The general prevalence of pain is similar to that reported by other. The prevalence of moderate to severe pain is also similar to that reported in other studies, although severe pain is somewhat lower than indicated in most reports. According to the PMI, pain control was acceptable to good.

BackgroundAlthough multiple therapies have emerged for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), it is unclear whether application of these agents is consistent in developed and developing countries. We sought to determine patterns of care for mRCC in Brazil as a representative developing country.Material and MethodsA commercial database was used to acquire information pertaining to patients with mRCC receiving treatment at private or public hospitals in Brazil between March 2013 and October 2016. Basic clinical and demographic criteria were available, as well as information to ascertain the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk. Treatment-related data across multiple lines of therapy were collected.ResultsOf 4,379 patients assessed, 3,990 (91%) had metastatic disease, and 26%, 48%, and 26% of patients had good, intermediate, and poor International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk disease, respectively. Although 3,149 patients (79%) received first-line therapy, only 641 (20%) and 152 (5%) received second- and third-line therapy, respectively. In the first-line setting, vascular endothelial growth factor–directed agents represented the most commonly used therapy, whereas in the second-line setting, vascular endothelial growth factor– and mammalian target of rapamycin–directed agents were used with similar frequency. Marked differences were seen in receipt of systemic therapy on the basis of treatment in private or public hospitals.ConclusionRelative to developed countries, marked attrition is noted between each subsequent line of therapy in Brazil. Patterns of care also vary greatly in private and public settings, pointing to financial constraints as a potential cause for discordances in treatment.

Of the 21 Portuguese teams identified, 10 accepted to participate in the study. A total of 164 patients were included with a median of 15.5 per team (4-32). Of all the patients included, 60 (37%) were identified as inpatients in palliative care units; 59 (36%) by an intrahospital support team; 26 (16%) as outpatients; and 19 (12%) at home. The median age was 71 years (16-95). Fifty-one percent were females. The diagnosis was cancer in 151 (92%) patients. The most common cancer was colorectal in 22 (15%) patients, followed by gastric 17 (11%), head and neck 17 (11%), breast 15 (10%), and lung cancers 14 (9%). All patients were treated by doctors and nurses experienced in palliative care.

Prognostication is a critical medical task for the adequacy of treatment and management of priorities and expectations of patients and families. In 2005, the European Association of Palliative Care (EAPC) published recommendations on the formulation of vital prognosis in advanced cancer patients. The aim of this study is to analyze the literature subsequent to this review and to update the presented recommendations. Using the same strategy of the EAPC group, we performed a systematic literature search in the electronic databases PubMed and Scopus, which included original studies in adults with advanced cancer, without tumor-directed treatment, with a median survival of less than 90 days. The articles were analyzed and classified according to the level of evidence by two independent reviewers. The 41 articles analyzed allowed to keep grade A recommendations for clinical estimation of survival and Palliative Prognostic score and now also for Palliative Prognostic Index, performance status, dyspnea, lymphopenia and lactate dehydrogenase. Recommendations regarding the use of C-reactive protein, leukocytosis, azotemia, hypoalbuminemia and male gender as predictors reached grade B. To formulate the vital prognosis and to communicate it properly to the patient and family are core competencies of physicians, particularly of those who deal with end of life patients. The clinical impression combined with scientific evidence allows us to estimate more accurately the survival, allowing prioritizing and managing more appropriately the existing resources.

The DCE method is feasible and acceptable but not all patients are able to participate. In the main study phase, we will give more attention to the explanation of the waiting time attribute.