The lancet oncology
-
The lancet oncology · Dec 2019
ReviewEANO-EURACAN clinical practice guideline for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of post-pubertal and adult patients with medulloblastoma.
The European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) and EUropean RAre CANcer (EURACAN) guideline provides recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of post-pubertal and adult patients with medulloblastoma. The guideline is based on the 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the CNS and on scientific developments published since 1980. ⋯ Our recommendations are a resource for professionals involved in the management of post-pubertal and adult patients with medulloblastoma, for patients and caregivers, and for health-care providers in Europe. The implementation of this guideline requires multidisciplinary structures of care, and defined processes of diagnosis and treatment.
-
The lancet oncology · Dec 2019
ReviewSebaceous carcinoma: evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.
Sebaceous carcinoma usually occurs in adults older than 60 years, on the eyelid, head and neck, and trunk. In this Review, we present clinical care recommendations for sebaceous carcinoma, which were developed as a result of an expert panel evaluation of the findings of a systematic review. Key conclusions were drawn and recommendations made for diagnosis, first-line treatment, radiotherapy, and post-treatment care. ⋯ Radiotherapy can be considered for cases with nerve or lymph node involvement, and as the primary treatment in patients who are ineligible for surgery. Post-treatment clinical examination should occur every 6 months for at least 3 years. No specific systemic therapies for advanced disease can be recommended, but targeted therapies and immunotherapies are being developed.
-
The lancet oncology · Dec 2019
ReviewPrognostic value of patient-reported outcomes from international randomised clinical trials on cancer: a systematic review.
A previous review published in 2008 highlighted the prognostic significance of baseline patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as independent predictors of the overall survival of patients with cancer in clinical studies. In response to the methodological limitations of studies included in the previous review, recommendations were subsequently published in the same year to promote a higher level of methodological rigour in studies of prognostic factors. ⋯ The most common significant prognostic factors reported were physical functioning (17 [39%] studies) and global health or quality of life (15 [34%] studies). These findings highlight the value of PROs as prognostic or stratification factors in research across most types of cancer.
-
The lancet oncology · Dec 2019
ReviewPrognostic value of patient-reported outcomes from international randomised clinical trials on cancer: a systematic review.
A previous review published in 2008 highlighted the prognostic significance of baseline patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as independent predictors of the overall survival of patients with cancer in clinical studies. In response to the methodological limitations of studies included in the previous review, recommendations were subsequently published in the same year to promote a higher level of methodological rigour in studies of prognostic factors. ⋯ The most common significant prognostic factors reported were physical functioning (17 [39%] studies) and global health or quality of life (15 [34%] studies). These findings highlight the value of PROs as prognostic or stratification factors in research across most types of cancer.
-
The lancet oncology · Dec 2019
ReviewGlobal public and philanthropic investment in childhood cancer research: systematic analysis of research funding, 2008-16.
Childhood cancers caused an estimated 75 000 deaths in children aged 0-14 years in 2018, of which 90% were in low-income and middle-income countries, and yet this group is missing from global health agendas. We examined global patterns in public and philanthropic funding for childhood cancer research-a proxy for global research activity-to address the critical gaps in knowledge. ⋯ Preclinical research received $1·2 billion (59·3%), and around $525 million (25·7%) included support for clinical trials, but only $113 million (5·5%) supported health-care delivery research. Overall, funding was inadequate and geographically inequitable, and new commitments to funding have declined since 2011.