The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) defines supportive care as “the prevention and management of the adverse effects of cancer and its treatment. This includes management of physical and psychological symptoms and side effects across the continuum of the cancer journey from diagnosis through treatment to post-treatment care. Supportive care aims to improve the quality of rehabilitation, secondary cancer prevention, survivorship, and end-of-life care”. This article will provide an overview of modern supportive care in cancer, discussing its definition, its relationship with palliative care, models of care, “core” service elements (multi-professional/multidisciplinary involvement), the evidence that supportive care improves morbidity, quality of life, and mortality in various groups of patients with cancer, and the health economic benefits of supportive care. The article will also discuss the current and future challenges to providing optimal supportive care to all oncology patients.

Background Decision-making in palliative care usually involves both patients and family caregivers. However, how concordance and discordance in decision-making manifest and function between patients and family caregivers in palliative care is not well understood. Objectives To identify key factors and/or processes which underpin concordance and/or discordance between patients and family caregivers with respect to their preferences for and decisions about palliative care; and ascertain how patients and family caregivers manage discordance in decision-making in palliative care. Methods A systematic review and narrative synthesis of original studies published in full between January 2000 and June 2021 was conducted using the following databases: Embase; Medline; CINAHL; AMED; Web of Science; PsycINFO; PsycARTICLES; and Social Sciences Full Text. Results After full-text review, 39 studies were included in the synthesis. Studies focused primarily on end-of-life care and on patient and family caregiver preferences for patient care. We found that discordance between patients and family caregivers in palliative care can manifest in relational conflict and can result from a lack of awareness of and communication about each other’s preferences for care. Patients’ advancing illness and impending death together with open dialogue about future care including advance care planning can foster consensus between patients and family caregivers. Conclusions Patients and family caregivers in palliative care can accommodate each other’s preferences for care. Further research is needed to fully understand how patients and family caregivers move towards consensus in the context of advancing illness.

Objective Breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) is common and has a significant impact on the quality of life of patients with cancer. This review compares current national/international BTcP guidelines in order to identify disparities and priorities for further research. Methods Relevant guidelines were identified using searches of PubMed, the National Guideline Clearinghouse, the internet (commercial search engines), and correspondence with key opinion leaders and relevant pharmaceutical companies. Identified guidelines were compared, using the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland recommendations as the ‘reference’ guideline. Results Ten specific BTcP guidelines were identified/reviewed, as well as major international generic cancer pain guidelines. In general, there was good agreement between the specific BTcP guidelines, although there remain some differences in terms of definition, diagnostic criteria and treatment of BTcP. Disparities between the different BTcP guidelines invariably reflect personal opinion rather than research evidence. Generic cancer pain guidelines continue to support the use of oral opioids as rescue medication, while specific BTcP guidelines invariably endorse the use of transmucosal opioids as rescue medication. Conclusion Current guidelines agree on many aspects of the management of BTcP. However, the evidence to support current guidelines remains low grade, and so more research is needed in this area of care. Moreover, there needs to be an international consensus on the definition and diagnosis criteria of BTcP.

Purpose: The Palliative Care Study Group in conjunction with the Oral Care Study Group of the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) formed a sub-group to develop evidence-based guidance on the management of common oral problems in patients with advanced cancer. Methods: This guidance was developed in accordance with the MASCC Guidelines Policy. A search strategy for Medline was developed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were explored for relevant reviews and trials, respectively. Guidance was categorised by the level of evidence, and “category of guideline” (i.e., “recommendation”, “suggestion” or “no guideline possible”). Results: Twelve generic suggestions (level of evidence – 5), three problem-specific recommendations and 14 problem-specific suggestions were generated. The generic suggestions relate to oral hygiene measures, assessment of problems, principles of management, re-assessment of problems and the role of dental/oral medicine professionals. Conclusions: This guidance provides a framework for the management of common oral problems in patients with advanced cancer, although every patient requires individualised management.