Integrating early palliative care (EPC) in the management of lung cancer: The role of the thoracic oncologist

Implementation of the milestones communication approach for patients with limited prognosis: evaluation of intervention fidelity

Background

Despite improvements in diagnostics and therapy, the majority of lung tumours are diagnosed at advanced stage IV with a poor prognosis. Due to the nature of an incurable disease, patients need to engage in shared decision making on advance care planning. To implement this in clinical practice, effective communication between patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals is essential. The Heidelberg Milestones Communication Approach (MCA) is delivered by a specifically trained interprofessional tandem and consists of four milestone conversations (MCs) at pivotal times in the disease trajectory. MC 1 (Diagnosis): i.e. prognosis; MC 2 (Stable disease): i.e. prognostic awareness; MC 3 (Progression): i.e. reassessment; MC 4 (Best supportive care): i.e. end of treatment. In between MCs, follow-up calls are carried out to sustain communication. This study aimed to assess to what extent the MCA was implemented as planned and consolidated in specialized oncology practice.

Methods

A prospective observational process evaluation study was conducted, which focused on the implementation fidelity of the MCA. All MCs during two assessment periods were included. We analysed all written records of the conversations, which are part of the routine documentation during MCs and follow-up calls. Adherence to key aspects of the manual was documented on structured checklists at the beginning of the implementation of the MCA and after 6 months. The analysis was descriptive. Differences between the two assessment periods are analysed with chi-square tests.

Results

A total of 133 MCs and 54 follow-up-calls (t1) and of 172 MCs and 92 follow-up calls (t2) were analysed. MC 2 were the most frequently completed conversations (n = 51 and n = 47). Advance care planning was discussed in 26 and 13% of MC 2 in the respective assessment periods; in 31 and 47% of MC 2, prognostic awareness was recorded. The most frequently documented topic in the follow-up calls was the physical condition in patients (82 and 83%).

Conclusion

The implementation of a trajectory-specific communication concept was largely successful. Additional studies are needed to understand how fidelity could be further improved.

Trial registration

DRKS00013469 / Date of registration: 22.12.2017.

Decision-making factors for best supportive care alone and prognostic factors after best supportive care in non-small cell lung cancer patients

Among patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), best supportive care (BSC) is well-known to improve patient's quality of life and prolong survival. This study aimed to clarify (1) the decision-making factors of BSC alone and (2) the prognostic factors after selection of no further anticancer therapies. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients with NSCLC between November 2004 and February 2014, who received BSC as only therapy and BSC after completion of anticancer therapies. One hundred eighteen patients received BSC alone. Among 860 patients treated with anticancer therapies, 236 were selected as control group, 160 of whom received BSC after anticancer therapy. The significant reasons for receiving BSC alone were: comorbidities of dementia, poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS), patients' wishes, pulmonary comorbidities, wild type epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), relevant social background and psychiatric comorbidities. Poor prognostic factors at the start of BSC were poor ECOG-PS, presence of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), and history of anticancer therapy. NSCLC patients with comorbidities, wild type EGFR, and relevant social background factors tended to receive BSC alone. Post-cancer therapy NSCLC patients and those with DIC and declining ECOG-PS have a shorter survival period from the start of BSC.

Referral Characteristics of Palliative Care Service in Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in a Tertiary Cancer Center

BACKGROUND

The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently recommends patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) should be offered palliative care services earlier. We sought to investigate the timing of palliative care referral of Chinese patients with NSCLC in our center.

METHOD

Retrospective medical data including demographic characteristics and referral information were collected for analysis. Overall survival (OS) was calculated as the time since cancer diagnosis till patient's death. The time interval from palliative care (PC) referral to a patient's death (PC-D) was calculated. The PC-D/OS ratio was calculated to illustrate the comparison of the duration of PC in the overall length of disease.

RESULTS

The mean age of 155 patients with advanced NSCLC was 62.83 years. Before referral to PC, 128 patients received anticancer treatment including surgeon (46.5%). Sixty-three (40.6%) patients died in palliative care unit. The median OS of 144 patients with end cutoff was 19 months (mean = 31.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 25.86-37.12). The median PC-D was 41 days (mean = 73.84, 95% CI = 60.37-87.40). The mean interval of PC-D/OS of 144 patients with definitely death time was 0.22 (SD: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.17-0.26). The median interval was 0.089. More than half of patients (n = 75, 51.8%) underwent PC less than 1% time (PC-D/OS < 0.1) of their whole disease course. Patients who were indigenous to Shanghai (P = .013) and who had brain metastasis (P = .072) had the potential longer PC-D/OS ratio. A high proportion of patients reported loss of appetite (92.8%) and fatigue (91.4%) at the initial of referral to PC.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective study, in a population of patients with advanced NSCLC, gave detailed information about PC services in a tertiary cancer center.

Early palliative care for adults with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Incurable cancer, which often constitutes an enormous challenge for patients, their families, and medical professionals, profoundly affects the patient's physical and psychosocial well-being. In standard cancer care, palliative measures generally are initiated when it is evident that disease-modifying treatments have been unsuccessful, no treatments can be offered, or death is anticipated. In contrast, early palliative care is initiated much earlier in the disease trajectory and closer to the diagnosis of incurable cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects of early palliative care interventions versus treatment as usual/standard cancer care on health-related quality of life, depression, symptom intensity, and survival among adults with a diagnosis of advanced cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, OpenGrey (a database for grey literature), and three clinical trial registers to October 2016. We checked reference lists, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) on professional palliative care services that provided or co-ordinated comprehensive care for adults at early advanced stages of cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and collected information on adverse events. For quantitative synthesis, we combined respective results on our primary outcomes of health-related quality of life, survival (death hazard ratio), depression, and symptom intensity across studies in meta-analyses using an inverse variance random-effects model. We expressed pooled effects as standardised mean differences (SMDs, or Hedges' adjusted g). We assessed certainty of evidence at the outcome level using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven randomised and cluster-randomised controlled trials that together recruited 1614 participants. Four studies evaluated interventions delivered by specialised palliative care teams, and the remaining studies assessed models of co-ordinated care. Overall, risk of bias at the study level was mostly low, apart from possible selection bias in three studies and attrition bias in one study, along with insufficient information on blinding of participants and outcome assessment in six studies.Compared with usual/standard cancer care alone, early palliative care significantly improved health-related quality of life at a small effect size (SMD 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.38; participants analysed at post treatment = 1028; evidence of low certainty). As re-expressed in natural units (absolute change in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) score), health-related quality of life scores increased on average by 4.59 (95% CI 2.55 to 6.46) points more among participants given early palliative care than among control participants. Data on survival, available from four studies enrolling a total of 800 participants, did not indicate differences in efficacy (death hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28; evidence of very low certainty). Levels of depressive symptoms among those receiving early palliative care did not differ significantly from levels among those receiving usual/standard cancer care (five studies; SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.03; participants analysed at post treatment = 762; evidence of very low certainty). Results from seven studies that analysed 1054 participants post treatment suggest a small effect for significantly lower symptom intensity in early palliative care compared with the control condition (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.10; evidence of low certainty). The type of model used to provide early palliative care did not affect study results. One RCT reported potential adverse events of early palliative care, such as a higher percentage of participants with severe scores for pain and poor appetite; the remaining six studies did not report adverse events in study publications. For these six studies, principal investigators stated upon request that they had not observed any adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review of a small number of trials indicates that early palliative care interventions may have more beneficial effects on quality of life and symptom intensity among patients with advanced cancer than among those given usual/standard cancer care alone. Although we found only small effect sizes, these may be clinically relevant at an advanced disease stage with limited prognosis, at which time further decline in quality of life is very common. At this point, effects on mortality and depression are uncertain. We have to interpret current results with caution owing to very low to low certainty of current evidence and between-study differences regarding participant populations, interventions, and methods. Additional research now under way will present a clearer picture of the effect and specific indication of early palliative care. Upcoming results from several ongoing studies (N = 20) and studies awaiting assessment (N = 10) may increase the certainty of study results and may lead to improved decision making. In perspective, early palliative care is a newly emerging field, and well-conducted studies are needed to explicitly describe the components of early palliative care and control treatments, after blinding of participants and outcome assessors, and to report on possible adverse events.