Related Articles

Is it possible to improve residents breaking bad news skills? A randomised study assessing the efficacy of a communication skills training program.

Br J Cancer. 2010 Jul 13;103(2):171-7

Authors: Liénard A, Merckaert I, Libert Y, Bragard I, Delvaux N, Etienne AM, Marchal S, Meunier J, Reynaert C, Slachmuylder JL, Razavi D

BACKGROUND: This study aims to assess the efficacy of a 40-h training programme designed to teach residents the communication skills needed to break the bad news. METHODS: Residents were randomly assigned to the training programme or to a waiting list. A simulated patient breaking bad news (BBN) consultation was audiotaped at baseline and after training in the training group and 8 months after baseline in the waiting-list group. Transcripts were analysed by tagging the used communication skills with a content analysis software (LaComm) and by tagging the phases of bad news delivery: pre-delivery, delivery and post-delivery. Training effects were tested with generalised estimating equation (GEE) and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). RESULTS: The trained residents (n=50) used effective communication skills more often than the untrained residents (n=48): more open questions (relative rate (RR)=5.79; P<0.001), open directive questions (RR=1.71; P=0.003) and empathy (RR=4.50; P=0.017) and less information transmission (RR=0.72; P=0.001). The pre-delivery phase was longer for the trained (1 min 53 s at baseline and 3 min 55 s after training) compared with the untrained residents (2 min 7 s at baseline and 1 min 46 s at second assessment time; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: This study shows the efficacy of training programme designed to improve residents' BBN skills. The way residents break bad news may thus be improved.

PMID: 20628395 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Read more →]

Related Articles

Primary prevention of venous thromboembolism in medical and surgical oncology patients.

Br J Cancer. 2010 Apr 13;102 Suppl 1:S10-6

Authors: Stanley A, Young A

Recent data suggest that patients with a malignancy have a seven-fold increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared with those without cancer, suggesting that these patients may benefit from thromboprophylaxis. Mechanisms for the prevention of thromboembolism can be divided into two broad categories: mechanical and pharmacological. Although generally used in combination with pharmacotherapy, little evidence exists for the efficacy of mechanical modalities either in the broader population of patients at risk for VTE or for patients with cancer specifically. A recent study using graduated compression stockings (GCS) for thromboprophylaxis showed no support for the use of stockings in acute stroke patients. Established pharmacological modalities, including warfarin, unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and the factor Xa inhibitor fondaparinux, have been shown to reduce risk for VTE in general medical and surgical populations. In medical cancer patients, only limited data are available for the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis. In contrast, considerable evidence indicates that thromboprophylaxis is warranted in patients undergoing cancer surgery. The most recent evidence suggests that catheter-related thrombosis is not prevented by current pharmacological modalities. On 22 May 2009, a group of clinicians based in the United Kingdom (UK) met in London, UK, to evaluate recent data on cancer thrombosis. This article (the second of four) briefly reviews key data on the prevention of VTE in medical and surgical oncology patients, providing context for a brief transcript of the surrounding discussion and a consensus statement, developed by meeting attendees, on the implications of this information for UK clinical practice.

PMID: 20386544 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Read more →]

Related Articles

Treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism in cancer.

Br J Cancer. 2010 Apr 13;102 Suppl 1:S17-23

Authors: Coleman R, MacCallum P

Patients with cancer who develop venous thromboembolism (VTE) are at elevated risk for recurrent thrombotic events, even during anticoagulant therapy. The clinical picture is further complicated because these patients are also at increased risk of bleeding while on anticoagulants. In general, there are four key goals of treatment for VTE: preventing fatal pulmonary embolism (PE); reducing short-term morbidities associated with acute leg or lung thrombus; preventing recurrent VTE; and preventing the long-term sequelae of VTE (e.g., post-thrombotic syndrome and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension). A fifth goal – minimising the risk for bleeding while on anticoagulation – is particularly warranted in patients with cancer. Traditionally, pharmacological treatment of VTE has two phases, with the transition between phases marked by a switch from a rapid-acting, parenterally administered anticoagulant (such as unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), or fondaparinux) to an oral vitamin K antagonist (e.g., warfarin). Recent clinical trials of established agents and the advent of new pharmacological options are changing this paradigm. Low-molecular-weight heparin continued for 6 months is more effective than warfarin in the secondary prevention of VTE in cancer patients without increasing the risk of bleeding and is now the preferred treatment option. Given the impact of VTE on short-term and long-term outcomes in patients with cancer, a group of health-care providers based in the United Kingdom gathered in London in 2009 to discuss recent data on cancer-associated thrombosis and to evaluate how these recommendations can be integrated or translated into UK clinical practice. This article, which is the third of four articles covering key topics in cancer thrombosis, focuses on treatment and secondary prevention of VTE in cancer patients.

PMID: 20386545 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Read more →]

Related Articles

Effect of treatment with epoetin-beta on survival, tumour progression and thromboembolic events in patients with cancer: an updated meta-analysis of 12 randomised controlled studies including 2301 patients.

Br J Cancer. 2008 Jul 8;99(1):14-22

Authors: Aapro M, Scherhag A, Burger HU

Epoetin-beta is used to treat patients with metastatic cancer undergoing chemotherapy to alleviate the symptoms of anaemia, reduce the risk of blood transfusions and improve quality of life. This meta-analysis of 12 randomised, controlled studies evaluated the impact of epoetin-beta on overall survival, tumour progression and thromboembolic events (TEEs). A total of 2297 patients were included in the analysis (epoetin-beta, n=1244; control, n=1053; 65% solid and 35% nonmyeloid haematological malignancies). A prespecified subgroup analysis assessed the effects in patients with a baseline Hb<or=11 g dl(-1), corresponding to current European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines. No statistically significant effect on mortality was observed with epoetin-beta vs control, both overall (hazard ratio (HR)=1.13; 95% CI: 0.87, 1.46; P=0.355) and in patients with baseline Hb<or=11 g dl(-1) (HR=1.09; 95% CI: 0.80, 1.47; P=0.579). A trend for a beneficial effect on tumour progression was seen overall (HR=0.85; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.01; P=0.072) and in patients with an Hb<or=11 g dl(-1) (HR=0.80; 95% CI: 0.65, 0.99; P=0.041). An increased frequency of TEEs was seen with epoetin-beta vs control (7 vs 4% of patients); however, TEEs-related mortality was similar in both groups (1% each). The results of this meta-analysis indicate that when used within current EORTC treatment guidelines, epoetin-beta has no negative impact on survival, tumour progression or TEEs-related mortality.

PMID: 18542079 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Read more →]