Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Problématique et structures de prise en charge

  • Chapter
Tumeurs malignes rares

  • 65 Accesses

Résumé

Malgré les entités très diverses que recouvre la notion de cancer rare, leur prise en charge présente une problématique commune que nous indiquons dans ce chapitre. Nous présentons des mesures et initiatives mises en place en France et en Europe pour répondre aux difficultés constatées et améliorer la prise en charge des patients concernés.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. Gatta G, Ciccolallo L, Kunkler I, et al. (2006) Survival from rare cancer in adults: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 7: 132–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Randall RL, Bruckner JD, Papenhausen MD, et al. (2004) Errors in diagnosis and margin determination of soft-tissue sarcomas initially treated at non-tertiary centers. Orthopedics 27: 209–12

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Huang X, Lin J, Mner-Fushman D (2006) Evaluation of PICO as a Knowledge Representation for Clinical Questions. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 359–63

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gooris PJ, Schaapveld M, Vermey A, et al. (2001) Regional guideline for diagnosis and treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the lip: what is the level of compliance? Int J Qual Health Care 13: 143–50

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hillner BE, Smith TJ, Desch CE (2000) Hospital and physician volume or specialization and outcomes in cancer treatment: importance in quality of cancer care. J Clin Oncol 18: 2327–40

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Horowitz MM, Przepiorka D, Champlin RE, et al. (1992) Should HLA-identical sibling bone marrow transplants for leukemia be restricted to large centers? Blood 79: 2771–4

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Feuer EJ, Frey CM, Brawley OW, et al. (1994) After a treatment breakthrough: a comparison of trial and population-based data for advanced testicular cancer. J Clin Oncol 12: 368–77

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Harding MJ, Paul J, Gillis CR, Kaye SB (1993) Management of malignant teratoma: does referral to a specialist unit matter? Lancet 341: 999–1002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Junor EJ, Hole DJ, Gillis CR (1994) Management of ovarian cancer: referral to a multidisciplinary team matters. Br J Cancer 70: 363–70

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Collette L, Sylvester RJ, Stenning SP, et al. (1999) Impact of the treating institution on survival of patients with “poor-prognosis” metastatic nonseminoma. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Genito-Urinary Tract Cancer Collaborative Group and the Medical Research Council Testicular Cancer Working Party. J Natl Cancer Inst 91: 839–46

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ray-Coquard I, Thiesse P, Ranchere-Vince D, et al. (2004) Conformity to clinical practice guidelines, multidisciplinary management and outcome of treatment for soft tissue sarcomas. Ann Oncol 15: 307–15

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nijhuis PH, Schaapveld M, Otter R, Hoekstra HJ (2001) Soft tissue sarcoma—compliance with guidelines. Cancer 91: 2186–95

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Junor E (2000) The impact of specialist training for surgery in ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 10: 16–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. ANON (2006A) Inventory of Community and Member States’ incentive measures to aid the research, marketing, development and availability of orphan medicinal products. Revision 2005 [online]. 2006. Available: URL: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/pharmaceuticals/ orphanmp/doc/inventory_2006_08.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  15. ANON (2005) Plan national Maladies rares 2005–2008 [online]. Ministère de la Santé et des Solidarités, ed. Assurer l’équité pour l’accès au diagnostic, au traitement et à la prise en charge

    Google Scholar 

  16. Tordjman I, Genty B, Bara C (2008) Prise en charge des cancers rares: une des missions des pôles régionaux de cancérologie. Oncologie 10: 371–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. HAS, Haute Autorité de Santé. Référentiel pour l’évaluation des centres de référence maladies rares [online]. Service qualité de l’information médicale, ed. 2007. Available: URL: http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/ upload/docs/application/pdf/referentiel_evaluation_ centres_maladies_rares.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  18. ANON (2007) Décret no 2007-388 du 21 mars 2007 relatif aux conditions d’implantation applicables à l’activité de soins de traitement du cancer et modifiant le code de la santé publique (dispositions réglementaires) [online]. Available: URL: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/ UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=SANH0625159D

    Google Scholar 

  19. ANON (2007A) Décret no 2007-389 du 21 mars 2007 relatif aux conditions techniques de fonctionnement applicables à l’activité de soins de traitement du cancer [online]. Available: URL: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ WAspad/UnTexteDeJorf?numjo=SANH0625160D

    Google Scholar 

  20. Terracini B, Coebergh JW, Gatta G, et al. (2001) Childhood cancer survival in Europe: an overview. Eur J Cancer 37: 810–6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sackett DL, Straus S, Richardson S, et al. (2001) Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. London, Churchill Livingstone

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fervers B, Hardy J, Philip T (eds) (2001) “Standards, Options and Recommendations”. Clinical Practice Guidelines for cancer care from the French National Federation of Cancer Centres (FNCLCC). Br J Cancer 84: 1–92

    Google Scholar 

  23. HAS, Haute Autorité de Santé. Les recommandations pour la pratique clinique — Base méthodologique pour leur réalisation en France [online]. Agence Nationale d’Accrédiation et d’Évaluation en Santé (ANAES), ed. 1999. Available: URL: http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/ upload/docs/application/pdf/GuideRPC.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  24. The AGREE Collaboration. (2003) Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Quality and Safety in Health Care 12: 18–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sommelet D, Pinkerton R, Brunat-Mentigny M, et al. (1998) Standards, options et recommandations pour la prise en charge des patients atteints de rhabdomyosarcome et autres tumeurs mesenchymateuses malignes de l’enfant Bull Cancer 85: 1015–42

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pinkerton CR, Blanc Vincent MP, Bergeron C, et al. (2000) Induction chemotherapy in metastatic neuroblastoma--does dose influence response? A critical review of published data standards, options and recommendations (SOR) project of the National Federation of French Cancer Centres (FNCLCC). Eur J Cancer 36: 1808–15

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pinkerton CR, Bataillard A, Guillo S, et al. (2001) Treatment strategies for metastatic Ewing’s sarcoma. Eur J Cancer 37: 1338–44

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Claude L, Rousmans S, Carrie C, et al. (2005) Standards and Options for the use of radiation therapy in the management of patients with osteosarcoma. Update 2004. Bull Cancer 92: 891–906

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bergeron C, Blanc-Vincent MP, Bouvier R, et al. (1998) Standards, options et recommandations pour le neuroblastome de l’enfant. In: Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer, ed. Recommandations pour la pratique clinique en cancérologie [CD-ROM]. 2nd ed. Paris, FNCLCC, John Libbey EUROTEXT, tandards, Options & Recommandations

    Google Scholar 

  30. Philip T, Blay JY, Brunat-Mentigny M, et al. (2000) Standards, Options et Recommandations pour le diagnostic, le traitement et la surveillance de l’ostéosarcome [online]. Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer, ed.. Available: URL: http://www.fnclcc.fr/sor/ SORSpecialistes/Cancers Enfant/PeauTissusSoutien/ Osteosarcome/fiche.html

    Google Scholar 

  31. Galateau-Sallé F, Lagrange JL, Lehmann M, et al. (2003) Standards, Options et Recommandations pour la prise en charge des patients atteints de mésothéliome malin de la plèvre [online]. Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer, ed. 2003. Available: URL: http:// www.fnclcc.fr/sor/SORSpecialistes/Cancers Adulte/ Bronchopulmonaires/Mesotheliome/fiche.html

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bui BN, Blay JY, Bonichon F, et al. (1995) Standards, options et recommandations pour la prise en charge des patients adultes atteints de sarcomes des tissus mous. In: Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer, ed. Sarcomes des tissus mous et ostéosarcomes. Paris, Arnette Blackwell, p. 1–113. Standards, Options & Recommandations, vol 1

    Google Scholar 

  33. Négrier S, Saiag P, Guillot B, et al. (2006) Recommandations pour la pratique clinique: Standards, Options et Recommandations 2005 pour la prise en charge des patients adultes atteints d’un mélanome cutané M0 [online].. Available: URL: http://www.fnclcc.fr/sor/ SORSpecialistes/CancersAdulte/PeauTissusSoutien/ Melanome/fiche.html.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ruffié P, Gory-Delabaere G, Fervers B (2003) Standards, Options et Recommandations pour la prise en charge des patients atteints de tumeurs épithéliales du thymus [online]. Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer, ed. Available: URL: http://www.fnclcc.fr/sor/ SORSpecialistes/Cancers Adulte/Bronchopulmonaires/ Thymus/fiche.html

    Google Scholar 

  35. Brémond A, Bataillard A, Thomas L, et al. (2002) Standards, Options et Recommandations 2000: cancer de l’endomètre, stades non métastatiques (rapport abrégé). Bull Cancer 89: 697–706

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Elias D, Giovannini M, Monges G, et al. (2003) Standards, Options et Recommandations pour la prise en charge des patients atteints de carcinomes hépato-cellulaires [online]. Fédération Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer, ed. 2003. Available: URL: http://www. fnclcc.fr/sor/SORSpecialistes/Cancers Adulte/Digestifs/ CHC/fiche.html

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ferme C, Cosset JM, Fervers B, et al. (2001) Hodgkins disease. Br J Cancer 84 (Suppl 2): 55–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Pinkerton R, Philip T, Fervers B (2002) Evidence-based Paediatric Oncology. Williston: BMJ Books; 2002

    Google Scholar 

  39. Enkin MW, Jadad AR (1998) Using anecdotal information in evidence-based health care: heresy or necessity? Ann Oncol 9: 963–6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Browman GP (1999) Evidence-based paradigms and opinions in clinical management and cancer research. Semin Oncol 26(3 Suppl 8): 9–13

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Fervers B, Burgers JS, Haugh MC, et al. (2006) Adaptation of clinical guidelines: literature review and proposition for a framework and procedure. Int J Qual Health Care 18: 167–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Verkerk K, Van Veenendaal H, Severens JL (2006) Considered judgement in evidence-based guideline development. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 18: 365–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Leape LL, Park RE, Kahan JP, Brook RH (1992) Group judgments of appropriateness: the effect of panel composition. Qual Assur Health Care 4: 151–9

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Raby B, Pater J, Mackillop WJ (1995) Does knowledge guide practice? Another look at the management of nonsmall-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 13:1904–11

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Browman GP (2005) Evidence-based cancer care: a programmatic approach [Diaporama]. Come promuovere e mantenere l’uso appropriato dei farmaci oncologici (Workshop) Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  46. Schers H, Wensing M, Huijsmans Z, et al. (2001) Implementation barriers for general practice guidelines on low back pain a qualitative study. Spine 26: E348–E353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Owens DK (1998) Spine update. Patient preferences and the development of practice guidelines. Spine 23:1073–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Allery LA, Owen PA, Robling MR (1997) Why general practitioners and consultants change their clinical practice: a critical incident study. BMJ 314(7084): 870–4

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Fervers B, Carretier J, Leichtnam-Dugarin L, et al. (2003) Le projet SOR SAVOIR patient: outil d’nformation et de dialogue à destination des patients et de leurs proches. Revue Francophone de Psycho-Oncologie 2: 132–8

    Google Scholar 

  50. Entwistle VA, Sheldon TA, Sowden A, Watt IS (1998) Evidence-informed patient choice. Practical issues of involving patients in decisions about health care technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 14: 212–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hagen NA, Whylie B (1998) Putting clinical practice guidelines into the hands of cancer patients. Can Med Assoc J 158: 347–8

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Fervers B, Remy-Stockinger M, Mazeau-Woynar V, et al. (2008). CoCanCPG. Coordination of cancer clinical practice in Europe. Tumori, 94, 154–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Cote GJ, Gagel RF (2003) Lessons learned from the management of a rare genetic cancer. N Engl J Med 349: 1566–8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Machens A, Niccoli-Sire P, Hoegel J, et al. (2003) Early malignant progression of hereditary medullary thyroid cancer. N Engl J Med 349: 1517–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Verweij J, Casali PG, Zalcberg J et al. (2004) Progressionfree survival in gastrointestinal stromal tumours with high-dose imatinib: randomised trial. Lancet 364: 1127–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. ANON (1996) Epidermoid anal cancer: results from the UKCCCR randomised trial of radiotherapy alone versus radiotherapy, 5-fluorouracil, and mitomycin. UKCCCR Anal Cancer Trial Working Party. UK Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research. Lancet 348: 1049–54

    Google Scholar 

  57. Coleman MP, Gatta G, Verdecchia A, et al. (2003) EUROCARE-3 summary: cancer survival in Europe at the end of the 20th century. Ann Oncol 14 (Suppl 5): v128–v49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Ferguson WS, Forman EN (2002) Childhood cancer: past successes, future directions. Med Health RI 85: 17–22

    Google Scholar 

  59. ANON (2000) Règlement (CE) no 141/2000 du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 16 décembre 1999, concernant les médicaments orphelins. Journal Officiel des Communautés Européennes du 22/01/2000; L18: 1–5

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EA 4129 Santé, Individu, Société, Centre Léon-Bérard, 28, rue Laënnec, 69373, Lyon

    Béatrice Fervers

Authors
  1. Béatrice Fervers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag France, Paris

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fervers, B. (2010). Problématique et structures de prise en charge. In: Tumeurs malignes rares. Springer, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-287-72070-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-2-287-72070-3_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Paris

  • Print ISBN: 978-2-287-72069-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-2-287-72070-3

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation