Introduction: It has been suggested that palliative care integrated into standard cancer treatment from the early phase of the disease can improve the quality of life of patients with cancer. In this paper, we present the protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial to examine the effectiveness of a nurse-led, screening-triggered, early specialised palliative care intervention programme for patients with advanced lung cancer.
Methods and analysis: A total of 206 patients will be randomised (1:1) to the intervention group or the control group (usual care). The intervention, triggered with a brief self-administered screening tool, comprises comprehensive need assessments, counselling and service coordination by advanced-level nurses. The primary outcome is the Trial Outcome Index of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) at 12 weeks. The secondary outcomes include participants’ quality of life (FACT-Lung), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), illness perception (Prognosis and Treatment Perceptions Questionnaire), medical service use and survival. A mixed-method approach is expected to provide an insight about how this intervention works.
Ethics and dissemination: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the National Cancer Center Japan (approval number: 2016-235). The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations and will be reflected on to the national healthcare policy.
Trial registration number UMIN000025491.
Background: The prognosis of patients with incurable head and neck cancer (HNC) is a relevant topic. The mean survival of these patients is 5 months but may vary from weeks to more than 3 years. Discussing the prognosis early in the disease trajectory enables patients to make well-considered end-of-life choices, and contributes to a better quality of life and death. However, physicians often are reluctant to discuss prognosis, partly because of the concern to be inaccurate. This study investigated the accuracy of physicians’ clinical prediction of survival of palliative HNC patients.
Methods: This study was part of a prospective cohort study in a tertiary cancer center. Patients with incurable HNC diagnosed between 2008 and 2011 (n = 191), and their treating physician were included. Analyses were conducted between July 2018 and February 2019. Patients’ survival was clinically predicted by their physician =3 weeks after disclosure of the palliative diagnosis. The clinical prediction of survival in weeks (CPS) was based on physicians’ clinical assessment of the patient during the outpatient visits. More than 25% difference between the actual survival (AS) and the CPS was regarded as a prediction error. In addition, when the difference between the AS and CPS was 2 weeks or less, this was always considered as correct.
Results: In 59% (n = 112) of cases survival was overestimated. These patients lived shorter than predicted by their physician (median AS 6 weeks, median CPS 20 weeks). In 18% (n = 35) of the cases survival was correctly predicted. The remaining 23% was underestimated (median AS 35 weeks, median CPS 20 weeks). Besides the differences in AS and CPS, no other significant differences were found between the three groups. There was worse accuracy when predicting survival closer to death: out of the 66 patients who survived 6 weeks or shorter, survival was correctly predicted in only eight (12%).
Conclusion: Physicians tend to overestimate the survival of palliative HNC patients. This optimism can result in suboptimal use of palliative and end-of-life care. The future development of a prognostic model that provides more accurate estimates, could help physicians with personalized prognostic counseling.
Background: This study was to investigate the prognostic factors of patients with advanced gastric cancer and described a sample model to better differentiate the patients who could better benefit from palliative chemotherapy.
Patients and methods: In this retrospective study, 112 gastric cancer patients at stage IV following first-line chemotherapy were enrolled from July 2013 to September 2019. The clinical factors including age, sex, ECOG, pathologic types, metastatic sites, blood indexes, response of first-line chemotherapy, and survival were collected. The treatment responses were evaluated using the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST). The survival curves were drawn by the Kaplan-Meier method, and the independent prognostic factors of overall survival (OS) were analyzed by Cox proportional hazards regression model.
Results: In this study, the median overall survival (mOS) of gastric cancer patients was 10.5 months, the disease remission rate (PR) was 21.4%, and the disease control rate (DCR) was 86.6%. Multivariate analysis identified 5 independent prognostic factors: peritoneal metastasis [P = 0.002; hazard risk (HR), 2.394; 95% CI 1.394-4.113], hemoglobin <90g/L [P = 0.001; hazard risk (HR), 2.674; 95% CI 1.536-4.655], LDH =225 U/L [P = 0.033; hazard risk (HR), 1.818; 95% CI 1.409-3.150], and 3 times higher level of CEA [P = 0.006; hazard risk (HR), 2.123; 95% CI 1.238-3.640] along with CA199 [P = 0.005; hazard risk (HR), 2.544; 95% CI 1.332-4.856] than upper limit of normal. Based on the obtained data, a prognostic index was constructed, dividing the patients into three risk groups: low (n = 67), intermediate (n = 35), and high-risk group (n = 10). The mOS for low, intermediate, and high-risk groups was 13.9 months (95% CI 10.7-17.1), 8.1 months (95% CI 5.7-10.4), and 3.9 months (95% CI 2.6-5.3), respectively, whereas the 1-year survival rate was 56.4%, 20.0%, and 0.0%, respectively (P < 0.001).
Conclusion: This model should facilitate the prediction of treatment outcomes and then individualized treatment of advanced gastric cancer patients.
PURPOSE: ASCO recommends early integration of palliative care in treating patients diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer. Our study sought to examine utilization of timely specialty palliative care (SPC) and its association with survival and cost outcomes in patients diagnosed with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
METHODS: The 2001-2015 SEER-Medicare data were used to determine the baseline characteristics and outcomes of 79,253 patients with metastatic NSCLC. The predictors of early SPC use were examined using logistic regression. Mean and adjusted total and SPC-related costs were calculated using generalized linear regression. We used Cox regression model to determine the survival outcomes by SPC service settings. All statistical tests were two sided.
RESULTS: The time from cancer diagnosis to the first SPC use has reduced significantly, from 13.7 weeks in 2001 to 8.3 weeks in 2015 (P < .001). SPC use was associated with lower health care costs compared with those who had no SPC, from -$3,180 in 2011 (P < .001) to -$1,285 in 2015 (P = .059). Outpatient SPC use was associated with improved survival compared with patients who received SPC in other settings (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88; P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Patients diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC now have more timely SPC service utilization, which was demonstrated to be a cost-saving treatment. Strategies to improve outpatient palliative care use might be associated with longer survival in patients with metastatic NSCLC.
BACKGROUND: Long-term survival and functional outcomes should influence admission decisions to intensive care, especially for patients with advanced disease.
AIM: To determine whether physicians' predictions of long-term prognosis influenced admission decisions for patients with and without advanced disease.
DESIGN: A prospective study was conducted. Physicians estimated patient survival with intensive care and with care on the ward, and the probability of 4 long-term outcomes: leaving hospital alive, survival at 6 months, recovery of functional status, and recovery of cognitive status. Patient mortality at 28 days was recorded. We built multivariate logistic regression models using admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) as the dependent variable.
SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: ICU consultations for medical inpatients at a Swiss tertiary care hospital were included.
RESULTS: Of 201 evaluated patients, 105 (52.2%) had an advanced disease and 140 (69.7%) were admitted to the ICU. The probability of admission was strongly associated with the expected short-term survival benefit for patients with or without advanced disease. In contrast, the predicted likelihood that the patient would leave the hospital alive, would be alive 6 months later, would recover functional status, and would recover initial cognitive capacity was not associated with the decision to admit a patient to the ICU. Even for patients with advanced disease, none of these estimated outcomes influenced the admission decision.
CONCLUSIONS: ICU admissions of patients with advanced disease were determined by short-term survival benefit, and not by long-term prognosis. Advance care planning and developing decision-aid tools for triage could help limit potentially inappropriate admissions to intensive care.
CONTEXT: Previous studies suggest that clinicians' prediction of survival (CPS) may have reduce the accuracy of objective indicators for prognostication in palliative care.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine the accuracy of CPS alone, compared to the original Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP), and five clinical/laboratory variables of the PaP in far advanced cancer patients.
METHODS: We compared the discriminative accuracy of three prediction models [the PaP-CPS (the score of the categorical CPS of PaP), PaP without CPS (sum of the scores of only the objective variables of PaP), and PaP total score] across 3 SETTINGS: inpatient palliative care consultation team, palliative care unit, and home palliative care. We computed the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for 30-day survival and concordance index (C-index) to compare the discriminative accuracy of these three models.
RESULTS: We included a total of 1,534 subjects with median survival of 34.0 days. The AUROC and C-index in the three settings were 0.816-0.896 and 0.732-0.799 for the PaP total score, 0.808-0.884 and 0.713-0.782 for the PaP-CPS, and 0.726-0.815 and 0.672-0.728 for the PaP without CPS, respectively. The PaP total score and PaP-CPS showed similar AUROCs and C-indices across the three settings. The PaP total score had significantly higher AUROCs and C-indices than the PaP without CPS across the three settings.
CONCLUSION: Overall, the PaP total score, PaP-CPS, and PaP without CPS showed good discriminative performances. However, the PaP total score and PaP-CPS were significantly more accurate than the PaP without CPS.
Purpose: To assess the accuracy of hospice staff in predicting survival of subjects admitted to hospice, exploring the factors considered most helpful by the hospice staff to accurately predict survival.
Methods: Five physicians and 11 nurses were asked to predict survival at admission of 827 patients. Actual and predicted survival times were divided into = 1 week, 2–3 weeks, 4–8 weeks, and = 2 months and the accuracy of the estimates was calculated. The staff members were each asked to score 17 clinical variables that guided them in predicting survival and we analyzed how these variables impacted the accuracy.
Results: Physicians’ and nurses’ accuracy of survival of the patients was 46% and 40% respectively. Survival was underestimated in 20% and 12% and overestimated in 34% and 48% of subjects. Both physicians and nurses considered metastases, comorbidities, dyspnea, disability, tumor site, neurological symptoms, and confusion very important in predicting patients’ survival with nurses assigning more importance to intestinal symptoms and pain too. All these factors, with the addition of cough and/or bronchial secretions, were associated with physicians’ greater accuracy. In the multivariable models, intestinal symptoms and confusion continued to be associated with greater predictive accuracy. No factors appreciably raised nurses’ accuracy.
Conclusions: Some clinical symptoms rated as relevant by the hospice staff could be important for predicting survival. However, only intestinal symptoms and confusion significantly improved the accuracy of physicians’ predictions, despite the high prevalence of overestimated survival.
Objectives: The choice of drug treatment in advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) continues to be a challenge regarding efficacy, quality of life (QoL) and toxicity. Unlike other cancer types, where integrating patient-reported outcomes (PRO) has proven to be beneficial for QoL, there is no such evidence in patients with STS as of now. The YonLife trial aimed to explore the effect of a tailored multistep intervention on QoL, symptoms and survival in patients with advanced STS undergoing treatment with trabectedin as well as identifying predictors of QoL.
Design: YonLife is a cluster-randomised, open-label, proof-of-concept study. The intervention incorporates electronic PRO assessment, a case vignette and expert-consented treatment recommendations.
Participants: Six hospitals were randomised to the control arm (CA) or interventional arm (IA). Seventy-nine patients were included of whom 40 were analysed as per-protocol analysis set.
Primary and secondary outcome measures: The primary end point was the change of Functional Assessment for Cancer Therapy (FACT-G) total score after 9 weeks. Secondary outcomes included QoL (FACT-G subscales), anorexia and cachexia (Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy (FAACT)), symptoms (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI)), anxiety and depression (HADS), pain intensity and interference (Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)) and survival assessment.
Results: After 9 weeks of treatment, QoL declined less in the IA ( FACT-G total score: -2.4, 95% CI: -9.2 to 4.5) as compared with CA ( FACT-G total score: -3.9; 95% CI:-11.3 to 3.5; p=0.765). In almost all FACT-G subscales, average declines were lower in IA, but without reaching statistical significance. Smaller adverse trends between arms were observed for MDASI, FAACT, HADS and BPI scales. These trends failed to reach statistical significance. Overall mean survival was longer in IA (648 days) than in CA (389 days, p=0.110). QoL was predicted by symptom severity, symptom interference, depression and anxiety.
Conclusion: Our data suggest a potentially favourable effect of an electronic patient-reported outcomes based intervention on QoL that needs to be reappraised in confirmatory studies.
For patients with recurrent ovarian cancer, the goals of chemotherapy include palliation of disease-related symptoms with minimum treatment-related side effects. However, there is currently a paucity of data regarding the initiation of palliative chemotherapy. This study aimed to compare the differences in survival rates and toxicities between patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who started palliative chemotherapy immediately versus those who received delayed chemotherapy. Through a retrospective chart review, patients who received more than three lines of chemotherapy were included. Based on the timing of third-line chemotherapy initiation, the patients were divided into two groups: delayed (DTG) and immediate (ITG) treatment groups. The chi-square test or Fisher's exact tests, and t-test or Mann-Whitney U test were used for comparing variables, as appropriate. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis. P-value of <0.05 was considered significant. Although there was no statistically significant difference, the total number of regimens and cycles was lower in the DTG than in the ITG. No differences in toxicities and survival rates were observed between the two groups. Overall, survival and toxicity did not differ significantly between the two groups. In a palliative care setting, our findings suggest that delaying the treatment had no adverse effect on survival. Despite the lack of evidence of a survival benefit with aggressive treatment, patients chose to continue chemotherapy. Because recurrent ovarian cancer is a complex condition, patients require sufficient explanation and time to fully understand the costs and benefits related to aggressive chemotherapy.
Background: The association between the survival or efficacy of chemotherapy and the Lauren subtype of gastric cancer (GC) remains unclear. We aimed to clarify whether patients with different Lauren subtypes have different survival after treatment with systemic chemotherapy: intestinal gastric cancer (IGC) patients survived better than patients with mixed type gastric cancer (MGC) or diffuse gastric cancer (DGC) after treatment with systemic chemotherapy.
Patients & methods: Relevant studies for the meta-analysis were identified through searching Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and Ovid up to March 2020. We also included our own prospectively collected cohort of patients that were followed over a 10-year period. Sub-group and sensitivity analyses were also performed.
Results: In our prospective cohort, the overall survival (OS) of IGC patients receiving systemic chemotherapy (chemoIGC) [median OS 5.01 years, interquartile range (IQR) 2.63–6.71] was significantly higher than that of DGC patients receiving the same chemotherapy (chemoDGC) (median OS 1.33 years, IQR 0.78–3.33, p = 0.0001). After adjusting for age, gender and cancer stage, there was a significant difference in OS in patients treated with chemotherapy based on the Lauren classification of GC {hazard ratio (HR) for OS of the IGC versus DGC 0.33, [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.17–0.65; p < 0.001]}. In the IGC patients, the adjusted HR associated with chemotherapy was 0.26 (95% CI, 0.12–0.56; p = 0.001), whereas the association was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.30–1.33; p = 0.23) in the DGC patient group.
In our meta-analysis, 33 studies comprising 10,246 patients treated with systemic chemotherapy (chemoIGC n = 4888, chemoDGC n = 5358) met all the selection criteria. While we accounted for much of the heterogeneity in these studies, we found that chemoIGC patients showed significantly improved OS [HR, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71–0.82); p < 0.00001] when compared with similarly treated chemoDGC patients.
Conclusion: Our results support the consideration of Lauren subtype when prescribing systemic chemotherapy for GC, particularly for MGC or DGC, which may not benefit from chemotherapy. Lauren classification should be considered to stratify chemotherapy regimens to GC patients in future clinical trials, with particular relevance to MGC or DGC, which is more difficult to treat with current regimens.
BACKGROUND: Nursing homes are highly vulnerable to the occurrence of COVID-19 outbreaks, which result in high lethality rates. Most of them are not prepared to SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
METHODS: A coordinated on-site medicalization program (MP) in response to a sizeable COVID-19 outbreak in four nursing homes was organized, with the objectives of improving survival, offering humanistic palliative care to residents in their natural environment, and reducing hospital referrals. Ten key processes and interventions were established (provision of informatics infrastructure, medical equipment, and human resources, universal testing, separation of 'clean' and 'contaminated' areas, epidemiological surveys, and unified protocols stratifying for active or palliative care approach, among others). Main outcomes were a composite endpoint of survival or optimal palliative care (SOPC), survival, and referral to hospital.
RESULTS: 272 out of 457 (59.5%) residents and 85 out of 320 (26.5%) staff members were affected. The SOPC, survival, and referrals to hospital, occurred in 77%, 72.5%, and 29% of patients diagnosed before MP start, with respect to 97%, 83.7% and 17% of those diagnosed during the program, respectively. The SOPC was independently associated to MP (OR=15 [3-81]); and survival in patients stratified to active approach, to the use of any antiviral treatment (OR=28 [5-160]). All outbreaks were controlled in 39 [37-42] days.
CONCLUSIONS: A coordinated on-site medicalization program of nursing homes with COVID-19 outbreaks achieved a higher survival or optimal palliative care rate, and a reduction in referrals to hospital, thus ensuring rigorous but also humanistic and gentle care to residents.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders in the first 24 hours after intracerebral hemorrhage have been associated with an increased risk of early death. This relationship is less certain for ischemic stroke. We assessed the relation between treatment restrictions and mortality in patients with ischemic stroke and in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. We focused on the timing of treatment restrictions after admission and the type of treatment restriction (DNR order versus more restrictive care).
METHODS: We retrospectively assessed demographic and clinical data, timing and type of treatment restrictions, and vital status at 3 months for 622 consecutive stroke patients primarily admitted to a Dutch university hospital. We used a Cox regression model, with adjustment for age, sex, comorbidities, and stroke type and severity.
RESULTS: Treatment restrictions were installed in 226 (36%) patients, more frequently after intracerebral hemorrhage (51%) than after ischemic stroke (32%). In 187 patients (83%), these were installed in the first 24 hours. Treatment restrictions installed within the first 24 hours after hospital admission and those installed later were independently associated with death at 90 days (adjusted hazard ratios, 5.41 [95% CI, 3.17-9.22] and 5.36 [95% CI, 2.20-13.05], respectively). Statistically significant associations were also found in patients with ischemic stroke and in patients with just an early DNR order. In those who died, the median time between a DNR order and death was 520 hours (interquartile range, 53-737).
CONCLUSIONS: The strong relation between treatment restrictions (including DNR orders) and death and the long median time between a DNR order and death suggest that this relation may, in part, be causal, possibly due to an overall lack of aggressive care.
BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced disease often overestimate their life expectancy, which potentially impacts decision making.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the nature and source of hospice patients' life expectancy estimates, about which little is known.
DESIGN: Using semi-structured interviews, patients were asked to estimate their life expectancy and elaborate on their response.
SETTING/SUBJECTS: Participants were hospice patients (n = 20, 55% male; 60% cancer).
MEASUREMENT: We conducted thematic analysis using open and focused coding.
RESULTS: Many participants had difficulty answering the life expectancy question and expressed uncertainty about when they would die. One-third overestimated their length of life relative to actual survival. The most common source of patients' prognostic beliefs was knowledge about their body, including physical symptoms and change over time. Half of patients reported that a provider had given them a prognostic estimate, and one-third agreed with, or gave estimates consistent with, the provider's estimate. Some patients said providers do not know prognosis or that time of death was unknowable.
CONCLUSIONS: Key findings were that 1) many hospice patients had difficulty estimating life expectancy, and 2) hospice patients' life expectancy estimates were frequently based on their body and not on information from medical providers. These findings have implications for measuring prognostic awareness, as valid assessment is a necessary component of determining whether prognostic awareness is beneficial for patients. Future research should examine how life expectancy estimates are associated with well-being and whether results extend to larger samples of patients with advanced disease not in hospice.
CONTEXT: Many advanced cancer patients have unrealistic prognostic expectations.
OBJECTIVES: We tested whether offering life expectancy (LE) statistics within palliative chemotherapy (PC) education promotes realistic expectations.
METHODS: In this multicenter trial, patients with advanced colorectal and pancreatic cancers initiating first or second line PC were randomized to usual care versus a PC educational tool with optional LE information. Surveys at 2 weeks and 3 months assessed patients' review of the LE module and their reactions; at 3 months, patients estimated their LE and reported occurrence of prognosis and end-of-life (EOL) discussions. Wilcoxon tests and proportional odds models evaluated between-arm differences in LE self-estimates, and how realistic those estimates were (based on cancer type and line of treatment).
RESULTS: From 2015-2017, 92 patients were randomized to the intervention and 94 to usual care. At baseline most patients (80.9%) wanted "a lot" or "as much information as possible" about the impact of chemotherapy on LE. Among patients randomized to the intervention, 52.0% reviewed the LE module by 2 weeks and 66.7% by 3 months - of whom 88.2% reported the information was important, 31.4% reported it was upsetting, and 3.9% regretted reviewing it. Overall, patients' LE self-estimates were very optimistic; 71.4% of colorectal cancer patients estimated >5yrs; 50% pancreatic patients estimated >2yrs. The intervention had no effect on the length or realism of patients' LE self-estimates, or on the occurrence of prognostic or EOL discussions.
CONCLUSIONS: Offering LE information within a PC educational intervention had no effect on patients' prognostic expectations.
OBJECTIVE: The evidence base for home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in patients with advanced cancer is lacking. To compare the survival of malnourished patients with cancer undergoing palliative care who received HPN with a homogeneous group of patients, equally eligible for HPN, who did not receive HPN.
DESIGN: Prospective, cohort study; tertiary university hospital, home care, hospice.
METHODS: Patients were assessed for HPN eligibility according to the guidelines. In the eligible population, who received both HPN and chemotherapy was excluded, while who received only HPN was included in the HPN+ group and who received neither HPN nor chemotherapy but artificial hydration (AH) was included in the HPN- group.
RESULTS: 301 patients were assessed for HPN eligibility and 86 patients (28.6%) were excluded for having severe organ dysfunction or Karnofsky performance status <50. In outcome analysis, 90 patients (29.9%) were excluded for receiving both HPN and chemotherapy, while 125 (41.5%) were included, 89 in HPN+ group (29.5%) and 36 in HPN- group (12%). The survival of the two groups showed a significant difference favouring patients receiving HPN (median overall survival: 4.3 vs 1.5 months, p<0.001). The multivariate analysis of the risk factors for mortality showed that not receiving HPN accounted for the strongest one (HR 25.72, 95% CI 13·65 to 48.44).
CONCLUSIONS: Comparative survival associated with the use of HPN versus AH showed significantly longer survival in malnourished patients with advanced cancer receiving HPN. These data support the guideline recommendation that HPN should be considered when malnutrition represents the overriding threat for the survival of these patients.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of a systematic, fast-track transition from oncological treatment to specialised palliative care at home on symptom burden, to explore intervention mechanisms through patient and intervention provider characteristics and to assess long-term survival and place of death.
MEASURES: The effect of a systematic, fast-track transition from oncological treatment to specialised palliative care at home on patient symptom burden was studied in the Domus randomised clinical trial. Participants had incurable cancer and limited treatment options. The intervention was provided by specialised palliative home teams (SPT) based in hospice or hospital and was enriched with a psychological intervention for patient and caregiver dyad. Symptom burden was measured with Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) at baseline, 8 weeks and 6 months follow-up and analysed with mixed models. Survival and place of death was analysed with Kaplan-Meier and Fisher's exact tests.
RESULTS: The study included 322 patients. Tiredness was significantly improved for the Domus intervention group at 6 months while the other nine symptom outcomes were not significantly different from the control group. Exploring the efficacy of intervention provider demonstrated significant differences in favour of the hospice SPT on four symptoms and total symptom score. Patients with children responded more favourably to the intervention. The long-term follow-up demonstrated no differences between the intervention and the control groups regarding survival or home deaths.
CONCLUSIONS: The Domus intervention may reduce tiredness. Moreover, the intervention provider and having children might play a role concerning intervention efficacy. The intervention did not affect survival or home deaths.
Background: The association between palliative care and life-sustaining treatment following emergency department (ED) resuscitation is unclear. This study aims to analyze the usage of palliative care and life-sustaining treatments among ED triage level I resuscitation patients based on a nationally representative sample of patients in Taiwan.
Methods: A matched-pair retrospective cohort study was conducted to examine the association between palliative care and outcome variables using multivariate logistic regression and Kaplan–Meier survival analyses. Between 2009 and 2013, 336 ED triage level I resuscitation patients received palliative care services (palliative care group) under a universal health insurance scheme. Retrospective cohort matching was performed with those who received standard care at a ratio of 1:4 (usual care group). Outcome variables included the number of visits to emergency and outpatient departments, hospitalization duration, total medical expenses, utilization of life-sustaining treatments, and duration of survival following ED triage level I resuscitation.
Results: The mean survival duration following level I resuscitation was less than 1 year. Palliative care was administered to 15% of the resuscitation cohort. The palliative care group received significantly less life-sustaining treatment than did the usual care group.
Conclusion: Among patients who underwent level I resuscitation, palliative care was inversely correlated with the scope of life-sustaining treatments. Furthermore, triage level I resuscitation status may present a possible new field for starting palliative care intervention and reducing low-value care.
Background: the TEACHH and Chow models were developed to predict life expectancy (LE) in patients evaluated for palliative radiotherapy (PRT). We sought to validate the TEACHH and Chow models in patients who died within 90 days of PRT consultation.
Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on patients evaluated for PRT from 2017 to 2019 who died within 90 days of consultation. Data were collected for the TEACHH and Chow models; one point was assigned for each adverse factor. TEACHH model included: primary site of disease, ECOG performance status, age, prior palliative chemotherapy courses, hospitalization within the last 3 months, and presence of hepatic metastases; patients with 0-1, 2-4, and 5-6 adverse factors were categorized into groups (A, B, and C). The Chow model included non-breast primary, site of metastases other than bone only, and KPS; patients with 0-1, 2, or 3 adverse factors were categorized into groups (I, II, and III).
Results: A total of 505 patients with a median overall survival of 2.1 months (IQR: 0.7-2.6) were identified. Based on the TEACHH model, 10 (2.0%), 387 (76.6%), and 108 (21.4%) patients were predicted to live >1 year, >3 months to =1 year, and =3 months, respectively. Utilizing the Chow model, 108 (21.4%), 250 (49.5%), and 147 (29.1%) patients were expected to live 15.0, 6.5, and 2.3 months, respectively.
Conclusion: Neither the TEACHH nor Chow model correctly predict prognosis in a patient population with a survival <3 months. A better predictive tool is required to identify patients with short LE.
The use of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in patients with incurable cancer remains controversial with significant variation worldwide. We aimed to systematically evaluate the literature from 1960 to 2018 examining the use of HPN in advanced cancer patients for all intestinal failure indications and assess the potential benefits/burdens of HPN in this cohort of patients. The primary end point was survival and secondary end points were quality of life and nutritional/performance status. Meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model, where suitable. Of 493 studies retrieved, 22 met the quality inclusion criteria. Studies were mainly conducted in Western countries (Italy, USA, Canada, Germany), including a total of 3564 patients (mean age 57.8 years). Mean duration for HPN was 5.0 mo. Mean overall survival was 7.3 mo. Patients with improved performance status survived for longer on HPN. Quality of life was sparsely reported though there was no observed negative impact of PN. HPN-related complications were reported in eight studies only and were mainly catheter-related blood stream infections. In conclusion, HPN is used for several indications in advanced cancer, though there is significant heterogeneity of results. Disparities in geographical distribution of the studies may reflect variation in accessing HPN.
Background: Oesophageal and gastric cancer are highly lethal malignancies with a 5-year survival rate of 15–29%. More knowledge is needed about the quality of end-of-life care in order to understand the burden of the illness and the ability of the current health care system to deliver timely and appropriate end-of-life care. The aim of this study was to describe the impact of initial treatment strategy and survival time on the quality of end-of-life care among patients with oesophageal and gastric cancer.
Methods: This register-based cohort study included patients who died from oesophageal and gastric cancer in Sweden during 2014–2016. Through linking data from the National Register for Esophageal and Gastric Cancer, the National Cause of Death Register, and the Swedish Register of Palliative Care, 2156 individuals were included. Associations between initial treatment strategy and survival time and end-of-life care quality indicators were investigated. Adjusted risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using modified Poisson regression.
Results : Patients with a survival of =3 months and 4–7 months had higher RRs for hospital death compared to patients with a survival =17 months. Patients with a survival of =3 months also had a lower RR for end-of-life information and bereavement support compared to patients with a survival =17 months, while the risks of pain assessment and oral assessment were not associated with survival time. Compared to patients with curative treatment, patients with no tumour-directed treatment had a lower RR for pain assessment. No significant differences were shown between the treatment groups regarding hospital death, end-of-life information, oral health assessment, and bereavement support.
Conclusions : Short survival time is associated with several indicators of low quality end-of-life care among patients with oesophageal and gastric cancer, suggesting that a proactive palliative care approach is imperative to ensure quality end-of-life care.