Randomised clinical trial of early specialist palliative care plus standard care versus standard care alone in patients with advanced cancer: The Danish Palliative Care Trial

Standardizing Integrated Oncology and Palliative Care Across Service Levels: Challenges in Demonstrating Effects in a Prospective Controlled Intervention Trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients with cancer often want to spend their final days at home. In Norway, most patients with cancer die in institutions. We hypothesized that full integration of oncology and palliative care services would result in more time spent at home during end-of-life.

METHODS

A prospective non-randomized intervention trial was conducted in two rural regions of Mid-Norway. The hospitals' oncology and palliative care outpatient clinics and surrounding communities participated. An intervention including information, education, and a standardized care pathway was developed and implemented. Adult non-curative patients with cancer were eligible. Proportion of last 90 days of life spent at home was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

We included 129 patients in the intervention group (I) and 76 patients in the comparison group (C), of whom 82% of patients in I and 78% of patients in C died during follow-up. The mean proportion of last 90 days of life spent at home was 0.62 in I and 0.72 in C (p = 0.044), with 23% and 36% (p = 0.073), respectively, dying at home. A higher proportion died at home in both groups compared to pre-study level (12%). During the observation period the comparison region developed and implemented an alternative intervention to the study intervention, with the former more focused on end-of-life care.

CONCLUSION

A higher proportion of patients with cancer died at home in both groups compared to pre-study level. Patients with cancer in I did not spend more time at home during end-of-life compared to those in C. The study intervention focused on the whole disease trajectory, while the alternative intervention was more directed towards end-of-life care. "Simpler" and more focused interventions on end-of-life care may be relevant for future studies on integration of palliative care into oncology.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02170168.

Screening for Palliative Care Need in Oncology: Validation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

CONTEXT

Leading oncology societies recommend monitoring symptoms and support needs through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), but their use for assessing specialist palliative care (SPC) need has not yet been explored. Research on SPC integration has focused on staff-assessed screening tools, which are time-consuming.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the diagnostic validity of the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS) and NCCN Distress Thermometer (NCCN DT) in identifying need for SPC in patients with incurable cancer.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, patients with incurable cancer (prognosis <2 years) completed PROMs. In an independent process, the palliative care consultation service (PCCS) assessed the need for SPC in each patient through multiprofessional case review, and this was used as the reference standard. ROC analyses were employed to determine diagnostic validity.

RESULTS

Of the 208 participants, 71 (34.1 %) were classified as having SPC need by the PCCS. Aiming for a minimum sensitivity of 80%, a cut-off of ≥2 items with high/very high burden in the IPOS resulted in a 90.2% sensitivity (specificity = 50; AUC = 0.791; CI 95%= 0.724-0.858). A cut-off of ≥5 resulted in a sensitivity of 80 % for NCCN DT (specificity = 49.5 %; AUC = 0.687; CI 95% = 0.596-0.777).

CONCLUSION

PROMs are useful for identifying SPC need in cancer patients. Their implementation might facilitate timely integration of SPC. Future research should focus on an integrated assessment approach with PROMs that combines the requirements of the different specialties to save patient and staff resources.

Evaluating a shared care pathway intervention for people receiving chemotherapy to reduce post-treatment unplanned hospital presentations: a randomised controlled trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to explore whether a community nursing intervention for outpatients receiving systemic therapy reduced unplanned hospital presentations and improved physical and psychosocial health outcomes over the first three cycles of treatment compared to a control group receiving standard care.

METHODS

The number of and reasons for unplanned presentations were obtained for 170 intervention and 176 control group adult patients with solid tumours starting outpatient chemotherapy. Poisson regression was used to compare the number of presentations between the intervention and control groups. Patients self-completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Cancer Behavior Inventory and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) at the start of the first four cycles. Linear regression techniques were used to compare quality of life outcomes.

RESULTS

The reduction in unplanned presentations in the intervention group relative to the control group was 12% (95% CI, - 25%, 37%; P = 0.48). At the start of cycle 4, there was no difference in anxiety (difference = 0.47 (95% CI, - 0.28, 1.22; P = 0.22)), depression (difference = 0.57 (95% CI, - 0.18, 1.31; P = 0.13)) or EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score (difference = 0.16 (95% CI, - 2.67, 3.00; P = 0.91)). Scores for self-efficacy as measured by the Cancer Behavior Inventory were higher in the intervention group (difference = 4.3 (95% CI, 0.7, 7.9; P = 0.02)).

CONCLUSION

This RCT did not demonstrate a benefit in reducing unplanned presentations to hospital. The trial identified improved cancer-based self-efficacy in patients receiving the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12614001113640, registered 21/10/2014.

What is an "early palliative care" intervention? A scoping review of controlled studies in oncology

INTRODUCTION

Early palliative care (EPC) has been advocated to improve cancer patients' health. However, EPC differs with regard to its elements and target groups. It is not known which parts of EPC contribute to effectiveness for which patient group. This scoping review provides a structured analysis of EPC interventions and outcome measures.

DESIGN

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL up to February 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT), nonrandomized trials, cohort studies (CS), and controlled before-after studies of EPC in adult patients in English, Dutch, and German language. Interventions had to be self-labeled as EPC. Screening and data extraction were performed by two raters. A structured analysis incorporating the TIDieR checklist was performed to describe the elements of the interventions.

RESULTS

We screened 2651 articles, resulting in 40 articles being included: 34 studies were RCT and six studies were CS with a mean sample size of 208 patients. Patients with pancreatic (n = 10) and lung cancer (n = 9) were most often included. Studies reported different reference points for the onset of EPC such as time after diagnosis of incurable cancer (n = 18) or prognosis (n = 9). Thirteen studies provided information about elements of EPC and eight studies about the control intervention. Most frequent elements of EPC were symptom management (n = 28), case management (n = 16), and advance care planning (ACP; n = 15). Most frequently reported outcome measures were health-related quality of life (n = 26), symptom intensity (n = 6), resource use, and the patient's mood (n = 4 each).

CONCLUSION

The elicited heterogeneity of ECP in combination with deficits of reporting are considerable barriers that should be addressed to further develop effective EPC interventions for different groups of cancer patients.

Palliative care interventions for patients with head and neck cancer: protocol for a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

A head and neck cancer (HNC) diagnosis significantly impacts a patient's quality of life (QOL). Palliative care potentially improves their QOL. We will conduct a scoping review to identify existing knowledge about palliative care interventions for patients with HNC.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This scoping review was designed in accordance with the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: Scoping Reviews and will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Our eligibility criteria follow the Population, Intervention, Comparison or Control, Outcomes and Study characteristics framework. The population is adult patients with locally advanced, metastatic, unresectable and/or recurrent HNC. We include peer-reviewed journal articles and articles in the press, in English, reporting on palliative care interventions with at least two of the eight National Consensus Project on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care domains; studies with and without comparators will be included. The outcomes are patient QOL (primary) and symptom severity, patients' satisfaction with care, patients' mood, advance care planning and place of death (secondary). We developed a search strategy across ten databases, to be searched from the inception to 11 September 2023: Medline ALL (Medline and EPub Ahead of Print and In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase Classic+Embase, Emcare and PsycINFO all from the OvidSP platform; CINAHL from EBSCOhost, Scopus from Elsevier, Web of Science from Clarivate and Global Index Medicus from WHO. We will extract data using a piloted data form and analyse the data through descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not needed for a scoping review. We will disseminate the findings to healthcare providers and policy-makers by publishing the results in a scientific journal.

Meta-Analysis of Effects of Early Palliative Care on Health-Related Outcomes Among Advanced Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Early palliative care (PC) has received more attention for improving health-related outcomes for advanced cancer patients in recent years, but the results of previous studies are inconsistent.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to use meta-analysis and trial sequence analysis to evaluate the effect of early PC on health-related outcomes of advanced cancer patients.

METHODS

All English publications were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to March 2023, with a restriction that the study type was a randomized controlled trial.

RESULTS

The results showed that early PC positively affected quality of life, satisfaction with care, and symptom burden reduction. However, early PC had no significant effect on anxiety or survival. Trial sequence analysis results showed that the effect of early PC on the quality of life was stable.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review suggested that early PC could positively affect health-related outcomes for advanced cancer patients. Early PC can be used widely in clinical settings to improve health-related outcomes of advanced cancer. However, because of the trial sequence analysis results, further well-designed, clinical, randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are necessary to draw definitive conclusions.

When and how to stop palliative antineoplastic treatment and to organise palliative care for patients with incurable cancer

BACKGROUND

Improving the organisational aspects of the delivery of palliative care in order to support patients throughout their disease trajectory has received limited attention.

AIM

To investigate the opportunities and barriers related to organising palliation for people with terminal cancer and their families.

METHODS

An explorative interview study was conducted among 31 nurses and three physicians concerning an intervention facilitating a fast transition from treatment at a cancer centre at a university hospital to palliation at home. A thematic analysis was conducted.

FINDINGS

This article presents three out of seven themes: 1) improvement in the cessation of antineoplastic treatment in palliation; 2) improvement in organisations delivering palliation; and 3) improvement in multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate the demand for flexible, family-centred and integrated palliation at all levels, from communication and the collaborative relationship between healthcare professionals and families to service sectors.

European Respiratory Society guideline on various aspects of quality in lung cancer care

This European Respiratory Society guideline is dedicated to the provision of good quality recommendations in lung cancer care. All the clinical recommendations contained were based on a comprehensive systematic review and evidence syntheses based on eight PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions. The evidence was appraised in compliance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Evidence profiles and the GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to summarise results and to make the decision-making process transparent. A multidisciplinary Task Force panel of lung cancer experts formulated and consented the clinical recommendations following thorough discussions of the systematic review results. In particular, we have made recommendations relating to the following quality improvement measures deemed applicable to routine lung cancer care: 1) avoidance of delay in the diagnostic and therapeutic period, 2) integration of multidisciplinary teams and multidisciplinary consultations, 3) implementation of and adherence to lung cancer guidelines, 4) benefit of higher institutional/individual volume and advanced specialisation in lung cancer surgery and other procedures, 5) need for pathological confirmation of lesions in patients with pulmonary lesions and suspected lung cancer, and histological subtyping and molecular characterisation for actionable targets or response to treatment of confirmed lung cancers, 6) added value of early integration of palliative care teams or specialists, 7) advantage of integrating specific quality improvement measures, and 8) benefit of using patient decision tools. These recommendations should be reconsidered and updated, as appropriate, as new evidence becomes available.

Outpatient palliative care referral system (PCRS) for patients with advanced cancer: an impact evaluation protocol

INTRODUCTION

Early palliative care (PC) in the clinical pathway of advanced cancer patients improves symptom control, quality of life and has a positive impact on overall quality of care. At present, standardised criteria for appropriate referral for early PC in oncology care are lacking. The aim of this project is to develop a set of standardised referral criteria and procedures to implement appropriate early PC for advanced cancer patients (the palliative care referral system, PCRS) and test its impact on user perception of quality of care received, on patient quality of life and on the use of healthcare resources.

SETTING

Selected oncology clinics and PC outpatient clinic.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A scoping literature review and an expert consultation through a nominal group technique will be used to revise existing referral tools and to develop a new one, the PCRS. 25 patients will be enrolled in a pilot study to assess feasibility of the implementation of PCRS; 10 interviews with patients and healthcare professionals will be carried out to evaluate applicability.A pretest-post-test quasiexperimental study involving 150 patients before implementation of the PCRS and 150 patients after implementation will be carried out.Patient satisfaction with care received, quality of life and use of resources, and caregiver satisfaction with care will also be assessed to explore the impact of the intervention.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for the study has been granted by the Institutional Review board of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori; approval reference INT201/19.Results will be disseminated through open access publications and through scientific communication presented at national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04936568.

Early integration of palliative care for patients with haematological malignancies

Early palliative care (EPC) significantly improves quality of life, symptoms, and satisfaction with care for patients with advanced cancer. International organizations have recognized and promoted the role of palliative care as a distinct specialty, advocating its involvement throughout the cancer trajectory. Although patients with haematologic malignancies (HMs) have a comparable symptom burden to patients with solid tumours, they face multiple barriers to EPC integration. In this review, we discuss these barriers, present updated evidence from clinical trials of EPC in HMs and propose models to support EPC integration into care for patients with HMs.

Integration of Specialized Palliative Care with Oncological Treatment in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

Introduction:

The incidence of pancreatic cancer is around 5 in 100,000, and the 5-year survival is poor. Pancreatic cancer patients have a high disease-specific burden of symptoms, and palliative chemotherapy has varying side effects. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) suggests integrating specialized palliative care (SPC) with standard oncological treatment for pancreatic cancer patients at stage ≥III. This study investigated the effects of enrollment into SPC >30 days before death.

Materials and Methods:

This retrospective study included 170 patients with histopathologically verified pancreatic adenocarcinoma who received palliative chemotherapy at Skåne University Hospital and died between February 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017.

Results:

Of the 170 patients, 151 were enrolled within the SPC unit; 97 of them for >30 days before death (group A). The remainder (group B) received SPC for ≤30 days before death (n = 54) or not at all (n = 19). Patients in groups A and B lived a median of 73 and 44 days, respectively, after the last palliative chemotherapy treatment (p < 0.001), but did not differ in terms of median overall survival (11.2 months vs. 10.9 months). Death in the hospital occurred in 84% of patients never admitted to SPC and 2% of patients ever admitted to SPC.

Conclusion:

Enrollment in SPC for longer than 30 days may lower the risk of receiving futile palliative chemotherapy at the end of life, compared with patients enrolled in SPC for 30 days or less before death. Enrollment in SPC lowers the risk of dying in a hospital.

Impact of palliative care on quality of life in advanced cancer: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to examine the impact of palliative care on the life quality of adults with advanced cancer.

METHODS

After a comprehensive and regular search using [MeSH] keywords in some important databases, 25 published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 5160 adults with advanced cancer were selected and examined through meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Analysis of 36 reports in 1-3 months follow-up, and 19 reports in 4-7 months follow-up, showed that compared to usual care (g = 0.25; 95%CI: 0.1 to 0.41), palliative care had a significant impact on quality of life (QOL) (g = 0.1; 95%CI: 0.019 to 0.18) of advanced cancer patients. Also, based on the analysis of 15 reports on outpatients (g = 0.27; 95%CI: 0.04 to 0.4), 10 reports of early (g = 0.27; 95%CI: 0.029 to 0.52), and 8 reports of end-of-life (g = 0.24; 95%CI: 0.06 to 0.47) palliative care in 4-7 months follow-up, a significant impact on life quality was shown. However, in four reports, the impact of palliative care on health related quality of life in ≥10 months follow-up (g = 0.19; 95%CI: -0.03 to 0.42) was not significant.

CONCLUSION

Systematic QOL assessment with valid tool in palliative care setting would establish quality assurance and could further develop the application of this pretty new discipline in oncology care worldwide.

Effects of early palliative care on patients with incurable cancer: A meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of early palliative care on patients with incurable cancer with those of standard oncologic care or on-demand palliative care.

METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials. We also screened reference lists of included studies for additional qualified studies. We used Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool to evaluate quality of included studies. DerSimonian and Laird's random effects meta-analysis was used to synthesise the effects.

RESULTS

Sixteen in 1376 studies were included. The pooled data suggested that patients receiving early palliative care had better quality of life (SMD = 0.737, 95% CI: 0.240-1.234), fewer symptoms (SMD = 0.304, 95% CI: 0.097-0.510), better mood (SMD = -0.443, 95% CI: -0.605 to -0.282), better survival (hazard ratio [HR] of death: HR = 1.521, 95% CI: 1.521-1.923; 1-year overall survival probability: HR = 1.238, 95% CI: 1.031-1.486) and higher probability of dying at home (HR = 1.153, 95% CI: 1.027-1.295) than patients in the control group. And there is no difference between resource use.

CONCLUSION

Early palliative care improves lives of patients with incurable cancer, but the evidence level is low because of high heterogeneity of quality of life and small numbers of included studies for other results.

Use of Theoretical Frameworks in the Development and Testing of Palliative Care Interventions

CONTEXT

Palliative care (PC) research has grown over the last 20 years. Yet, the causal components and pathways of PC interventions remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To document the prevalence and application of theoretical frameworks in developing and testing PC interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of previously published systematic reviews of PC randomized clinical trials. Trials were evaluated for explicit mention of a theoretical framework, process or delivery model, or clinical practice guideline that supported the development of the intervention. We used a structured data extraction form to document study population, outcomes, and whether and how authors used a theoretical framework, process/delivery model, or clinical practice guideline. We applied an adapted coding scheme to evaluate use of theoretical frameworks.

RESULTS

We reviewed 85 PC trials conducted between 1984 and 2021. Thirty-eight percent (n = 32) of trials explicitly mentioned a theoretical framework, process or delivery model, or clinical practice guideline as a foundation for the intervention design. Only nine trials included a theoretical framework, while the remaining 23 cited a process/delivery model or clinical practice guideline.

CONCLUSION

Most PC trials do not cite a theoretical foundation for their intervention design. Future work should focus on developing and validating new theoretical frameworks and modifying existing theories and models to better explain the mechanisms of the variety of PC interventions.

Timely Palliative Care: Personalizing the Process of Referral

Timely palliative care is a systematic process to identify patients with high supportive care needs and to refer these individuals to specialist palliative care in a timely manner based on standardized referral criteria. It requires four components: (1) routine screening of supportive care needs at oncology clinics, (2) establishment of institution-specific consensual criteria for referral, (3) a system in place to trigger a referral when patients meet criteria, and (4) availability of outpatient palliative care resources to deliver personalized, timely patient-centered care aimed at improving patient and caregiver outcomes. In this review, we discuss the conceptual underpinnings, rationale, barriers and facilitators for timely palliative care referral. Timely palliative care provides a more rational use of the scarce palliative care resource and maximizes the impact on patients who are offered the intervention. Several sets of referral criteria have been proposed to date for outpatient palliative care referral. Studies examining the use of these referral criteria consistently found that timely palliative care can lead to a greater number of referrals and earlier palliative care access than routine referral. Implementation of timely palliative care at each institution requires oncology leadership support, adequate palliative care infrastructure, integration of electronic health record and customization of referral criteria.

The quality of end of life care for Danish cancer patients who have received specialized palliative: a national survey using the Danish version of VOICES-SF

BACKGROUND

National recommendations state that Danish patients with complex palliative needs should have access to specialized palliative care but little is known about the perceived quality of this care or end of life care in general.

AIM

To assess how end of life care was evaluated by the bereaved spouses and to investigate whether the perceived quality was associated with (1) quantity of specialized palliative care provided, (2) place of death, and (3) emotional state when completing the questionnaire.

DESIGN

The bereaved spouses of 1584 cancer patients who had received specialized palliative care were invited to answer the Views Of Informal Carers - Evaluation of Services - Short Form (VOICES-SF) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) approximately 3-9 months after the patient's death.

RESULTS

A total of 787 (50%) of the invited spouses participated. In the last 3 months of the patient's life, the quality of all services taken together was rated as good, excellent, or outstanding in 83% of the cases and it was significantly associated with place of death (p = 0.0051, fewest considered it "fair" or "poor" if the patient died at home). In total, 93% reported that the patient died at the right place although only 74% died at the patient's preferred place. Higher levels of anxiety (p = 0.01) but not depression at the time of questionnaire completion was associated with lower satisfaction with the overall quality of care.

CONCLUSION

The quality of care was rated very highly by bereaved spouses of patients receiving specialized palliative care.

Early palliative interventions for improving outcomes in people with a primary malignant brain tumour and their carers

BACKGROUND

Primary malignant brain tumours can have an unpredictable course, but high-grade gliomas typically have a relentlessly progressive disease trajectory. They can cause profound symptom burden, affecting physical, neurocognitive, and social functioning from an early stage in the illness. This can significantly impact on role function and on the experiences and needs of informal caregivers. Access to specialist palliative and supportive care early in the disease trajectory, for those with high-grade tumours in particular, has the potential to improve patients' and caregivers' quality of life. However, provision of palliative and supportive care for people with primary brain tumours - and their informal caregivers - is historically ill-defined and ad hoc, and the benefits of early palliative interventions have not been confirmed. It is therefore important to define the role and effectiveness of early referral to specialist palliative care services and/or the effectiveness of other interventions focused on palliating disease impact on people and their informal caregivers. This would help guide improvement to service provision, by defining those interventions which are effective across a range of domains, and developing an evidence-based model of integrated supportive and palliative care for this population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence base for early palliative care interventions, including referral to specialist palliative care services compared to usual care, for improving outcomes in adults diagnosed with a primary brain tumour and their carers.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted searches of electronic databases, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO (last searched 16 November 2021). We conducted searches to incorporate both qualitative and quantitative search terms. In addition to this, we searched for any currently recruiting trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and in the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal, and undertook citation tracking via Scopus. We also handsearched reference lists of potentially eligible systematic review articles to identify any other relevant studies, contacted experts in the field and searched key authors via Web of Science and searched SIGLE (System of Information on Grey Literature in Europe).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies looking at early referral to specialist palliative care services - or early targeted palliative interventions by other healthcare professionals - for improving quality of life, symptom control, psychological outcomes, or overall survival as a primary or secondary outcome measure. Studies included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised studies (NRS), as well as qualitative and mixed-methods studies where both qualitative and quantitative data were included. Participants were adults with a confirmed radiological and/or histological diagnosis of a primary malignant brain tumour, and/or informal adult carers (either at individual or family level) of people with a primary malignant brain tumour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data extraction, management, and analysis. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for symptom control, i.e. cognitive function.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 9748 references from the searches, with 8337 remaining after duplicates were removed. After full-text review, we included one trial. There were no studies of early specialist palliative care interventions or of early, co-ordinated generalist palliative care approaches. The included randomised trial addressed a single symptom area, focusing on early cognitive rehabilitation, administered within two weeks of surgery in a mixed brain tumour population, of whom approximately half had a high-grade glioma. The intervention was administered individually as therapist-led computerised exercises over 16 one-hour sessions, four times/week for four weeks. Sessions addressed several cognitive domains including time orientation, spatial orientation, visual attention, logical reasoning, memory, and executive function. There were no between-group differences in outcome for tests of logical-executive function, but differences were observed in the domains of visual attention and verbal memory. Risk of bias was assessed and stated as high for performance bias and attrition bias but for selective reporting it was unclear whether all outcomes were reported. We considered the certainty of the evidence, as assessed by GRADE, to be very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is a lack of research focusing on the introduction of early palliative interventions specifically for people with primary brain tumours, either as co-ordinated specialist palliative care approaches or interventions focusing on a specific aspect of palliation. Future research should address the methodological shortcomings described in early palliative intervention studies in other cancers and chronic conditions. In particular, the specific population under investigation, the timing and the setting of the intervention should be clearly described and the standardised palliative care-specific components of the intervention should be defined in detail.

Serious illness conversations in patients with multiple myeloma and their family caregivers-A qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVE

Patients treated for multiple myeloma often suffer from anxiety and depression related to concerns about the future. This indicates a need for improvement of communication between patients and healthcare professionals within haematology. The aim of this study was to explore how patients with multiple myeloma and their caregivers experience serious illness conversation focusing on illness understanding, concerns, values, and wishes for the future.

METHODS

Phenomenological, semi-structured dyad interviews were carried out in patients with multiple myeloma (n = 12) and their caregivers (n = 11) 2-20 days after participation in one serious illness conversation. interpretive phenomenological analysis was used for analysing data.

RESULTS

Three themes emerged (1) transforming patient-caregiver communication, (2) redeeming communication, and (3) equality in communication in an unequal relation. Furthermore, time allocated for the conversation and preparatory materials for the conversations highly influenced outcome.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that serious illness conversation can help patients and family caregivers managing living life with multiple myeloma by increasing dyadic communication and strengthen their use of existential language together with healthcare professionals. This study highlights the benefits of preparing patients and caregivers prior to the conversation and cancer care systems should strive to allocate ample time for serious illness conversations.

Effect of Early Palliative Care on Quality of Life of Advanced Head and Neck Cancer Patients: A Phase III Trial

BACKGROUND

Early palliative care (EPC) is an important aspect of cancer management but, to our knowledge, has never been evaluated in patients with head and neck cancer. Hence, we performed this study to determine whether the addition of EPC to standard therapy leads to an improvement in the quality of life (QOL), decrease in symptom burden, and improvement in overall survival.

METHODS

Adult patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck region planned for palliative systemic therapy were allocated 1:1 to either standard systemic therapy without or with comprehensive EPC service referral. Patients were administered the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for head and neck cancer (FACT-H&N) questionnaire at baseline and every 1 month thereafter for 3 months. The primary endpoint was a change in the QOL measured at 3 months after random assignment. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

Ninety patients were randomly assigned to each arm. There was no statistical difference in the change in the FACT-H&N total score (P = .94), FACT-H&N Trial Outcome Index (P = .95), FACT-general total (P = .84), and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale scores at 3 months between the 2 arms. The median overall survival was similar between the 2 arms (hazard ratio for death = 1.01, 95% confidence interval = 0.74 to 1.35). There were 5 in-hospital deaths in both arms (5.6% for both, P = .99).

CONCLUSIONS

In this phase III study, the integration of EPC in head and neck cancer patients did not lead to an improvement in the QOL or survival.

Psychological Response to the Diagnosis of Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Despite major efforts to address psychological distress and quality of life (QOL) in people with cancer, only none to small intervention effect has been observed. There is reason to question whether psychosocial needs of patients have already been met under the usual oncology care.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to examine changes in depression, anxiety and QOL during the existential plight in advanced cancer.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in the PubMed and APA PsycINFO databases from year 1976 up to May 31, 2021. Longitudinal observational or experimental research targeting depression, anxiety or QOL in advanced cancer (stage III or IV), with baseline time since cancer diagnosis within 100 days, follow-up within 16 weeks post-baseline were eligible. Quality rating was based on the GRADE guidelines.

RESULTS

Overall QOL did not reveal clinically relevant changes for the majority of studies as evaluated by effect size and raw score changes (median effect size 0.01, interquartile range -0.10-0.15). Nonetheless, modest to moderate improvement was found for depression (median effect size 0.28, interquartile range 0.03-0.38) and anxiety (median effect size 0.57, interquartile range 0.32-0.79).

CONCLUSION

Transient distress symptoms and temporarily reduced functioning in the oncology setting may be considered normal, whereas impaired overall QOL needs to be addressed. Developing innovative interventions that enhance QOL for patients newly diagnosed with advanced cancer without interfering with patients' natural adaptation process is imperative.

Frequency and Management of Hemorrhagic Malignant Wounds: A Retrospective, Single-Center, Observational Study

CONTEXT

The prevalence of bleeding episodes in malignant wounds (MW) is poorly documented, with no distinction between minor and potentially severe bleedings. This affects the quality of care.

OBJECTIVES

Assessing the frequency and management of hemorrhagic malignant wounds at Institut Curie hospital, an anti cancer center.

METHODS

Retrospective study conducted from the medical records of patients followed up by the Research and Wound Care Unit from Curie Institute (Paris, France), between 2017 and 2018. Patients >18 years of age, seen at least once by the Unit, and with an MW > 10 cm² were included.

RESULTS

Ninety patients were included, 74.4% female and 25.6% male, with a median age of 64 years (32-92). The most frequent etiologies were breast cancer (52.2%), sarcomas (12.2%), squamous cell carcinoma ear, nose and throat (11%), and pelvic cancer (8.9%). The median survival of patients after their first consultation was 5.6 months (95% CI: 4.6-8.4). Minor bleedings were observed in 38.9% of situations. Bleedings were significantly higher in malignant fungating wounds (P < 0.01). They were treated by the application of alginate or nonadherent dressings. The presence of at least one minor bleeding significantly increased the risk of more severe bleedings (P < 0.001). Hemorrhagic episodes were reported in 18.9% of patients, and 2.2% of patients died as a result of these bleeding episodes. Hemorrhages were fully controlled by hemostatic dressings in 70.6% of cases. The appearance of bleeding (minor or hemorrhagic) was significantly associated with survival (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

MWs with bleedings appear to be associated with a poor prognosis and could be a reason for early palliative care even if the patient's general condition is preserved. Palliative care must incorporate wound care skills to provide the most appropriate solutions to this anxiety-provoking symptom.

Early, integrated palliative rehabilitation improves quality of life of patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer: The Pal-Rehab randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Early integration of palliative care into oncology treatment is widely recommended. Palliative rehabilitation has been suggested as a paradigm which integrates enablement, self-management, and self-care into the holistic model of palliative care.

AIM

We hypothesized that early integration of palliative rehabilitation could improve quality of life.

DESIGN

The Pal-Rehab study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02332317) was a randomized controlled trial. The 12-week intervention offered by a specialized palliative care team was two mandatory consultations and the opportunity of participating in an interdisciplinary group program. Supplementary individual consultations were offered, if needed.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

At Vejle University Hospital, Denmark, adults diagnosed with advanced cancer within the last 8 weeks were randomized 1:1 to standard oncology care or standard care plus intervention. Assessments at baseline and after six and 12 weeks were based on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). At baseline participants were asked to choose a "primary problem" from a list of QLQ-C30 domains. The primary endpoint was the change in that "primary problem" measured as area under the curve across 12 weeks (T-scores, European mean value = 50, SD = 10).

RESULTS

In all, 288 were randomized of whom 279 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (146 in the standard care group and 133 in the intervention group). The between-group difference for the primary outcome was 3.0 (95% CI [0.0-6.0]; p = 0.047) favoring the intervention.

CONCLUSION

Early integration of palliative rehabilitation into standard oncology treatment improved quality of life for newly diagnosed advanced cancer patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02332317, registered on December 30, 2014.

Current Guidelines for Integration of Palliative Care in Oncology

Multiple cancer societies and professional medical organizations recommend integration of palliative care into routine oncology care. A growing body of literature supports the benefits of palliative care in patients with cancer. Palliative care improves pain and other symptoms, enhances quality of life, and reduces depression. The best method and timing for integration of palliative care is unclear. Multiple barriers exist that prevent optimal palliative care integration; these barriers will require additional education and research to overcome.

Using Process Indicators to Monitor Documentation of Patient-Centred Variables in an Integrated Oncology and Palliative Care Pathway-Results from a Cluster Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Despite robust evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating clinical and patient-reported benefits of integrated oncology and palliative care, the tumour-centred focus is predominant. This single-centre process evaluation monitors documentation of required patient-centred variables during an RCT.

METHODS

Performance status, patient self-reported symptoms, weight and summaries to general practitioners were assessed from June 2017 to July 2020 in three consultation types: first oncological after study inclusion and palliative and oncological consultations during chemotherapy. Descriptive statistics were used to monitor if the pre-defined program fulfilment of ≥85% documentation was reached.

RESULTS

435 consultations were monitored in 76 patients; 60.5% males, 86.8% with GI cancers; 76 (17.5%) were from the first oncological consultations, 87 (20.0%) and 272 (62.5%) from palliative or subsequent oncological consultations. Program fulfilment differed across consultation types with 94.8% in the palliative consultations (83.3-100%), relative to 65.8% (62.5-75.0%) and 69.2% (57.0-84.3%) for first and subsequent oncological consultations over time, respectively. Use of self-reported symptoms was consistently lower in the oncological consultations.

CONCLUSIONS

The documentation level of required core variables was not satisfactory, notwithstanding their high clinical relevance and continuous reminders during study. Pre-trial optimization strategies are paramount to promote integration and reduce professional and personal barriers towards a more patient-centred focus.

Hospital-based specialist palliative care compared with usual care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers: a systematic review

Background

Most deaths still take place in hospital; cost-effective commissioning of end-of-life resources is a priority. This review provides clarity on the effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care.

Objectives

The objectives were to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care.

Population

Adult patients with advanced illnesses and their unpaid caregivers.

Intervention

Hospital-based specialist palliative care.

Comparators

Inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry to the study, or community care or hospice care provided outside the hospital setting (usual care).

Primary outcomes

Patient health-related quality of life and symptom burden.

Data sources

Six databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and CareSearch), clinical trial registers, reference lists and systematic reviews were searched to August 2019.

Review methods

Two independent reviewers screened, data extracted and assessed methodological quality. Meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan (The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark), with separate synthesis of qualitative data.

Results

Forty-two randomised controlled trials involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 unpaid caregivers) were included. Diagnoses of participants were as follows: cancer, 21 studies; non-cancer, 14 studies; and mixed cancer and non-cancer, seven studies. Hospital-based specialist palliative care was offered in the following models: ward based (one study), inpatient consult (10 studies), outpatient (six studies), hospital at home or hospital outreach (five studies) and multiple settings that included hospital (20 studies). Meta-analyses demonstrated significant improvement favouring hospital-based specialist palliative care over usual care in patient health-related quality of life (10 studies, standardised mean difference 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.37; I 2 = 3%) and patient satisfaction with care (two studies, standardised mean difference 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.57; I 2 = 0%), a significant reduction in patient symptom burden (six studies, standardised mean difference –0.26, 95% confidence interval –0.41 to –0.12; I 2 = 0%) and patient depression (eight studies, standardised mean difference –0.22, 95% confidence interval –0.34 to –0.10; I 2 = 0%), and a significant increase in the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by number of patients with home death) (seven studies, odds ratio 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 2.16; I 2 = 0%). There were non-significant improvements in pain (four studies, standardised mean difference –0.16, 95% confidence interval –0.33 to 0.01; I 2 = 0%) and patient anxiety (five studies, mean difference –0.63, 95% confidence interval –2.22 to 0.96; I 2 = 76%). Hospital-based specialist palliative care showed no evidence of causing serious harm. The evidence on mortality/survival and cost-effectiveness was inconclusive. Qualitative studies (10 studies, 322 participants) suggested that hospital-based specialist palliative care was beneficial as it ensured personalised and holistic care for patients and their families, while also fostering open communication, shared decision-making and respectful and compassionate care.

Limitation

In almost half of the included randomised controlled trials, there was palliative care involvement in the control group.

Conclusions

Hospital-based specialist palliative care may offer benefits for person-centred outcomes including health-related quality of life, symptom burden, patient depression and satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death) with little evidence of harm.

Future work

More studies are needed of populations with non-malignant diseases, different models of hospital-based specialist palliative care, and cost-effectiveness.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017083205.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Palliative care in day-hospital for advanced cancer patients: a study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Background

Team-based and timely integrated palliative care is a gold standard of care in oncology, but issues concerning its optimal organization remain. Palliative Care in Day-Hospital (PCDH) could be one of the most efficient service model of palliative care to deliver interdisciplinary and multidimensional care addressing the complex supportive care needs of patients with advanced cancer. We hypothesize that, compared to conventional outpatient palliative care, PCDH allows the clinical benefits of palliative care to be enhanced.

Methods/design

This study is a multicentre parallel group trial with stratified randomization. Patient management in PCDH will be compared to conventional outpatient palliative care. The inclusion criteria are advanced cancer patients referred to a palliative care team with an estimated life expectancy of more than 2 months and less than 1 year. The primary endpoint is health-related quality of life with deterioration-free survival based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. The secondary objectives are the following: increase in patient satisfaction with care using the EORTC PATSAT-C33 and OUT-PATSAT7 questionnaires, better understanding of the prognosis using the PTPQ questionnaire and advance care planning; decrease in the need for supportive care among relatives using the SCNS-P&C-F questionnaire, and reduction in end-of-life care aggressiveness. Patients will complete one to five questionnaires on a tablet before each monthly visit over 6 months and will be followed for 1 year. A qualitative study will take place, aiming to understand the specificity of palliative care management in PCDH. Cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and, an additional economic evaluation based on capability approach will be conducted from a societal point of view.

Discussion

The first strength of this study is that it combines the main relevant outcomes assessing integrated palliative care; patient quality of life and satisfaction; discussion of the prognosis and advance care planning, family well-being and end-of-life care aggressiveness. The second strength of the study is that it is a mixed-method study associating a qualitative analysis of the specificity of PCDH organization, with a medical-economic study to analyse the cost of care.

Trial registration

Name of the registry: IDRCB 2019-A03116–51

Trial registration number:NCT04604873

Date of registration: October 27, 2020

URL of trial registry record

Models of Integration of Specialized Palliative Care with Oncology

OPINION STATEMENT

Evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses has shown that early integration of specialized palliative care improves symptoms and quality of life for patients with advanced cancer. There are various models of early integration, which may be classified based on setting of care and method of palliative care referral. Most successful randomized controlled trials of early palliative care have used a model of specialized teams providing in-person palliative care in free-standing or embedded outpatient clinics. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth has become a prominent model for palliative care delivery. This model of care has been well received by patients and palliative care providers, although evidence to date is limited. Despite evidence from trials that routine early integration of palliative care into oncology care improves patient outcomes, referral to palliative care still occurs mostly according to the judgment of individual oncologists. This hinders equitable access to palliative care and to its known benefits for patients and their caregivers. Automated referral based on triggering criteria is being actively explored as an alternative. In particular, routine technology-assisted symptom screening, combined with targeted needs-based automatic referral to outpatient palliative care, may improve integration and ultimately increase quality of life.

Comparing two models of outpatient specialised palliative care

Background

Ideally, patients with life-threatening illness who are suffering from multiple symptoms and reduced quality of life should receive palliative care that addresses their specific needs. The many well-defined clinical pathways may not always leave room for a person-centred and individual approach with respect to symptom control, psychosocial and spiritual support, and practical issues. In deciding how to organize outpatient specialist palliative care (SPC), it is relevant to include the perspectives of both patients and families. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare two models for outpatient SPC: first contact between patient, next-of-kin and doctor/nurse in the form of a home visit; and first visit in the hospital setting.

Method

The study was a comparative mixed methods study with follow-up at one and 3 months. It started with a quantitative strand in the form of a 38-item questionnaire. Data were analysed using linear mixed effects models, with maximum likelihood estimation for each outcome variable. The repeated measurements on patient level were modelled by including random intercepts of patients in the mixed model.

Results

In total, 190 participants were enrolled, of whom 102 answered the first questionnaire.

No differences were found between the two SPC interventions when development in satisfaction with care, communication or overall quality of life were compared. At baseline, a significantly higher score for satisfaction was found, in favour of first visit taking place in the hospital setting (65.91 vs. 55.83; p = 0.03) measured by FAMCARE-P16, and more patients were satisfied with availability of nurses and their abilities to listen and communicate than of doctors.

Conclusion

Specialist palliative care is in request for many patients in the late phase of their disease. We found no significant differences in satisfaction with care, communication with health professionals or in overall quality of life between the two models. This may imply that access to SPC is more important than the model that is applied, and that a person-centred approach together with time available may matter more than the context. These two factors should be considered when implementing SPC.

Timing of Palliative Care Referral Before and After Evidence from Trials Supporting Early Palliative Care

BACKGROUND

Evidence from randomized controlled trials has demonstrated benefits in quality of life outcomes from early palliative care concurrent with standard oncology care in patients with advanced cancer. We hypothesized that there would be earlier referral to outpatient palliative care at a comprehensive cancer center following this evidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Administrative databases were reviewed for two cohorts of patients: the pre-evidence cohort was seen in outpatient palliative care between June and November 2006, and the post-evidence cohort was seen between June and November 2015. Timing of referral was categorized, according to time from referral to death, as early (>12 months), intermediate (>6 months to 12 months), and late (≤6 months from referral to death). Univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were used to determine demographic and medical factors associated with timing of referral.

RESULTS

Late referrals decreased from 68.8% pre-evidence to 44.8% post-evidence; early referrals increased from 13.4% to 31.1% (p < .0001). The median time from palliative care referral to death increased from 3.5 to 7.0 months (p < .0001); time from diagnosis to referral was also reduced (p < .05). On multivariable regression analysis, earlier referral to palliative care was associated with post-evidence group (p < .0001), adjusting for shorter time since diagnosis (p < .0001), referral for pain and symptom management (p = .002), and patient sex (p = .04). Late referrals were reduced to <50% in the breast, gynecological, genitourinary, lung, and gastrointestinal tumor sites.

CONCLUSIONS

Following robust evidence from trials supporting early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer, patients were referred substantially earlier to outpatient palliative care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Following published evidence demonstrating the benefit of early referral to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer, there was a substantial increase in early referrals to outpatient palliative care at a comprehensive cancer center. The increase in early referrals occurred mainly in tumor sites that have been included in trials of early palliative care. These results indicate that oncologists' referral practices can change if positive consequences of earlier referral are demonstrated. Future research should focus on demonstrating benefits of early palliative care for tumor sites that have tended to be omitted from early palliative care trials.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers

BACKGROUND

Serious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital-based specialist palliative care (HSPC) has developed to assist in better meeting the needs of patients and their families and potentially reducing hospital care expenditure. There is a need for clarity on the effectiveness and optimal models of HSPC, given that most people still die in hospital and also to allocate scarce resources judiciously.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care for adults with advanced illness (hereafter patients) and their unpaid caregivers/families.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE and HTA database via the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; CareSearch; National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and two trial registers to August 2019, together with checking of reference lists and relevant systematic reviews, citation searching and contact with experts to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of HSPC on outcomes for patients or their unpaid caregivers/families, or both. HSPC was defined as specialist palliative care delivered by a palliative care team that is based in a hospital providing holistic care, co-ordination by a multidisciplinary team, and collaboration between HSPC providers and generalists. HSPC was provided to patients while they were admitted as inpatients to acute care hospitals, outpatients or patients receiving care from hospital outreach teams at home. The comparator was usual care, defined as inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry into the study, community care or hospice care provided outside of the hospital setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. To account for use of different scales across studies, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We used an inverse variance random-effects model. For binary data, we calculated odds ratio (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. Our primary outcomes were patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden (a collection of two or more symptoms). Key secondary outcomes were pain, depression, satisfaction with care, achieving preferred place of death, mortality/survival, unpaid caregiver burden, and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative data was analysed where available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 RCTs involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 caregivers/family members). Twenty-one studies were with cancer populations, 14 were with non-cancer populations (of which six were with heart failure patients), and seven with mixed cancer and non-cancer populations (mixed diagnoses). HSPC was offered in different ways and included the following models: ward-based, inpatient consult, outpatient, hospital-at-home or hospital outreach, and service provision across multiple settings which included hospital. For our main analyses, we pooled data from studies reporting adjusted endpoint values. Forty studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Compared with usual care, HSPC improved patient HRQoL with a small effect size of 0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; I² = 3%, 10 studies, 1344 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient HRQoL). HSPC also improved other person-centred outcomes. It reduced patient symptom burden with a small effect size of -0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI -0.41 to -0.12; I² = 0%, 6 studies, 761 participants, very low-quality evidence, lower scores indicate lower symptom burden). HSPC improved patient satisfaction with care with a small effect size of 0.36 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.41 to 0.57; I² = 0%, 2 studies, 337 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient satisfaction with care). Using home death as a proxy measure for achieving patient's preferred place of death, patients were more likely to die at home with HSPC compared to usual care (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16; I² = 0%, 7 studies, 861 participants, low-quality evidence). Data on pain (4 studies, 525 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between HSPC and usual care (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.01; I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Eight studies (N = 1252 participants) reported on adverse events and very low-quality evidence did not demonstrate an effect of HSPC on serious harms. Two studies (170 participants) presented data on caregiver burden and both found no evidence of effect of HSPC (very low-quality evidence). We included 13 economic studies (2103 participants). Overall, the evidence on cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care was inconsistent among the four full economic studies. Other studies that used only partial economic analysis and those that presented more limited resource use and cost information also had inconsistent results (very low-quality evidence). Quality of the evidence The quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was very low to low, downgraded due to a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low- to low-quality evidence suggests that when compared to usual care, HSPC may offer small benefits for several person-centred outcomes including patient HRQoL, symptom burden and patient satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death). While we found no evidence that HSPC causes serious harms, the evidence was insufficient to draw strong conclusions. Although these are only small effect sizes, they may be clinically relevant at an advanced stage of disease with limited prognosis, and are person-centred outcomes important to many patients and families. More well conducted studies are needed to study populations with non-malignant diseases and mixed diagnoses, ward-based models of HSPC, 24 hours access (out-of-hours care) as part of HSPC, pain, achieving patient preferred place of care, patient satisfaction with care, caregiver outcomes (satisfaction with care, burden, depression, anxiety, grief, quality of life), and cost-effectiveness of HSPC. In addition, research is needed to provide validated person-centred outcomes to be used across studies and populations.

Earlier multidisciplinary palliative care intervention for people with lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lung cancer is the most common cancer and leading cause of cancer mortality globally. Lung cancer is associated with significant morbidity, with symptoms often being poorly managed, causing significant symptom burden for both patients and their family caregivers. In people with life-limiting illnesses including advanced cancer, palliative care has been effective in improving symptom control, physical and mental wellbeing, quality of life, and survivorship; with benefits extending to caregivers while in the role and subsequently. Earlier integration of palliative care within oncology may be associated with improved patient outcomes, and has been supported by two Lancet commissions and national guidelines. The evidence for its effectiveness, however, has been mixed across the cancer spectrum. The aim of this review was to evaluate the current evidence for the effectiveness of early integrated palliative care in improving outcomes for people with lung cancer and their caregivers. Meta-analyses were performed where studies used the same measure. Otherwise, synthesis used a narrative approach. Similar to other types of advanced cancer, this review reveals mixed evidence for the effectiveness of early referral to palliative care and for the effectiveness of individual palliative interventions for people with lung cancer and their caregivers. Evidence that on-demand palliative care is equally, if not more effective than palliative care that is routinely provided, raises the question whether initiation and provision of palliative care as part of multidisciplinary lung cancer care ought to be guided by an early referral or need-based referral. Better understanding of what constitutes palliative care when delivered to people with lung cancer and their caregivers will help delineate the correlation with reported outcomes for these populations.

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of the French Version of the FAMCARE-Patient (FFP-16) Questionnaire for Outpatients With Advanced-Stage Cancer

CONTEXT

Satisfaction is known to be correlated with the quality of care; it indicates the adequacy of the caregivers' responses in meeting the needs and expectations of patients. The FAMCARE-Patient questionnaire has been used to quantify satisfaction level in outpatients with advanced-stage cancers.

OBJECTIVES

To translate and cross-culturally adapt the FAMCARE-Patient questionnaire for French patients and to evaluate the psychometric properties of this version.

METHODS

The original questionnaire was translated into French and adapted to French cultural context by an expert committee. The French FAMCARE-Patient Version 16 (FFP-16) was then pilot tested among 51 patients. Subsequently, psychometric properties were evaluated in a cross-sectional study by administrating the new tool to 176 adult outpatients with advanced-stage cancer who underwent oncological care at our university hospital.

RESULTS

We performed a confirmatory factor analysis and assessed the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. The one-factor structure was confirmed, and it had an acceptable fit with a comparative fit index and root mean square error of approximation of 0.93 and 0.07, respectively. Internal reliability was high as shown by Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.95). Reproducibility was very good (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.91). The FFP-16 score was independent of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group and the overall Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale distress scores. It was significantly but weakly correlated with anxiety, well-being, and overall quality of life (Spearman's correlation coefficient = -0.18, -0.20, and 0.30, respectively; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

We found the FFP-16 questionnaire to be a reliable and valid instrument for the assessment of satisfaction in French outpatients with advanced-stage cancer.

Frequency, Timing, and Predictors of Palliative Care Consultation in Patients with Advanced Cancer at a Tertiary Cancer Center: Secondary Analysis of Routinely Collected Health Data

INTRODUCTION

Early integration of palliative care (PC) with oncological care is associated with improved outcomes in patients with advanced cancer. Limited information exists on the frequency, timing, and predictors of PC consultation in patients receiving oncological care. The Cross Cancer Institute (CCI) is the sole tertiary cancer center serving the northern half of the Canadian province of Alberta, located in the city of Edmonton. The objectives of this study were to estimate the proportion of patients with advanced cancer at the CCI who received consultation by the CCI PC program and the comprehensive integrated PC program in Edmonton, and to determine the timing and predictors of consultation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this secondary analysis of routinely collected health data, adult patients who died between April 2013 and March 2014, and had advanced disease while under the care of a CCI oncologist, were eligible. Data from the Alberta Cancer Registry, electronic medical records, and Edmonton PC program database were linked.

RESULTS

Of 2,253 eligible patients, 810 (36%) received CCI PC consultation. Median time between consultation and death was 2 months (range, 1.1-5.4). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, age, residence, income, cancer type, and interval from advanced cancer diagnosis to death influenced odds of receiving consultation. Among 1,439 patients residing in Edmonton, 1,121 (78%) were referred to the Edmonton PC program.

CONCLUSION

A minority of patients with advanced cancer received PC consultation at the tertiary cancer center, occurring late in the disease trajectory. Frequency and timing of PC consultation varied significantly, according to multiple factors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Clinical and demographic factors are associated with variations in frequency and timing of palliative care consultation at a cancer center and may, in some cases, reflect barriers to access that warrant attention.

Early specialised palliative care: interventions, symptoms, problems

BACKGROUND

Few studies have investigated the content of interventions provided in early specialised palliative care (SPC).

OBJECTIVES

To characterise the content of interventions delivered in early SPC in the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT), a multicentre trial with six participating sites.

METHODS

A retrospective qualitative and quantitative study coding all new interventions initiated by the palliative teams and documented in the medical records during the 8-week study period of DanPaCT. Interventions were categorised according to (a) symptom/problem prompting the intervention, (b) type of intervention and (c) professional(s) providing the intervention.

RESULTS

In total, 145 patients were randomised to the SPC teams. According to the medical records, patients received a median of 3.5 (range 0-22) new interventions in the 8-week intervention-period from the palliative teams. For 24 (18%) of the patients there was no documented interventions in the medical records. The most frequent symptom/problems treated were pain, (100 interventions; 20% of interventions given) and impaired physical function (62; 13% of interventions given). The most frequent type of intervention was pharmacological (232; 42% of interventions given).

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the first studies to meticulously investigate the content of interventions documented in the medical records for patients receiving early SPC. Diverse symptoms were treated with many different interventions. However, a relatively low number of interventions were documented. This may explain the lack of effect in DanPaCT but also questions whether all interventions were adequately documented TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01348048.

Models of Palliative Care Delivery for Patients With Cancer

Palliative care has evolved over the past five decades as an interprofessional specialty to improve quality of life and quality of care for patients with cancer and their families. Existing evidence supports that timely involvement of specialist palliative care teams can enhance the care delivered by oncology teams. This review provides a state-of-the-science synopsis of the literature that supports each of the five clinical models of specialist palliative care delivery, including outpatient clinics, inpatient consultation teams, acute palliative care units, community-based palliative care, and hospice care. The roles of embedded clinics, nurse-led models, telehealth interventions, and primary palliative care also will be discussed. Outpatient clinics represent the key point of entry for timely access to palliative care. In this setting, patient care can be enhanced longitudinally through impeccable symptom management, monitoring, education, and advance care planning. Inpatient consultation teams provide expert symptom management and facilitate discharge planning for acutely symptomatic hospitalized patients. Patients with the highest level of distress and complexity may benefit from an admission to acute palliative care units. In contrast, community-based palliative care and hospice care are more appropriate for patients with a poor performance status and low to moderate symptom burden. Each of these five models of specialist palliative care serve a different patient population along the disease continuum and complement one another to provide comprehensive supportive care. Additional research is needed to define the standards for palliative care interventions and to refine the models to further improve access to quality palliative care.

Effectiveness of a Self-Monitoring Quality of Life Intervention For Patients with Cancer Receiving Palliative Care: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Background: Use of patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice has important benefits for patients with cancer. To examine the effect of a self-monitoring quality of life (QOL) intervention on global QOL and physical and emotional function in patients with cancer receiving palliative care. Methods: Prospective randomized study had been undertaken at Toshima Hospital, Japan. This study compared an intervention group that completed the shortened Care Notebook booklet versus a control group that received usual care. The primary outcome was global QOL and secondary outcomes were physical and emotional function. Participants completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative at baseline, and at 1 and 3 weeks. The effects of the intervention were evaluated with a linear mixed-effects model. Results: Forty-three patients were randomized. One patient in each group could not receive the allocated intervention, leaving 41 patients for inclusion in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis for the primary outcome. Twenty-seven patients were analyzed for the secondary outcomes using per protocol set (PPS). The ITT analysis showed no significant overall effect on global QOL (P=0.285), but the PPS analysis showed a significant overall effect on global QOL (P=0.034) and physical function (P=0.047) for group difference over time in the linear mixed-effects model. Conclusions: Use of the Care Notebook might have beneficial effects. The results could be interpreted as the effectiveness of the intervention of the Care Notebook for with cancer receiving palliative care.

Exploratory analyses of the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT): a randomized trial of early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus standard care in advanced cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Early and integrated specialized palliative care is often recommended but has still only been investigated in relatively few randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus standard care on the explorative outcomes in the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT).

METHODS

We conducted a randomized multicentre, parallel-group clinical trial. Consecutive patients with metastatic cancer were included if they had symptoms or problems that exceeded a predefined threshold according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Outcomes were estimated as the differences between the intervention and the control groups in the change from baseline to the weighted mean of the 3- and 8-week follow-ups measured as areas under the curve.

RESULTS

In total, 145 patients were randomized to early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus 152 to standard care only. Early specialized palliative care had no significant effect on any of the symptoms or problems. Of the 21 items addressing satisfaction, specialized palliative care improved the item 'overall satisfaction with the help received from the health care system' with 9 points (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 14.2, p = 0.0006) and three other items (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In line with the analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes in DanPaCT, we did not find that specialized palliative care, as provided in DanPaCT, affected symptoms and problems. However, patients in the intervention group seemed more satisfied with the health care received than those in the standard care group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01348048.

Professionals' experiences with palliative care and collaboration in relation to a randomised clinical trial: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

International evidence on the outcome of generalist versus specialist palliative care provision in palliative care trajectories is limited and varied. In general, intervention studies can influence the organisation of palliative care practice and professional collaborations. However, randomised clinical trials in palliative care rarely consider the organisational significance of the studies, as experienced by the professionals involved. DOMUS is the abbreviation for a Danish intervention study designed as a randomised clinical trial, investigating an accelerated transition from oncological to specialist palliative care at home for patients with incurable cancer. Alongside conducting the palliative care intervention study, we wanted to discover the perspectives of the healthcare professionals involved.

AIM

To explore the organisational significance of the DOMUS intervention study as experienced by the professionals involved.

DESIGN

A qualitative interview study, using thematic content analysis and inspired by organisational theory.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-eight professionals from four units involved in the DOMUS intervention study took part in 10 groups and six individual interviews.

RESULTS

The DOMUS randomised clinical trial intervention influenced and sometimes disrupted both the ways of organising, collaborating and practising palliative care, and patients' and relatives' understanding of their own situation. It did this by (1) referring a broader palliative care target group to specialist palliative care, leading to (2) different palliative care needs, professional tasks, and perceived impact on (3) the organisation of palliative care and (4) professional collaboration.

CONCLUSION

Professionals involved in the DOMUS palliative care intervention found that the study had organisational significance, with an influence on professionals, patients and relatives. Specialist palliative care in Denmark is devoted organisationally and professionally to patients with severe or complex palliative care needs. Hence, new ways of organising palliative care for people in the earlier stages of their disease are needed.

Evolution and Conceptual Foundations of Nonhospice Palliative Care

The term nonhospice palliative care was developed to describe and differentiate palliative care that is delivered prior to the end of life. The purpose of this article is to better define and clarify this concept using Rodgers’s evolutionary concept analysis method. Attributes of nonhospice palliative care include (a) patient- and family-centered care, (b) holistic care, (c) interdisciplinary team, (d) early intervention, (e) quality of life-enhancing, (f) advanced care planning, (g) any age of the patient, (h) at any stage in illness, (i) care coordination, (j) concurrent curative treatment options, and (k) provided by primary and specialist providers. Nonhospice palliative care antecedents are serious illness, education, and access to services; consequences include benefits for the patient, family, provider, and health care system. Offering a clearly defined concept may allow for changes in health care to improve access to these services.

[Early palliative care in oncology]

Early palliative care is now recommended in international guidelines. A meta-analyze combining seven randomized studies has been published in 2007. It confirms that early palliative care improves patient's quality of life and reduces symptom burden. There is also a trend for the reduction of depressive disorder and the increase of overall survival. Other studies show that early palliative care improves quality of life of patient's relatives and reduces end of life care aggressiveness. Most of the time, early palliative care is introduced as soon as the diagnosis of advanced cancer is made, and the precise referral criteria need to be addressed. Other studies have assessed the palliative care consultation; patient-centered care, focusing on symptom management, filling information and education needs about illness and prognosis, helping psychologic adaptation and coping.

Palliative Cancer Care in the Outpatient Setting: Which Model Works Best?

OPINION STATEMENT

Multiple randomized controlled trials have underscored the importance of timely referral to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer. Outpatient palliative care can facilitate timely referral and is increasingly available in many cancer centers. The key question is which model of outpatient palliative care is optimal. There are currently many variations for how palliative care is delivered in the outpatient setting, including (1) Interdisciplinary Specialist Palliative Care in Stand-Alone Clinics, (2) Physician-Only Specialist Palliative Care in Stand-Alone Clinics, (3) Nurse-Led Specialist Palliative Care in Stand-Alone Clinics, (4) Nurse-Led Specialist Palliative Care Telephone-Based Interventions, (5) Embedded Specialist Palliative Care with Variable Team Makeup, and (6) Advanced Practice Providers-Based Enhanced Primary Palliative Care. It is important to make a clear distinction among these delivery models of outpatient palliative care because they have different structures, processes, and outcomes, along with unique strengths and limitations. In this review article, we will provide a critical appraisal of the literature on studies investigating these models. At this time, interdisciplinary specialist palliative care in stand-alone clinics remains the gold standard for ambulatory palliative care because this approach has the greatest impact on multiple patient and caregiver outcomes. Although the other models may require fewer resources, they may not be able to provide the same level of comprehensive palliative care as an interdisciplinary team. Further research is needed to evaluate the optimal model of palliative care delivery in different settings.

Integrated outpatient palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND:

Despite increasing emphasis on integration of palliative care with disease-directed care for advanced cancer, the nature of this integration and its effects on patient and caregiver outcomes are not well-understood.

AIM:

We evaluated the effects of integrated outpatient palliative and oncology care for advanced cancer on patient and caregiver outcomes.

DESIGN:

Following a standard protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42017057541), investigators independently screened reports to identify randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies that evaluated the effect of integrated outpatient palliative and oncology care interventions on quality of life, survival, and healthcare utilization among adults with advanced cancer. Data were synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses, supplemented with qualitative methods when necessary.

DATA SOURCES:

English-language peer-reviewed publications in PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central through November 2016. We subsequently updated our PubMed search through July 2018.

RESULTS:

Eight randomized-controlled and two cluster-randomized trials were included. Most patients had multiple advanced cancers, with median time from diagnosis or recurrence to enrollment ranging from 8 to 12 weeks. All interventions included a multidisciplinary team, were classified as “moderately integrated,” and addressed physical and psychological symptoms. In a meta-analysis, short-term quality of life improved, symptom burden improved, and all-cause mortality decreased. Qualitative analyses revealed no association between integration elements, palliative care intervention elements, and intervention impact. Utilization and caregiver outcomes were often not reported.

CONCLUSIONS:

Moderately integrated palliative and oncology outpatient interventions had positive effects on short-term quality of life, symptom burden, and survival. Evidence for effects on healthcare utilization and caregiver outcomes remains sparse.

Systematic fast-track transition from oncological treatment to dyadic specialized palliative home care: DOMUS - a randomized clinical trial

Background:

The focus of specialized palliative care is to improve quality of life for patients with incurable cancer and their relatives including an increased opportunity to make their own choice of place of care and death.

Aim:

To investigate whether a systematic fast-track transition from oncological treatment to specialized palliative care at home for patients with incurable cancer reinforced with a psychological dyadic intervention could result in more time spent at home and death at home. Secondary aims were to investigate effects on quality of life, symptomatology and survival.

Design:

A prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial ( Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT01885637).

Setting/participants:

In all, 340 patients with incurable cancer and no or limited antineoplastic treatment options.

Results:

No statistically significant difference was found regarding number of deaths (4%, p = 0.460) and time spent at home (3%, p = 0.491). The secondary outcomes indicated that the intervention resulted in improved quality of life (−11.6 ± 25.5, p = 0.005, effect size = −0.44, 95% confidence interval = −0.77; −0.11), social functioning (−15.8 ± 31.4, p = 0.001, effect size = −0.50, 95% confidence interval = −0.84; −0.17) and emotional functioning (−9.1 ± 21.2, p = 0.039, effect size = −0.43, 95% confidence interval = −0.76; −0.10) after 6 months. A linear mixed-effect regression model confirmed a possible effect on emotional and social functioning at 6 months. Regarding survival, no differences were found between groups ( p = 0.605). No adverse effects were seen as consequence of the intervention.

Conclusions:

The main findings indicated that the intervention had no effect on time spent at home or place of death. However, the intervention resulted in a weak improvement of quality of life, social functioning and emotional functioning after 6 months.

Effect of home-based specialised palliative care and dyadic psychological intervention on caregiver anxiety and depression: a randomised controlled trial

Background

Specialised palliative care trials often fail to address intervention effects on caregiver anxiety and depression, particularly in bereavement. We evaluate effects of specialised palliative care and dyadic psychological intervention on caregiver anxiety and depression in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Methods

Patients with incurable cancer and limited antineoplastic treatment options and their caregivers, recruited from a university hospital oncology department, were randomised (1:1) to care as usual or accelerated transition from oncological treatment to home-based specialised palliative care. We assessed caregivers’ symptoms of anxiety and depression with the Symptom Checklist-92 up to six months after randomisation and 19 months into bereavement, and estimated intervention effects in mixed effects models.

Results

The ‘Domus’ trial enrolled 258 caregivers. The intervention significantly attenuated increases in caregivers’ symptoms of anxiety overall (estimated difference, −0.12; 95% confidence interval, −0.22 to −0.01, p = 0.0266), and symptoms of depression at eight weeks (−0.17; −0.33 to −0.02; p = 0.0314), six months (−0.27; −0.49 to −0.05; p = 0.0165), and in bereavement at two weeks (−0.28; −0.52 to −0.03; p = 0.0295) and two months (−0.24; −0.48 to −0.01; p = 0.0448).

Conclusions

This first RCT evaluating specialised palliative care with dyadic psychological support significantly attenuated caregiver anxiety and depression before and during bereavement. (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01885637)