Search

Young adults (YAs), defined as individuals between the ages of 18 and 39 years, experience unique challenges when diagnosed with advanced cancer. Using the social constructivist grounded theory approach, we aimed to develop a theoretical understanding of how YAs live day to day with their diagnosis. A sample of 25 YAs (aged 22–39 years) with advanced cancer from across Canada participated in semi-structured interviews. Findings illustrate that the YAs described day-to-day life as an oscillating experience swinging between two opposing disease outcomes: (1) hoping for a cure and (2) facing the possibility of premature death. Oscillating between these potential outcomes was characterized as living in a liminal space wherein participants were unsure how to live from one day to the next. The participants oscillated at various rates, with different factors influencing the rate of oscillation, including inconsistent and poor messaging from their oncologists or treatment team, progression or regression of their cancer, and changes in their physical functioning and mental health. These findings provide a theoretical framework for designing interventions to help YAs adapt to their circumstance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Family physicians' (FPs) long‐term relationships with their oncology patients position them ideally to provide primary palliative care, yet their involvement is variable. We examined perceptions of FP involvement among outpatients receiving palliative care at a cancer center and identified factors associated with this involvement. Methods: Patients with advanced cancer attending an oncology palliative care clinic (OPCC) completed a 25‐item survey. Eligible patients had seen an FP within 5 years. Binary multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with (1) having seen an FP for palliative care within 6 months, and (2) having a scheduled/planned FP appointment. Results: Of 258 patients, 35.2% (89/253) had seen an FP for palliative care within the preceding 6 months, and 51.2% (130/254) had a scheduled/planned FP appointment. Shorter travel time to FP (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.48–0.93, p = 0.02), the FP having a 24‐h support service (OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.02–3.76, p = 0.04), and a positive perception of FP's care (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01–1.09, p = 0.01) were associated with having seen the FP for palliative care. English as a first language (OR = 2.90, 95% CI = 1.04–8.11, p = 0.04) and greater ease contacting FP after hours (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.08–1.64, p = 0.008) were positively associated, and female sex of patient (OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.30–0.87, p = 0.01) and travel time to FP (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.47–0.93, p = 0.02) negatively associated with having a scheduled/planned FP appointment. Number of OPCC visits was not associated with either outcome. Conclusion: Most patients had not seen an FP for palliative care. Accessibility, availability, and equity are important factors to consider when planning interventions to encourage and facilitate access to FPs for palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Ketamine has demonstrated rapid antidepressant effects, but has been minimally studied in cancer populations. We conducted an open-label trial evaluating ketamine for depression in patients with advanced cancer. Participants received three flexible doses of intranasal (IN) ketamine (50–150 mg) over a one-week period. Twenty participants were enrolled in the trial, receiving at least one dose of IN ketamine. We observed rapid, robust and partially sustained antidepressant effects with flexibly dosed IN ketamine with adequate safety and tolerability in individuals with moderate to severe depression comorbid with advanced cancer. Given these promising findings, larger, controlled trials are merited. Antidepressants require several weeks for the onset of action, a lag time that may exceed life expectancy in palliative care. Ketamine has demonstrated rapid antidepressant effects, but has been minimally studied in cancer and palliative care populations. Herein, the objective was to determine the feasibility, safety, tolerability and preliminary efficacy of intranasal racemic ketamine for major depressive disorder (MDD) in patients with advanced cancer. We conducted a single-arm, open-label phase II trial at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, ON, Canada. Participants with advanced cancer with moderate to severe MDD received three flexible doses of intranasal (IN) ketamine (50–150 mg) over a one-week period. The primary efficacy outcome was an antidepressant response and remission rates as determined by the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) from baseline to the Day 8 primary endpoint. Twenty participants were enrolled in the trial, receiving at least one dose of IN ketamine, with fifteen participants receiving all three doses. The Day 8 antidepressant response (MADRS decreased by >50%) and remission (MADRS < 10 on Day 8) rates were high at 70% and 45%, respectively. Mean MADRS scores decreased significantly from baseline (mean MADRS of 31, standard deviation 7.6) to Day 8 (11 +/− 7.4) with an overall decrease of 20 points (p < 0.001). Antidepressant effects were partially sustained in the second week in the absence of additional ketamine doses, with a Day 14 mean MADRS score of 14 +/− 9.9. Common adverse effects included fatigue, dissociation, nausea, dysgeusia and headaches; almost all adverse effects were mild and transient, resolving within 2 h of each ketamine dose with one dropout related to adverse effects (negative dissociative episode). Given these promising findings, larger, controlled trials are merited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early palliative care (EPC) improves the quality of life but may not be feasible for all patients with advanced cancer. Symptom screening has been suggested to triage patients for EPC, but scant evidence exists for this practice. Methods: We conducted a subgroup analysis of a cluster‐randomized controlled trial of EPC vs. standard oncology care according to patients' baseline symptom scores (high [>23] vs. low [≤23] Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Distress Score [ESAS SDS]). A linear mixed‐effects model was used to account for correlation within clusters, adjusting for the baseline outcome score and all covariates in the original trial. Results: Among the 461 participants, baseline symptom scores were high in 229 patients (127 intervention, 102 control) and low in 232 (101 intervention and 131 control). Among those with high baseline symptoms, there was improved quality of life in the EPC arm compared to controls at 4 months (adjusted difference in primary outcome of FACIT‐Sp change score [95% CI], 8.7 [2.8 to 14.5], p = 0.01; adjusted difference in QUAL‐E, 4.2 [0.9–7.5], p = 0.02); there was also improved satisfaction with care (6.9 [3.8–9.9], p = 0.001) and clinician‐patient interactions (−1.7 [−3.4 to −0.1], p = 0.04), but no significant difference in ESAS SDS (−5.6 [−12.7 to 1.4], p = 0.11). In the low baseline symptom group, there were no significant differences between arms for any outcomes. Conclusion: EPC improved quality of life, satisfaction with care, and clinician‐patient interactions only in those with high baseline symptoms. Symptom severity may be an appropriate criterion to trigger early referrals to palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. Referrals to palliative care tend to occur later in the course of the disease. This article reports on changes in referral practices, considering recent evidence demonstrating the benefits of early palliative care referrals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Assessing quality of life is essential for individuals with advanced cancer, but lengthy assessments can be burdensome. The authors investigated the psychometric characteristics of the FACT-G7, a 7-item quality-of-life measure derived from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale, in advanced cancer.Methods: Data were obtained from outpatients with advanced cancer who were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of early palliative care. At baseline, 228 intervention participants and 233 control participants (N = 461) completed the FACT-G and measures of symptom severity, quality of life near the end of life, problematic medical communication, and satisfaction with care. Follow-up measures were administered monthly for 4 months.Results: The FACT-G7 showed good internal consistency (Cronbach α = .72-.80), and its single-factor structure was supported. It correlated strongly with the FACT-G total, physical, and functional indices and with symptom severity (absolute r = 0.73-0.92); more moderately with the FACT-G emotional index and with symptom impact and preparation for the end of life (r = .40-.71); and least with the FACT-G social/family index and with relationship with health care provider, life completion, problematic medical communication, and care satisfaction measures (absolute r = .26-.44). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status groups differed on FACT-G7 scores, as expected (all P < .001). Improvements in FACT-G7 scores in the intervention group compared with the control group at 3-month (P = .049) and 4-month (P = .034) follow-up supported responsiveness to change and somewhat greater sensitivity than the FACT-G scores.Conclusions: The FACT-G7 is a valid, brief measure particularly of the physical and functional facets of quality of life. It may enable rapid quality-of-life assessments in patients with advanced cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We investigated correspondence between symptom severity and symptom bothersomeness in patients with advanced cancer. Background: Symptom severity is commonly assessed in clinical cancer settings, but bothersomeness of these symptoms is less often measured. Methods: Participants with advanced cancer enrolled in a cluster-randomized trial of early palliative care completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and the quality of life at the end of life (QUAL-E) measure as part of their baseline assessment. For each symptom, we examined the correspondence between the symptom being indicated as most severe on the ESAS and rated as most bothersome on the QUAL-E. Results: For the 386 patients who completed relevant sections of the ESAS and QUAL-E, tiredness (32.8%), sleep (23.8%), and appetite (20.2%) were most frequently rated as most severe, whereas pain (28.9%) and tiredness (24.3%) were most frequently indicated as most bothersome. The most bothersome and most severe symptom corresponded in 42%. Pain and/or tiredness were consistently among the top three most bothersome symptoms, whereas appetite was frequently rated the most severe symptom but was rarely perceived as the most bothersome. The probability that patients rating a symptom as most severe would also rate it as most bothersome was highest for pain (66%), nausea (58%), and tiredness (40%). Discussion: ESAS symptom severity does not necessarily indicate patients' most bothersome symptom; regardless of severity, pain and tiredness are most frequently perceived as most bothersome. Further research should investigate the clinical benefits of patients also indicating their three most bothersome ESAS symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with advanced cancer have an elevated risk of venous thromboembolism. Increasingly, patients are admitted to palliative care settings for brief admissions, with greater numbers of discharges (vs deaths) reported internationally. There is limited guidance around the use of thromboprophylaxis or incidence of venous thromboembolism for these patients. Aim: The aim of this study was to review the use of thromboprophylaxis as well as incidence of venous thromboembolism and bleeding in palliative care units or residential hospices for patients with advanced cancer. Design: A systematic review using Cochrane methods. Data sources: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched up to 28 September 2018 along with a grey literature search; the reference lists of selected papers were hand-searched. Inclusion criteria were original papers assessing thromboprophylaxis use in palliative care units or residential hospices for adult inpatients with cancer. Two reviewers independently selected and appraised papers using a tool designed for disparate data. Heterogeneity in study design made a meta-analysis not possible. Results: A total of 11 full-text papers (9 quantitative and 2 qualitative) and 11 abstracts were included. Thromboprophylaxis use ranged between 4% and 53%; venous thromboembolism rates between 0.5% and 20%; and bleeding incidence was between 0.01% and 9.8%. Risk assessment tools were used infrequently and adherence to international thromboprophylaxis guidelines ranged between 5% and 71%. Physician opinions differed around the use of thromboprophylaxis; patients were largely accepting of thromboprophylaxis if it was offered. Conclusion: There is limited evidence around the optimal use of thromboprophylaxis for patients with advanced cancer admitted to palliative care settings. Although some patients may derive benefit, further research in this area is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Contact with bereaved caregivers is not standard practice among cancer physicians, and little is known about its impact on caregivers. Objective: Our aim was to describe the experiences and opinions of caregivers regarding bereavement contact from healthcare providers (HCP). Design: Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with 61 bereaved caregivers. Subjects: Bereaved caregivers of advanced cancer patients who had completed a randomized controlled trial of an early palliative care intervention were approached one to five years after the patient's death. Caregivers completed qualitative interviews from April 2012 to March 2015 after completion of quantitative measures. Approach: In semistructured interviews, bereaved caregivers were asked to describe the contact they received from HCP after the patient's death and their opinions about bereavement contact. We used thematic analysis informed by grounded theory to code and analyze the data. Results: Of 60 caregivers included in the study, 30 (50%) received bereavement contact. There were no thematic differences between trial arms. The themes “contact reflects caring,” “contact offers support,” and “contact facilitates closure” were prominent among those who were contacted. “Contact is a courtesy,” “contact is not always necessary,” and “caregiver-initiated contact” were most evident among those who were not contacted. Overall, contact was appreciated by those who received it; for those who did not, reactions included rationalization, ambivalence, and regret. No negative consequences of contact were reported. Conclusions: Bereavement contact is well received and may be missed if not provided. These data support integration of bereavement contact into routine supportive care for caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe bereaved caregivers' experiences of providing care at home for patients with advanced cancer, while interacting with home care services.Methods: Caregivers of patients who had completed a 4-month randomized controlled trial of early palliative care versus standard oncology care were recruited 6 months to 5 years after the patient's death. All patients except one (control) had eventually received palliative care. In semi-structured interviews, participants were asked about their experiences of caregiving. Grounded theory guided all aspects of the study.Results: Sixty-one bereaved caregivers (30 intervention, 31 control) were interviewed, including spouses (33), adult children (19), and other family (9). There were no differences in themes between control and intervention groups. The core category of Taking charge encompassed caregivers' assumption of active roles in care, often in the face of inadequate formal support. There were 4 interrelated subcategories: (1) Navigating the system-navigating the complexities of the home care system to access resources and supports; (2) Engaging with professional caregivers-interacting with visiting personnel to advocate for consistency and quality of care; (3) Preparing for death-seeking out information about what to expect at the end of life; and (4) Managing after death-managing multiple administrative responsibilities in the emotionally charged period following death.Conclusions: Caregivers were often thrust into assuming control in order to compensate for deficiencies in formal palliative home care services. Policies, quality indicators, and guidelines are needed to ensure the provision of comprehensive, interdisciplinary home palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early palliative care improves quality of life and satisfaction with care and is increasingly endorsed for patients with advanced cancer. However, little is known about the experience of receiving early palliative care from a patient and caregiver perspective. Aim: The aim of this qualitative study was to determine, from a participant perspective, the experience of receiving early palliative care and elements of that care. Design: Qualitative grounded theory study using individual interviews. Setting/participants: The study took place at a comprehensive cancer centre. Patients (n = 26) and caregivers (n = 14) from the intervention arm of a cluster-randomised controlled trial of early palliative care versus standard oncology care participated in qualitative interviews. Participants were asked to comment on their quality of life, the quality of care provided over the intervention period and their experiences with the palliative care team. Results: Participants described feeling supported and guided in their illness experience and in their navigation of the healthcare system. Specific elements of early palliative care included prompt, personalised symptom management; holistic support for patients and caregivers; guidance in decision-making; and preparation for the future. Patients with symptoms particularly valued prompt attention to their physical concerns, while those without symptoms valued other elements of care. Although three patients were ambivalent about their current need for palliative care, no distress was reported as a consequence of the intervention. Conclusion: The elements of care described by participants may be used to develop, support and refine models of early palliative care for patients with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) measures the severity of nine symptoms. Constipation and sleep disturbance are common in patients with cancer, but are not currently included in the ESAS. Objectives To validate the numerical rating scale (NRS) versions of ESAS and its revised version (ESAS-r), with the additional symptoms of constipation and sleep (CS), and to assess patient preference for either version. Methods Outpatients with advanced cancer ( N = 202) completed three assessments during a single clinic visit: ESAS-CS, and an added time window of “past 24 hours”; ESAS-r-CS, with a time window of “now” and symptom definitions; and the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS). Internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach's alpha. Paired t-tests compared ESAS-CS and ESAS-r-CS scores; these were correlated with MSAS using Spearman correlation coefficients. Test-retest reliability at 24 hours was assessed in 26 patients. Results ESAS-CS and ESAS-r-CS total scores correlated well with total MSAS (Spearman's rho 0.62 and 0.64, respectively). Correlation of individual symptoms with MSAS symptoms ranged from 0.54-0.80 for ESAS-CS and 0.52–0.74 for ESAS-r-CS. Although participants preferred the ESAS-r-CS format (42.8% vs. 18.6%) because of greater clarity and understandability, the “past 24 hours” time window (52.8%) was favored over “now” (21.3%). Shortness of breath and nausea correlated better for the “past 24 hours” time window (0.8 and 0.72 vs. 0.74 and 0.64 in ESAS-r-CS, respectively). The 24-hour test-retest of the ESAS-CS demonstrated acceptable reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.69). Conclusion The ESAS-CS and ESAS-r-CS NRS versions are valid and reliable for measuring symptoms in this population of outpatients with advanced cancer. Although the ESAS-r-CS was preferred, patients favored the 24-hour time window of the ESAS-CS, which also may best characterize fluctuating symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Performance status measures are increasingly completed by patients in outpatient cancer settings, but are not well validated for this use.Objectives: We assessed performance of a patient-reported functional status measure (PRFS, based on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG]), compared with the physician-completed ECOG, in terms of agreement in ratings and prediction of survival.Methods: Patients and physicians independently completed five-point PRFS (lay version of ECOG) and ECOG measures on first consultation at an oncology palliative care clinic. We assessed agreement between PRFS and ECOG using weighted Kappa statistics, and used linear regression to determine factors associated with the difference between PRFS and ECOG ratings. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate the patients' median survival, categorized by PRFS and ECOG, and assessed predictive accuracy of these measures using the C-statistic.Results: For the 949 patients, there was moderate agreement between PRFS and ECOG (weighted Kappa 0.32; 95% CI: 0.28-0.36). On average, patients' ratings of performance status were worse by 0.31 points (95% CI: 0.25-0.37, P < 0.0001); this tendency was greater for younger patients (P = 0.002) and those with worse symptoms (P < 0.0001). Both PRFS and ECOG scores correlated well with overall survival; the C-statistic was higher for the average of PRFS and ECOG scores (0.619) than when reported individually (0.596 and 0.604, respectively).Conclusion: Patients tend to rate their performance status worse than physicians, particularly if they are younger or have greater symptom burden. Prognostic ability of performance status could be improved by using the average of patients and physician scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]