A Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument to Facilitate Timing of End-of-Life Discussions among Patients with Advanced Cancers

Development of the palliative care referral system: proposal of a tool for the referral of cancer patients to specialized palliative care

BACKGROUND

Early palliative care (PC) has shown beneficial effects for advanced cancer patients. However, it is still debated what criteria to use to identify patients for PC referral.

AIM

To document the initial steps of the development of the Palliative Care Referral System (PCRS), a tool to be used by oncologists in clinical practice.

METHODS

A multiprofessional working group developed the PCRS based on the results of a scoping literature review on PC referral criteria. PCRS criteria were evaluated by experts via a nominal group technique (NGT). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize expert scores on relevance, appropriateness and perceived feasibility of the criteria proposed. Quotations of participants during the discussion were also reported.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies, including PC referral criteria/tools, emerged from the scoping review. Severe symptoms, poor performance status, comorbidities and prognosis were the most commonly used criteria. The PCRS included nine major criteria and nine assessment methods; a scoring procedure was also proposed. Answers to the questionnaire during the NGT showed that five criteria reached full agreement on all items, while four did not, and were then discussed within the group. Participants agreed on the relevance of all criteria and on the appropriateness of methods proposed to assess most of them, while issues were raised about potential feasibility of the overall assessment of the PCRS in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

The PCRS has been developed as an help for oncologists to timely identify patients for specialized PC referral. Since feasibility emerged as the main concern, implementation strategies have to be tested in subsequent studies.

Evaluating the Thresholds for Clinical Importance of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL in Patients Receiving Palliative Treatment

Background: The EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL is a shortened version of the widely used EORTC QLQ-C30. This questionnaire was developed to measure the symptoms and functional health of patients receiving palliative care. Objective: To enhance clinical interpretability of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, our aim was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of thresholds for clinical importance developed previously for the QLQ-C30 when applied to the QLQ-C15-PAL scales. Design: Cross-sectional observational study. Setting/Subjects: Patients with cancer receiving any type of palliative treatment. Measurement: Patients completed the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and anchor items on limitations, worries, and need for help for each of the health domains covered by the questionnaire. The anchor items were summarized in a binary criterion for clinical importance to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of the thresholds for clinical importance. Results: In total, 225 patients participated in the study (mean age 64.5 years). Patients were recruited from Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The thresholds for clinical importance for the QLQ-C15-PAL scales showed a median sensitivity of 0.88 (range: 0.82 for sleep disturbances to 1.00 for dyspnea) and a median specificity of 0.74 (range: 0.54 for dyspnea to 0.89 for constipation). Conclusion: The thresholds for clinical importance showed high sensitivity and mostly high specificity in identifying clinically important symptoms and functional health impairments as assessed by the QLQ-C15-PAL. These thresholds will facilitate interpretation of EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL scores in daily clinical practice and clinical research.

A mixed methods analysis of patients' advance care planning values in outpatient oncology: Person-Centered Oncologic Care and Choices (P-COCC)

PURPOSE

Person-Centered Oncologic Care and Choices (P-COCC) combines an advance care planning (ACP) value-focused patient interview with a care goal video decision aid. Our randomized study showed that P-COCC was acceptable but increased participant distress, compared with video-alone and usual care study arms. This mixed methods approach explores the ACP values in the P-COCC arm and their relationship to the distress phenomenon.

METHODS

Qualitative thematic analysis of the 46 audio-recorded P-COCC interview transcripts with advanced gastrointestinal cancer patients was performed by multiple reviewers. Quantitative (Likert scale) changes in ACP values were compared across study arms. ACP themes and value change were analyzed in participants with increased distress.

RESULTS

Transcript analysis resulted in thematic saturation and identified eight distinct themes on ACP values relating to end-of-life wishes, communication needs, and psychosocial supports. Of 98 participants (33 P-COCC, 43 videos, 22 usual care) who completed the change in value measure, there was no difference detected with P-COCC compared with either video (p = 0.052) or usual care (p = 0.105) arms alone, but P-COCC led to a frequency distribution of more change in personal values compared with the other study arms combined (p = 0.043). Among the subset of P-COCC participants with increased distress, there was no statistical relationship with change in values.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACP paradigm P-COCC both informs and supports patients in individualized, value-based decision-making. Distress is not associated with changes in ACP values and may be a necessary, at least transient, byproduct of discussing sensitive but pertinent topics about end-of-life medical care.

A Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument to Assess Symptom Burden and Predict Survival in Patients with Advanced Cancer: Flipping the Paradigm to Improve Timing of Palliative and End-of-Life Discussions and Reduce Unwanted Health Care Costs

BACKGROUND

Discussions regarding palliative care and end-of-life care issues are frequently delayed past the time of usefulness, resulting in unwanted medical care. We sought to develop a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument that allows patients to voice their symptom burdens and facilitate timing of discussions.

SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS

A seven-item PRO instrument (Cota Patient Assessed Symptom Score-7 item [CPASS-7]) covering physical performance status, pain, burden, and depression was administered (September 2015 through October 2016) with correlation to overall survival, correcting for time to complete survey since diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 1,191 patients completed CPASS-7 at a median of 560 days following the diagnosis of advanced cancer. Of these patients, 49% were concerned that they could not do the things they wanted; 35% reported decreased performance status. Financial toxicity was reported by 39% of patients, with family burdens noted in 25%. Although depression was reported by 15%, 43% reported lack of pleasure. Pain was reported by 33%. The median CPASS-7 total symptom burden score was 16 (possible 0-112). With a median follow-up of 15 months from initial survey, 46% had died. Patients with symptom burden scores <29 and ≥29 had a 6-month overall survival rate of 87% and 67%, respectively, and 12-month survival rates of 72% and 50%. A one-point score increase resulted in a 1.8% increase in expected hazard.

CONCLUSION

Patients with advanced cancer with higher levels of symptom burden, as self-reported on the CPASS-7, had inferior survival. The PRO facilitates identification of patients appropriate for reassessment of treatment goals and potentially palliative and end-of-life care in response to symptom burden concerns.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

A seven-item patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument was administered to 1,191 patients with advanced cancers. Patients self-reporting higher levels of physical and psychological symptom burden had inferior overall survival rates. High individual item symptom PRO responses should serve as a useful trigger to initiate supportive interventions, but when scores indicate global problems, discussions regarding end-of-life care might be appropriate.

Advance Care Planning and End-of-Life Decision Making for Patients with Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To highlight the importance, challenges, and evolution of advance care planning for patients with cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed journal articles and clinical guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Advance care planning is fundamental to support the personhood of patients with advanced cancer. Patients must be encouraged by physicians and nurses to articulate what matters and provides meaning to them as they live, cope, and receive treatment for their cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses can facilitate advance care planning and primary palliative care, to support patients and families to make informed and value-concordant decisions regarding cancer and end-of-life treatments.

Accurate Prognostic Awareness Facilitates, Whereas Better Quality of Life and More Anxiety Symptoms Hinder End-of-Life Care Discussions: A Longitudinal Survey Study in Terminally Ill Cancer Patients' Last Six Months of Life

CONTEXT

Terminally ill cancer patients do not engage in end-of-life (EOL) care discussions or do so only when death is imminent, despite guidelines for EOL care discussions early in their disease trajectory. Most studies on patient-reported EOL care discussions are cross sectional without exploring the evolution of EOL care discussions as death approaches. Cross-sectional studies cannot determine the direction of association between EOL care discussions and patients' prognostic awareness, psychological well-being, and quality of life (QOL).

OBJECTIVES/METHODS

We examined the evolution and associations of accurate prognostic awareness, functional dependence, physical and psychological symptom distress, and QOL with patient-physician EOL care discussions among 256 terminally ill cancer patients in their last six months by hierarchical generalized linear modeling with logistic regression and by arranging time-varying modifiable variables and EOL care discussions in a distinct time sequence.

RESULTS

The prevalence of physician-patient EOL care discussions increased as death approached (9.2%, 11.8%, and 18.3% for 91-180, 31-90, and 1-30 days before death, respectively) but only reached significance in the last month. Accurate prognostic awareness facilitated subsequent physician-patient EOL care discussions, whereas better patient-reported QOL and more anxiety symptoms hindered such discussions. The likelihood of EOL care discussions was not associated with levels of physical symptom distress, functional dependence, or depressive symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Physician-patient EOL care discussions for terminally ill Taiwanese cancer patients remain uncommon even when death approaches. Physicians should facilitate EOL care discussions by cultivating patients' accurate prognostic awareness early in their cancer trajectory when they are physically and psychologically competent, with better QOL, thus promoting informed and value-based EOL care decision making.

Advance Directives, Hospitalization, and Survival Among Advanced Cancer Patients with Delirium Presenting to the Emergency Department: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

To improve the management of advanced cancer patients with delirium in an emergency department (ED) setting, we compared outcomes between patients with delirium positively diagnosed by both the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), or group A (n = 22); by the MDAS only, or group B (n = 22); and by neither CAM nor MDAS, or group C (n = 199).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In an oncologic ED, we assessed 243 randomly selected advanced cancer patients for delirium using the CAM and the MDAS and for presence of advance directives. Outcomes extracted from patients' medical records included hospital and intensive care unit admission rate and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Hospitalization rates were 82%, 77%, and 49% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .0013). Intensive care unit rates were 18%, 14%, and 2% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .0004). Percentages with advance directives were 52%, 27%, and 43% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .2247). Median OS was 1.23 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-3.55) for group A, 4.70 months (95% CI 0.89-7.85) for group B, and 10.45 months (95% CI 7.46-14.82) for group C. Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups A and B (p = .6392), but OS in group C exceeded those of the other groups (p < .0001 each).

CONCLUSION

Delirium assessed by either CAM or MDAS was associated with worse survival and more hospitalization in patients with advanced cancer in an oncologic ED. Many advanced cancer patients with delirium in ED lack advance directives. Delirium should be assessed regularly and should trigger discussion of goals of care and advance directives.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Delirium is a devastating condition among advanced cancer patients. Early diagnosis in the emergency department (ED) should improve management of this life-threatening condition. However, delirium is frequently missed by ED clinicians, and the outcome of patients with delirium is unknown. This study finds that delirium assessed by the Confusion Assessment Method or the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale is associated with poor survival and more hospitalization among advanced cancer patients visiting the ED of a major cancer center, many of whom lack advance directives. Therefore, delirium in ED patients with cancer should trigger discussion about advance directives.

Palliative care and advance care planning for pancreas and other cancers

The principles of palliative care are fundamental to support and treat the physical, mental, and psychosocial health of patients living with pancreatic cancer. In addition to its proven advantages to help manage disease-related symptoms, improve accurate illness understanding, and enhance the quality of life and survival outcomes for patients with advanced disease, the inclusion of palliative care principles (whether by a specialist or by the primary oncology team) with standard oncologic care strengthens timely and quality advance care planning (ACP). The primary objective of this review article is to underscore the significant value of palliative care integration and ACP in oncology, including but not limited to care at the end of life, with a particular focus on its relevance to patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.