reviews) to deal with lack of evidence. Conclusions: The revised Dutch paediatric palliative care guideline addresses many topics. However, there is limited evidence to base recommendations upon. Our methodology will combine the existing evidence in scientific literature, additional literature, expert knowledge, and perspectives of patients and their families to provide recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physical inactivity and unhealthy dietary habits are known to be disadvantageous for the development of late adverse effects in survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer. To make interventions, aimed at improving lifestyle, fit into the daily life of survivors, interventions should be designed and delivered in a person-centred way with a limited time burden. As part of the European PanCareFollowUp project, an eHealth intervention was developed to support sustainable changes to physical activity levels and/or diet of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors. This feasibility study aims to gain insight into the feasibility and potential effect sizes of the PanCareFollowUp lifestyle intervention. Methods: The PanCareFollowUp lifestyle intervention consists of person-centred 3–6 screen-to-screen sessions with a certified lifestyle coach. The intervention will be evaluated with a single-arm pre-post feasibility study conducted at two survivorship care clinics in the Netherlands. A total of 60 participants who are (i) diagnosed with cancer <25 years, (ii) ≥ 5 years post-treatment, (iii) aged 16–55 years, and (iv) have a low physical activity level and/or unhealthy dietary intake manifested by overweight will be recruited. Using reports, hospital records, and questionnaires for survivors, coaches, and late effect doctors, feasibility will be based on (i) adherence to intervention, (ii) acceptability, (iii) practicality, (iv) integration/implementation, (v) demand, and (vi) attrition. The potential effect sizes of the intervention will be explored by determining the percentage of survivors that reach the personalized lifestyle goals that were set with the coach. Physical activity level, dietary intake, BMI, general self-efficacy, self-management, and motivation level will be assessed at three time points with questionnaires, reports, and/or an accelerometer. Discussion: Data of this study will be gathered to assess the feasibility and potential effect sizes. This will allow for further intervention refinement as needed as well as to inform a future large-scale intervention study and a manual for implementation at other centres. Trial registration: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) number: NL8932 (ICTRP Search Portal (who.int)). Registered on September 29, 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current treatment strategies in pediatric oncology are intensive and lead to high survival rates but also to treatment-related complications. Therefore, supportive care plays an increasingly important role. This study was designed to evaluate variations in supportive care practice in children with cancer in the Netherlands and adherence to selected existing international guidelines through an in-depth review of local guidelines and protocols at all 6 Dutch pediatric cancer centers.Methods: Based on shared expert opinion, a questionnaire regarding current supportive care practice was compiled. For each center, the required information was extracted from local supportive care guidelines, and the list was sent to a pediatric oncologist of that center to verify its correspondence with local daily practice. Subsequently, it was determined whether clinical practice was concordant (same in ≥ 5 of 6 centers), partly concordant (highly overlapping in ≥ 5 of 6 centers), or discordant (same in < 5 of 6 centers). Local practices were compared with strong recommendations from high-quality, evidence-based guidelines.Results: The questionnaire comprised 67 questions regarding supportive care practice. Concordance was observed for 11 of 67 practice items (16%), partial concordance was observed for 6 of 67 practice items (9%), and discordance was observed for 50 of 67 practice items (75%). Adherence to strong recommendations of 4 high-quality, evidence-based guidelines varied but was generally low.Conclusions: Large variations exist in pediatric oncology supportive care practice, and this could negatively influence care. Adherence to existing evidence-based guidelines and the development and implementation of new clinical practice guidelines have the potential of standardizing supportive care practice and thereby improving outcomes for children with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In current clinical practice, recommendations regarding restrictions in daily life for children with cancer are often lacking or not evidence-based. Critically reviewing the evidence and formulating recommendations are therefore of great importance as social restrictions (e.g., swimming, school attendance, sports) can impair the quality of life of these children severely. Therefore, our aim was to develop a clinical practice guideline for clinicians, children, and their parents regarding social restrictions in children with cancer., Methods: A comprehensive multidisciplinary panel was assembled, comprising 21 professionals and patient representatives. A systematic literature review was performed, including dual appraisal of all citations. The GRADE methodology was used to extract, summarize, and assess the evidence. Multiple in-person meetings were held to rank outcomes, discuss evidence, complete evidence-to-decision frameworks, and formulate recommendations. Final recommendations were unanimously supported by all panel members., Results: Six studies, including 758 children, formed the evidence base for the recommendations. Given the scarcity of the available evidence and various designs of studies in children with cancer, additional evidence was extracted from adult oncology guidelines, and shared expert opinions were utilized. In total, 14 recommendations were formulated of which multiple result in changes in current policy and standard of practice in the Netherlands. Topics covered in this guideline are swimming, having pets, visiting the zoo or farm, performing sports or high-velocity events, attending school or kindergarten, and use of public transport. This guideline is not intended to provide recommendations for patients after end of treatment, for palliative care settings, or for children undergoing a stem cell transplantation., Conclusions: In this clinical practice guideline, we provide recommendations regarding restrictions in daily life in children with cancer. These include evidence-based recommendations and, in the absence of sufficient evidence, recommendations based on expert evidence. With these recommendations, we provide guidance for clinicians, children, and parents and contribute to improving quality of life for children with cancer., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Children with life-threatening and life-limiting conditions can experience high levels of suffering due to multiple distressing symptoms that result in poor quality of life and increase risk of long-term distress in their family members. High quality symptom treatment is needed for all these children and their families, even more so at the end-of-life. In this paper, we provide evidence-based recommendations for symptom treatment in paediatric palliative patients to optimize care., Methods: A multidisciplinary panel of 56 experts in paediatric palliative care and nine (bereaved) parents was established to develop recommendations on symptom treatment in paediatric palliative care including anxiety and depression, delirium, dyspnoea, haematological symptoms, coughing, skin complaints, nausea and vomiting, neurological symptoms, pain, death rattle, fatigue, paediatric palliative sedation and forgoing hydration and nutrition. Recommendations were based on evidence from a systematic literature search, additional literature sources (such as guidelines), clinical expertise, and patient and family values. We used the GRADE methodology for appraisal of evidence. Parents were included in the guideline panel to ensure the representation of patient and family values., Results: We included a total of 18 studies that reported on the effects of specific (non) pharmacological interventions to treat symptoms in paediatric palliative care. A few of these interventions showed significant improvement in symptom relief. This evidence could only (partly) answer eight out of 27 clinical questions. We included 29 guidelines and two textbooks as additional literature to deal with lack of evidence. In total, we formulated 221 recommendations on symptom treatment in paediatric palliative care based on evidence, additional literature, clinical expertise, and patient and family values., Conclusion: Even though available evidence on symptom-related paediatric palliative care interventions has increased, there still is a paucity of evidence in paediatric palliative care. We urge for international multidisciplinary multi-institutional collaboration to perform high-quality research and contribute to the optimization of symptom relief in palliative care for all children worldwide., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

We assessed reliability of self-reported diagnostic radiation history in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with and without breast cancer. Within the frame-work of the HEBON study, 401 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers completed a baseline (1999-2004) and a follow-up questionnaire (2006-2007). Test-retest reliability of self-reported exposure to chest X-rays, fluoroscopies and mammograms was assessed for the entire study population and by case status.Overall proportion agreement on reporting ever/never exposure was good ([75%), while the corresponding kappa coefficients were between 0.40 and 0.75, indicating at least moderate reliability beyond chance. Reliability of number of exposures was also good ([75%). Proportion agreement on reporting age at first mammogram was low(40%) for exact consistency and moderate (60%) for consistency +/- 1 year. Reliability of age at first mammogram was higher for cases than for unaffected carriers(P\0.001) but this difference disappeared when excluding diagnostic mammograms (P = 0.60). In unaffected carriers proportion agreement on age at last mammogram was 50%. In general, the direction of disagreement on all items was equally distributed. More consistent reporting was mainly determined by a younger age at questionnaire completion. In conclusion, inconsistent self-report of diagnostic radiation by BRCA1/2 mutation carriers was mainly non-differential by disease status.