Ageing has been recognized as one of the most critically important health-care issues worldwide. It is relevant to Asia, where the increasing number of older populations has drawn attention to the paramount need for health-care investment, particularly in end-of-life care. The advocacy of advance care planning is a mean to honor patient autonomy. Since most East Asian countries are influenced by Confucianism and the concept of ‘filial piety,’ patient autonomy is consequently subordinate to family values and physician authority. The dominance from family members and physicians during a patient’s end-of-life decision-making is recognized as a cultural feature in Asia. Physicians often disclose the patient’s poor prognosis and corresponding treatment options to the male, family member rather to the patient him/herself. In order to address this ethical and practical dilemma, the concept of ‘relational autonomy’ and the collectivism paradigm might be ideally used to assist Asian people, especially older adults, to share their preferences on future care and decision-making on certain clinical situations with their families and important others. In this review article, we invited experts in end-of-life care from Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan to briefly report the current status of advance care planning in each country from policy, legal and clinical perspectives. According to the Asian experiences, we have seen different models of advance care planning implementation. The Asian Delphi Taskforce for advance care planning is currently undertaken by six Asian countries and a more detailed, culturally sensitive whitepaper will be published in the near future.

This study highlights the need for public education on the benefits and process of ACP in Singapore. In formulating an approach to ACP, there is a need to take into account cultural sensitivities towards ACP discussions and the importance of closely involving the family unit in the process.

Our findings indicate that TC was associated with higher rates of FN than reported in the clinical trial. The 25% incidence fulfills the requirement of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF. Routine administration of G-CSF is highly recommended to reduce the rates of FN in breast cancer patients receiving TC.

Sorafenib (BAY 43-9006) is a novel oral bis-aryl urea compound originally developed as an inhibitor to RAF kinase for its anti-proliferative property. It also inhibits receptor tyrosine kinases of multiple pro-angiogenic factors such as VEGFR-2/3, Flt-3/ and PDGFR-beta. The combination of both its anti-proliferative and anti-angiogenic properties makes sorafenib an attractive agent in cancer treatment. Phase I studies demonstrated that sorafenib was well tolerated, and the recommended phase II dose was 400 mg twice daily continuously. Common toxicities included skin toxicity (rash and hand-foot syndrome), gastrointestinal toxicities (nausea and diarrhea) and fatigue. Anti-tumor activities were observed in multiple tumors types including renal cell carcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma. Randomized phase III studies in these tumor types are ongoing, and results are eagerly waited.

Background Economic evaluations are an integral component of many clinical trials. Costs used in those analyses are based on the prices of branded drugs when they first enter the market. The effect of genericization on the costeffectiveness (ce) or cost-utility (cu) of an intervention is unknown because economic analyses are rarely updated using the costs of generic drugs. Methods We reexamined the ce or cu of regimens previously evaluated in Canadian Cancer Trials Group (cctg) studies that included prospective economic evaluations and where genericization has occurred or is anticipated in Canada. We incorporated the new costs of generic drugs to characterize changes in ce or cu. We also determined acceptable cost levels of generic drugs that would make regimens reimbursable in a publicly funded health care system. Results The four randomized controlled trials included (representing 1979 patients) were cctg br.10 (early lung cancer, adjuvant vinorelbine-cisplatin vs. observation, n = 172), cctg br.21 (metastatic lung cancer, erlotinib vs. placebo, n = 731), cctg co.17 (metastatic colon cancer, cetuximab vs. best supportive care, n = 557), and cctg ly.12 (relapsed or refractory lymphoma, gemcitabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin vs. cytarabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin, n = 619). Since the initial publication of those trials, the genericization of vinorelbine, erlotinib, cetuximab, and cisplatin has taken place or is expected in Canada. Costs of generics improved the ces and cus of treatment significantly.