Characteristics of the case mix, organisation and delivery in cancer palliative care: a challenge for good-quality research

OBJECTIVES

Palliative care (PC) services and patients differ across countries. Data on PC delivery paired with medical and self-reported data are seldom reported. Aims were to describe (1) PC organisation and services in participating centres and (2) characteristics of patients in PC programmes.

METHODS

This was an international prospective multicentre study with a single web-based survey on PC organisation, services and academics and patients' self-reported symptoms collected at baseline and monthly thereafter, with concurrent registrations of medical data by healthcare providers. Participants were patients ≥18 enrolled in a PC programme.

RESULTS

30 centres in 12 countries participated; 24 hospitals, 4 hospices, 1 nursing home, 1 home-care service. 22 centres (73%) had PC in-house teams and inpatient and outpatient services. 20 centres (67%) had integral chemotherapy/radiotherapy services, and most (28/30) had access to general medical or oncology inpatient units. Physicians or nurses were present 24 hours/7 days in 50% and 60% of centres, respectively. 50 centres (50%) had professorships, and 12 centres (40%) had full-time/part-time research staff. Data were available on 1698 patients: 50% females; median age 66 (range 21-97); median Karnofsky score 70 (10-100); 1409 patients (83%) had metastatic/disseminated disease; tiredness and pain in the past 24 hours were most prominent. During follow-up, 1060 patients (62%) died; 450 (44%) <3 months from inclusion and 701 (68%) within 6 months. ANOVA and χ² tests showed that hospice/nursing home patients were significantly older, had poorer performance status and had shorter survival compared with hospital-patients (p<.0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a wide variation in PC services and patients across Europe. Detailed characterisation is the first step in improving PC services and research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01362816.

Diagnosis and management of breakthrough cancer pain: Have all the questions been resolved? A Delphi-based consensus assessment (DOIRON)

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain the level of agreement and achieve a consensus among cancer pain specialists in Spain with regard to the optimal definition, diagnosis, and management of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP).

DESIGN

Two-round Delphi methodology survey (February-May 2013) using seven-point Likert scales (ranging from 1 "strongly disagree" to 7 "strongly agree") was carried out. Mean scores >5 or <3 indicated, respectively, agreement or disagreement. Scores from 3 to 5 indicated no consensus.

RESULTS

A total of 126 experienced specialists were surveyed. Response rates were 68 % in round 1 and 90 % in round 2. Agreement (mean Likert score) was strongest for the proposed BTcP definition (6.6), the use of oral (6.1), and intranasal (6.0) transmucosal fentanyl, the need for early assessment after BTcP treatment initiation, and the need to improve staff knowledge of BTcP. Broad agreement was also reached regarding the need to systematically screen all cancer patients for BTcP (5.9). Most respondents (82 %) considered strong opioids to be appropriate treatment. In contrast, no consensus was reached regarding strong opioid treatment for baseline pain as a prerequisite for BTcP diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus was strong for most treatment, and diagnostic aspects were evaluated in the study. However, several important issues remain unresolved, particularly whether the diagnostic criteria must include strong opioids for background pain. Nurses' awareness and understanding of BTcP was considered insufficient, and more training is needed in this area. Overall, agreement among specialists was good, but more work is needed to better define the optimal diagnostic features and treatments for this condition.