Search

Patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancers often receive chemotherapy near the end of life (EoL), raising concerns about overtreatment. The PALLiON trial, a cluster-randomized trial, assessed the impact of a complex intervention on frequency of EoL treatment; the intervention involved palliative care referrals and the use of PROMs. The present secondary analysis evaluated the prognostic value of baseline performance status (PS), albumin (alb), C-reactive protein (CRP), and body mass index (BMI) for overall survival, comparing pancreatic (PAN, n = 189) vs. other gastrointestinal cancer patients (GI, n = 286). Baseline PS, alb, CRP, mGPS (modified Glasgow prognostic score), and BMI were analyzed using Cox regression. Adjusted for age, sex, and hospital size, PS ≥ 2 and alb < 35 g/L predicted shorter survival in both PAN and GI cancers, while CRP > 10 predicted shorter survival only in GI cancers. In PAN, PS ≥ 2 predicted a 78.4% higher probability of shorter survival, and mGPS 2 predicted a 68.7% higher probability. In GI, mGPS 2 predicted a 70.8% higher probability, whereas PS was not significant. BMI did not improve predictive models. PS ≥ 2 and low albumin are strong predictors of short survival in PAN, whereas increased CRP and low albumin (mGPS 2) are predictors in GI.

Abstract Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become an essential part of health research. There is a need for genuine involvement in order to ensure that research is relevant to patients. This can then improve the quality, relevance, and impact of health research, while at the same time reducing wasted research and in doing so bringing science and society closer together. Despite the increasing attention for this involvement, it is not yet common practice to report on proposed activities. An article reporting planned PPI could provide guidance and inspiration for the wider academic community in future activities. Therefore, this current article aims to describe the way in which PPI principles are incorporated in the research project called “Quality of Life in Oncology: measuring what matters for cancer patients and survivors in Europe (EUonQoL).” This project aims to develop a new set of questionnaires to enable cancer patients to assess their quality of life, entitled the EUonQoL-Kit. Methods The first step is to recruit cancer patients and their informal caregivers as co-researchers in order to train them to collaborate with the researchers. Based on their skills and preferences, they are then assigned to several of the project’s work packages. Their individual roles, tasks, and responsibilities regarding the work packages, to which they have been assigned, are evaluated and adapted when necessary. The impact of their involvement is evaluated by both the researchers and co-researchers. Discussion PPI is a complex and dynamic process. As such, the overall structure of the research may be defined while at the same time leaving room for certain aspects to be filled in later. Our research is, we believe, relevant as co-researcher involvement in such a large European project as EUonQoL is a new development.

Abstract The use of patient‐reported outcomes (PROMs) of quality of life (QOL) is common in cachexia trials. Patients' self‐report on health, functioning, wellbeing, and perceptions of care, represent important measures of efficacy. This review describes the frequency, variety, and reporting of QOL endpoints used in cancer cachexia clinical trials. Electronic literature searches were performed in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane (1990–2023). Seven thousand four hundred thirty‐five papers were retained for evaluation. Eligibility criteria included QOL as a study endpoint using validated measures, controlled design, adults (>18 years), ≥40 participants randomized, and intervention exceeding 2 weeks. The Covidence software was used for review procedures and data extractions. Four independent authors screened all records for consensus. Papers were screened by titles and abstracts, prior to full‐text reading. PRISMA guidance for systematic reviews was followed. The protocol was prospectively registered via PROSPERO (CRD42022276710). Fifty papers focused on QOL. Twenty‐four (48%) were double‐blind randomized controlled trials. Sample sizes varied considerably (n = 42 to 469). Thirty‐nine trials (78%) included multiple cancer types. Twenty‐seven trials (54%) featured multimodal interventions with various drugs and dietary supplements, 11 (22%) used nutritional interventions alone and 12 (24%) used a single pharmacological intervention only. The median duration of the interventions was 12 weeks (4–96). The most frequent QOL measure was the EORTC QLQ‐C30 (60%), followed by different FACIT questionnaires (34%). QOL was a primary, secondary, or exploratory endpoint in 15, 31 and 4 trials respectively, being the single primary in six. Statistically significant results on one or more QOL items favouring the intervention group were found in 18 trials. Eleven of these used a complete multidimensional measure. Adjustments for multiple testing when using multicomponent QOL measures were not reported. Nine trials (18%) defined a statistically or clinically significant difference for QOL, five with QOL as a primary outcome, and four with QOL as a secondary outcome. Correlation statistics with other study outcomes were rarely performed. PROMs including QOL are important endpoints in cachexia trials. We recommend using well‐validated QOL measures, including cachexia‐specific items such as weight history, appetite loss, and nutritional intake. Appropriate statistical methods with definitions of clinical significance, adjustment for multiple testing and few co‐primary endpoints are encouraged, as is an understanding of how interventions may relate to changes in QOL endpoints. A strategic and scientific‐based approach to PROM research in cachexia trials is warranted, to improve the research base in this field and avoid the use of QOL as supplementary measures.

Abstract Background The decision to administer palliative radiotherapy (RT) to patients with bone metastases (BMs), as well as the selection of treatment protocols (dose, fractionation), requires an accurate assessment of survival expectancy. In this study, we aimed to develop three predictive models (PMs) to estimate short‐, intermediate‐, and long‐term overall survival (OS) for patients in this clinical setting. Materials and Methods This study constitutes a sub‐analysis of the PRAIS trial, a longitudinal observational study collecting data from patients referred to participating centers to receive palliative RT for cancer‐induced bone pain. Our analysis encompassed 567 patients from the PRAIS trial database. The primary objectives were to ascertain the correlation between clinical and laboratory parameters with the OS rates at three distinct time points (short: 3 weeks; intermediate: 24 weeks; prolonged: 52 weeks) and to construct PMs for prognosis. We employed machine learning techniques, comprising the following steps: (i) identification of reliable prognostic variables and training; (ii) validation and testing of the model using the selected variables. The selection of variables was accomplished using the LASSO method (Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator). The model performance was assessed using receiver operator characteristic curves (ROC) and the area under the curve (AUC). Results Our analysis demonstrated a significant impact of clinical parameters (primary tumor site, presence of non‐bone metastases, steroids and opioid intake, food intake, and body mass index) and laboratory parameters (interleukin 8 [IL‐8], chloride levels, C‐reactive protein, white blood cell count, and lymphocyte count) on OS. Notably, different factors were associated with the different times for OS with only IL‐8 included both in the PMs for short‐ and long‐term OS. The AUC values for ROC curves for 3‐week, 24‐week, and 52‐week OS were 0.901, 0.767, and 0.806, respectively. Conclusions We successfully developed three PMs for OS based on easily accessible clinical and laboratory parameters for patients referred to palliative RT for painful BMs. While our findings are promising, it is important to recognize that this was an exploratory trial. The implementation of these tools into clinical practice warrants further investigation and confirmation through subsequent studies with separate databases.

Abstract 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.

Abstract There is no consensus on the optimal endpoint(s) in cancer cachexia trials. Endpoint variation is an obstacle when comparing interventions and their clinical value. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and evaluate endpoints used to assess appetite and dietary intake in cancer cachexia clinical trials. A search for studies published from 1 January 1990 until 2 June 2021 was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies examined cancer cachexia treatment versus a comparator in adults with assessments of appetite and/or dietary intake as study endpoints, a sample size ≥40 and an intervention lasting ≥14 days. Reporting was in line with PRISMA guidance, and a protocol was published in PROSPERO (2022 CRD42022276710). This review is part of a series of systematic reviews examining cachexia endpoints. Of the 5975 articles identified, 116 were eligible for the wider review series and 80 specifically examined endpoints of appetite (65 studies) and/or dietary intake (21 studies). Six trials assessed both appetite and dietary intake. Appetite was the primary outcome in 15 trials and dietary intake in 7 trials. Median sample size was 101 patients (range 40–628). Forty‐nine studies included multiple primary tumour sites, while 31 studies involved single primary tumour sites (15 gastrointestinal, 7 lung, 7 head and neck and 2 female reproductive organs). The most frequently reported appetite endpoints were visual analogue scale (VAS) and numerical rating scale (NRS) (40%). The appetite item from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ) C30/C15 PAL (38%) and the appetite question from North Central Cancer Treatment Group anorexia questionnaire (17%) were also frequently applied. Of the studies that assessed dietary intake, 13 (62%) used food records (prospective registrations) and 10 (48%) used retrospective methods (24‐h recall or dietary history). For VAS/NRS, a mean change of 1.3 corresponded to Hedge's g of 0.5 and can be considered a moderate change. For food records, a mean change of 231 kcal/day or 11 g of protein/day corresponded to a moderate change. Choice of endpoint in cachexia trials will depend on factors pertinent to the trial to be conducted. Nevertheless, from trials assessed and available literature, NRS or EORTC QLQ C30/C15 PAL seems suitable for appetite assessments. Appetite and dietary intake endpoints are rarely used as primary outcomes in cancer cachexia. Dietary intake assessments were used mainly to monitor compliance and are not validated in cachexia populations. Given the importance to cachexia studies, dietary intake endpoints must be validated before they are used as endpoints in clinical trials.

Abstract. Introduction:. Better diagnosis and treatment of neuropathic cancer pain (NcP) remains an unmet clinical need. The EAPC/IASP algorithm was specifically designed for NcP diagnosis; yet, to date, there is no information on its application and accuracy. Objectives:. Our aim was to determine the accuracy of the EAPC/IASP algorithm compared with the Neuropathic Special Interest Group grading system (gold standard) and to describe patients' sensory profile with quantitative sensory testing (QST). Methods:. This is a cross-sectional observational study conducted in a palliative care and pain outpatient clinic. Patients with cancer pain intensity ≥3 (numerical rating scale 0–10) were eligible. The palliative care physician applied the EAPC/IASP algorithm as a grading system to diagnose probable or definite NcP, and an independent investigator applied the gold standard and performed the QST. Sensitivity and specificity of the EAPC/IASP algorithm were measured in comparison with the gold standard results. Kruskal–Wallis and unequal variance independent-samples t tests were used to compare the QST parameters in patients with and without NcP. Results:. Ninety-eight patients were enrolled from August 2020 to March 2023. Sensitivity and specificity for the EAPC/IASP algorithm were 85% (95% CI 70.2–94.3) and 98.3% (95% CI 90.8–100), respectively. Patients with NcP in contrast to patients without NcP showed cold hypoesthesia (P = 0.0032), warm hypoesthesia (P = 0.0018), pressure hyperalgesia (P = 0.02), and the presence of allodynia (P = 0.0001). Conclusion:. The results indicate a good performance of the EAPC/IASP algorithm in diagnosing NcP and the QST discriminated well between patients with and without NcP.

Abstract In cancer cachexia trials, measures of physical function are commonly used as endpoints. For drug trials to obtain regulatory approval, efficacy in physical function endpoints may be needed alongside other measures. However, it is not clear which physical function endpoints should be used. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the frequency and diversity of physical function endpoints in cancer cachexia trials. Following a comprehensive electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane (1990–2021), records were retrieved. Eligible trials met the following criteria: adults (≥18 years), controlled design, more than 40 participants, use of a cachexia intervention for more than 14 days and use of a physical function endpoint. Physical function measures were classified as an objective measure (hand grip strength [HGS], stair climb power [SCP], timed up and go [TUG] test, 6‐min walking test [6MWT] and short physical performance battery [SPPB]), clinician assessment of function (Karnofsky Performance Status [KPS] or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group‐Performance Status [ECOG‐PS]) or patient‐reported outcomes (physical function subscale of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires [EORTC QLQ‐C30 or C15]). Data extraction was performed using Covidence and followed PRISMA guidance (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022276710). A total of 5975 potential studies were examined and 71 were eligible. Pharmacological interventions were assessed in 38 trials (54%). Of these, 11 (29%, n = 1184) examined megestrol and 5 (13%, n = 1928) examined anamorelin; nutritional interventions were assessed in 21 trials (30%); and exercise‐based interventions were assessed in 6 trials (8%). The remaining six trials (8%) assessed multimodal interventions. Among the objective measures of physical function (assessed as primary or secondary endpoints), HGS was most commonly examined (33 trials, n = 5081) and demonstrated a statistically significant finding in 12 (36%) trials (n = 2091). The 6MWT was assessed in 12 trials (n = 1074) and was statistically significant in 4 (33%) trials (n = 403), whereas SCP, TUG and SPPB were each assessed in 3 trials. KPS was more commonly assessed than the newer ECOG‐PS (16 vs. 9 trials), and patient‐reported EORTC QLQ‐C30 physical function was reported in 25 trials. HGS is the most commonly used physical function endpoint in cancer cachexia clinical trials. However, heterogeneity in study design, populations, intervention and endpoint selection make it difficult to comment on the optimal endpoint and how to measure this. We offer several recommendations/considerations to improve the design of future clinical trials in cancer cachexia.

Background: Patients with advanced cancer and bone metastases may have unmet palliative care (PC) needs that go unnoticed during clinical oncological practice. This observational study describes interventions that were initiated as the patients participated in the Palliative Radiotherapy and Inflammation Study (PRAIS). It was hypothesized that the patients would benefit from study participation due to PC interventions initiated by the study team. Methods: A retrospective review of patients' electronic records. Patients with advanced cancer and painful bone metastases included in PRAIS were eligible. All patients met with the study team before start of radiotherapy, after completion of Patient Reported Outcome Measures. Interventions initiated by the study team were documented in the patients' electronic records. Results: A total of 133 patients were reviewed: 63% males, mean (standard deviation [SD]) age 65 (9.6) and mean (SD) Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score 73.2 (9.1). Interventions were initiated in 50% (n?=?67) of the patients. Changes in opioid management (69%), treatment of constipation (43%), and nausea (24%) and nutritional advice were most frequent (21%). Patients receiving interventions had lower mean KPS (70 vs. 77 p?0.001), shorter survival time after study inclusion (median 28 vs. 57.5 weeks p?=?0.005) and were more often opioid na?ve (12% vs. 39% p?

ESPEN guidelines recommend a minimum protein intake of 1.0 g/kg body weight (BW) per day to maintain or restore lean body mass in patients with cancer. During anti-cancer treatment, optimal protein intake is difficult to achieve. We investigated whether a high-protein, low-volume oral nutritional supplement (ONS) supports patients in meeting recommendations. A multi-centre, randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group study was carried out in nine hospitals (five countries) between January 2019 and July 2021 in colorectal and lung cancer patients undergoing first-line systemic treatment with chemo(radio-) or immunotherapy. Subjects were randomised (2:1) to receive Fortimel Compact Protein® or standard care. Protein intake was assessed with a 3-day food diary (primary outcome). BW was a secondary outcome. Due to challenges in recruitment, the study was terminated prematurely with 42 patients randomised (intervention group (IG) 28; control group (CG) 14). At T1 and T2, protein intake was statistically significantly higher in the IG compared to the CG (1.40 vs. 1.07 g/kg/day at T1, p = 0.008; 1.32 vs. 0.94 g/kg/day at T2, p = 0.002). At baseline, only 65% (IG) and 45% (CG) of patients met ESPEN minimum protein intake recommendations. However, at T1 and T2 in the IG, a higher proportion of patients met recommendations than in the CG (88% vs. 55% and 40%). No statistically significant difference between study groups was observed for BW. Mean compliance to the ONS was 73.4%. A high-protein, low-volume ONS consumed twice daily enables the majority of patients to reach minimal ESPEN protein recommendations.

Background: Implementation of integrated oncology and palliative care improves patient outcomes but may represent a demanding task for health care providers (HCPs). Objective: To explore physicians' and nurses' perceived challenges and learning needs in their care for patients with advanced cancer, and to analyze how these perceptions can provide insight on how to improve care for patients with advanced cancer in an integrated care model. Methods: Residents in oncology, oncologists, nurses, and palliative care physicians were recruited to participate in focus group interviews. Six focus group interviews were conducted with 35 informants. Data were analyzed according to principles of thematic analysis. Results: The discussions in the interviews concerned three broad themes: an emphasis on patients' best interest, perceived as hindered by two sets of barriers; unsatisfactory organizational conditions such as time pressure, lack of referral routines, and few arenas for interdisciplinary collaboration, was perceived as one barrier. The other barrier was related to the appraisal of other HCPs' clinical practices. Participating HCPs expressed in general a positive self-view, but were more critical of other HCPs. Conclusion: Currently, implementation of measures to improve care for patients with advanced cancer appears to be challenging due to cultural and organizational factors, and how HCPs perceive themselves and other HCPs. HCPs' perception of challenges in patient care as not related to themselves (externalization) might be an essential obstacle. Interventions targeting both HCP-related and organizational factors are needed. Particularly important are measures aimed at reducing fragmentation and improving collaboration in care.

Abstract Background Listening to “patient voices” in terms of symptoms, emotional status and experiences with care, is crucial for patient empowerment in clinical practice. Despite convincing evidence that routine patient reported outcomes and experience measurements (PRMs) with rapid feed-back to oncologists can improve symptom control, patient well-being and cost effectiveness, PRMs are not commonly used in cancer care, due to barriers at various level. Part of these barriers may be overcome through electronic PRMs collection (ePRMs) integrated with the electronic medical record (EMR). The PATIENT VOICES initiative is aimed at achieving a stepwise integration of ePRMs assessment into routine cancer care. The feasibility project presented here is aimed at assessing the knowledge, use and attitudes toward PRMs in a comprehensive cancer centre; developing and assessing feasibility of a flexible system for ePRM assessment; identifying barriers to and developing strategies for implementation and integration of ePRMs clinical practice. Methods The project has been organized into four phases: a) pre-development; b) software development and piloting; c) feasibility assessment; d) post-development. A convergent mixed method design, based on concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection will be applied. A web-survey on health care providers (HCPs), qualitative studies on patients and HCPs (semi-structured interviews and focus groups) as well as longitudinal and cross-sectional quantitative studies will be carried out. The quantitative studies will enroll 600 patients: 200 attending out-patient clinics (physical symptom assessement), 200 attending inpatient wards (psychological distress assessment) and 200 patients followed by multidisciplinary teams (patient experience with care assessment). The Edmonton symptom assessment scale, the Distress Thermometer, and a tool adapted from existing patient reported experience with cancer care questionnaires, will be used in quantitative studies. A multi-disciplinary stakeholder team including researchers, clinicians, health informatics professionals, health system administrators and patients will be involved in the development of potentially effective implementation strategies in the post development phase. Discussion The documentation of potential advantages and implementation barriers achieved within this feasibility project, will serve as a starting point for future and more focused interventions aimed at achieving effective ePRMs routine assessment in cancer care. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03968718 ) May 30th, 2019.

Abstract Background Patients´ own perceptions and evaluations of symptoms, functioning and other health-related factors, i.e. Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs), are important elements for providing good patient care. Symptoms are subjective and best elicited by the patient orally or by using PRO measures (PROMs), be it on paper, or as electronic assessment tools. Reference values on frequently used PROMs facilitate the interpretation of scores for use in clinics and research settings, by comparing patient data with relevant samples from the general population. Study objectives were to (1) present reference values for the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) (2) examine the occurrence and intensity of symptoms assessed by the MDASI in a general Norwegian adult population sample, and (3) examine factors associated with higher symptom burden defined as the sum score of all symptoms, and factors associated with symptoms` interference on functions. Methods In 2015, MDASI was sent by mail as part of a larger survey, to a representative sample of the general Norwegian adult population (N = 6165). Medical comorbidities were assessed by the Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire. Depression was self-reported on the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9). Linear multivariable regression analysis was used to examine for factors associated with MDASI sum score and factors associated with symptoms’ interference on functions. Results The response rate was 36%. More women (54%) than men (46%) responded. Mean age was 55 years (SD 14). The most frequent symptoms were fatigue (59.7%), drowsiness (56.2%) and pain (56.1%). Fatigue, pain and disturbed sleep had the highest mean scores. The presence of one or more comorbidities, increasing PHQ-9 score and lower level of education were associated with higher MDASI sum score (p

Abstract Introduction Early access to cancer palliative care is recommended. Descriptions of structures and processes of outpatient palliative care clinics operated within smaller hospitals are scarce. This paper presents the development and operation of a fully integrated cancer and palliative care outpatient clinic at a local hospital in a rural region of Mid-Norway offering palliative care concurrent with cancer treatment. A standardized care pathway was applied. Methods Palliative care is in Norway part of the public healthcare system. Official recommendations recent years point out action points to improve delivery of palliative care. An integrated cancer and palliative care outpatient clinic at a local hospital and an innovative care delivery model was developed and operated in this setting. Patients were recruited for a descriptive study of the patient population. Clinical data were collected by clinical staff and 13 symptom intensities were reported by the patients. Results Cancer and palliative care were provided by one team of healthcare professionals trained in both fields. There was a close collaboration with the other departments at the hospital, with its affiliated tertiary hospital, and with community health and care services to provide timely referral, enhanced continuity, and improved coordination of care. Eighty-eight patients were included. Mean age was 65.6 years, the most common cancer diagnoses were digestive organs (22.7%), male genital organs (20.5%) or breast (25.0%), 75.0% had metastatic or locally advanced cancer, 59.1% were treated with non-curative intention and 93.1% had Karnofsky Performance Status ≥ 80%. Median scores of individual symptoms ranged from 0 to 3 (numerical rating scale, 0–10) and 61.0% reported at least one clinically significant symptom rating (≥ 4). Conclusion This delivery model of integrated outpatient cancer and palliative care is particularly relevant in rural regions allowing cancer patients access to palliative care earlier in the disease trajectory and closer to home

Abstract Objective Physical rehabilitation programs hold the potential to mitigate deterioration in health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with head and neck cancer. The objective was to assess development in relevant domains of HRQoL following a physical exercise and nutrition intervention administrated during or after treatment. Methods In a pilot study, 41 patients were randomized to resistance training and oral nutritional supplements during (EN‐DUR, n = 20) or after (EN‐AF, n = 21) radiotherapy. Global health status/QoL (GHS) and physical functioning (PF) were measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life questionnaire at baseline, week 6, and week 14. Differences between the groups were assessed by analysis of covariance. A difference of ≥10 points in GHS and PF was interpreted as clinically relevant. Results No statistically significant differences were detected between the groups; however, clinically relevant changes and differences in GHS and PF were observed. From baseline to week 6, GHS decreased 9 points in the EN‐DUR group and 23 points in the EN‐AF group and PF decreased 13 points and 21 points, respectively. From week 6 to week 14, GHS increased 14 points in the EN‐DUR group and 26 points EN‐AF group and PF did not change (0 points) in the EN‐DUR group and increased 16 points in the EN‐AF group. Conclusion The findings from the present pilot study are promising and indicate that a physical rehabilitation program may have a positive impact on HRQoL during treatment and enhance recovery after treatment. A definitive randomized trial is warranted. Level of Evidence 1b—Individual randomized controlled trial.

Abstract Background Several publications have addressed the need for a systematic integration of oncological care focused on the tumor and palliative care (PC) focused on the patient with cancer. The exponential increase in anticancer treatments and the high number of patients living longer with advanced disease have accentuated this. Internationally, there is now a persuasive argument that introducing PC early during anticancer treatment in patients with advanced disease has beneficial effects on symptoms, psychological distress, and survival. Methods This is a national cluster-randomized trial (C-RCT) in 12 Norwegian hospitals. The trial investigates effects of early, systematic integration of oncology and specialized PC in patients with advanced cancer in six intervention hospitals compared with conventional care in six. Hospitals are stratified on the size of local catchment areas before randomization. In the intervention hospitals, a three-part complex intervention will be implemented. The backbone of the intervention is the development and implementation of patient-centered care pathways that contain early, compulsory referral to PC and regular and systematic registrations of symptoms. An educational program must be completed before patient inclusion. A total of 680 patients with advanced cancer and one caregiver per patient are included when patients come for start of last line of chemotherapy, defined according to national treatment guidelines. Data registration, clinical variables, and patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes take place every 2 months for 1 year or until death. The primary outcome is use of chemotherapy in the last 3 months of life by comparing the proportion of patients who receive this in the intervention and control groups. Primary outcome is use of chemotherapy in the last 3 months before death, i.e. number of patients. Secondary outcomes are initiation, discontinuation and number of cycles, last 3 months of life, administration of other medical interventions in the last month of life, symptom burden, quality of life (QoL), satisfaction with information and follow-up, and caregiver health, QoL, and satisfaction with care. Discussion Results from this C-RCT will be used to raise the awareness about the positive outcomes of early provision of specialized palliative care using pathways for patients with advanced cancer receiving medical anticancer treatment. The long-term clinical objective is to integrate these patient-centered pathways in Norwegian cancer care. The specific focus on the patient and family and the organization of a predictable care trajectory is consistent with current Norwegian strategies for cancer care. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03088202. Registered on 23 March 2017.

Objectives The objective of this study was to investigate the use of, and predictors for, pharmaceutical anticancer treatment (PACT) towards the end of a patient’s life in a country with a public healthcare system.Design Retrospective registry study.Setting Secondary care in Norway.Participants All Norwegian patients with cancer (International Classification of Diseases tenth revision (ICD-10) codes C00–99, D00–09, D37–48) in contact with a somatic hospital in Norway between 2009 and 2017 (N=420 655). Analyses were performed on a subsample of decedents with follow-back time of more than 1 year (2013–2017, N=52 496).Interventions N/A.Primary and secondary outcome measures Proportion of patients receiving PACT during the last year and month of life. We calculated CIs with block bootstrapping, while predictors of PACT were estimated with logistic regression.Results 24.0% (95% CI 23.4% to 24.6%) of the patients received PACT during the last year of life and 3.2% (95% CI 3.0% to 3.5%) during their final month. The proportion during the last month was highest for multiple myeloma (12.7%) and breast cancer (6.5%) and lowest for urinary tract (1.1%) and prostate and kidney cancer (1.4%). Patients living in northern (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.94) and western (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96) Norway had lower odds of PACT during the last month, while patients with myeloma (OR 3.0, 95% CI 2.5 to 3.7) and breast (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.6) had higher odds. Kidney cancer (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.2. to 0.4), urinary tract (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.5) and prostate cancer (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.5) were associated with lower probability of receiving PACT within the last month.Conclusions The proportion of patients receiving PACT in Norway is lower than in several other industrialised countries. Age, type of cancer and area of living are significant determinants of variation in PACT.

Abstract Background Health care professionals should prevent and relieve suffering in carers of patients with advanced cancer. Despite known positive effects of systematic carer support, carers still do not receive sufficient support. Carers have reported to be less satisfied with coordination of care and involvement of the family in treatment and care decisions than patients. In a rural district of Mid-Norway, cancer palliative care services across specialist and community care were developed. Participants’ experiences and opinions were investigated as part of this development process. Methods The aim of this qualitative study was to explore and describe health care professionals’ experiences with carer support from their own perspective. Data were collected in focus groups. Purposeful sampling guided the inclusion. Six groups were formed with 21 professionals. The discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using systematic text condensation. Results In the analyzis of the focus group discussions, ten categories emerged from the exploration of health care professionals’ carer support, assessment of needs, and factors hampering carer support: 1) dependent on profession, role, and context, 2) personal relationship, 3) personal skills and competence, 4) adjusted to the stage of the disease, 5) informal assessment of carers’ needs, 6) lack of education 7) lack of systems for carer consultations, 8) lack of systems for documentation, 9) lack of systems for involving GPs, and 10) lack of systematic spiritual care. Conclusions Health care professionals built a personal relationship with the carers as early as possible, to facilitate carer support throughout the disease trajectory. Systematic carer support was hampered by lack of education and system insufficiencies. Organizational changes were needed, including 1) education in carer support, communication, and spiritual care, 2) use of standardized care pathways, including systematic carer needs assessment, 3) systematic involvement of general practitioners, and 4) a system for documentation of clinical work with carers.

Abstract Background Early intervention against cachexia necessitates a predictive model. The aims of this study were to identify predictors of cachexia development and to create and evaluate accuracy of a predictive model based on these predictors. Methods A secondary analysis of a prospective, observational, multicentre study was conducted. Patients, who attended a palliative care programme, had incurable cancer and did not have cachexia at baseline, were amenable to the analysis. Cachexia was defined as weight loss (WL) > 5% (6 months) or WL > 2% and body mass index

Summary: Background & aims: The aim of this study was to test how well the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) question about food intake correlates with a well-established measurement of food intake. Furthermore, we wanted to examine if there were any associations between the patients ratings to the question and weight change. Methods: Data at baseline and after 4–6 weeks was drawn from two studies which combined provided a sample of 85 patients with lung and pancreatic cancer; one of the studies were an intervention study, the other a prospective, observational study. All patients completed the PG-SGA questionnaire, and rated their food intake the past month as unchanged, increased or less than usual. Energy and protein intake was estimated based upon a 24-h dietary recall. Results: Patients reporting a food intake less than usual had a lower energy (24.2 vs 30.3 kcal/kg/day, p = 0.02) and protein (1.0 vs 1.2 g/kg/day, p = 0.07) intake at baseline compared to patients reporting unchanged or increased food intake. After comparison at 4–6 weeks, patients reporting a food intake less than usual, had a lower energy (24.5 vs 31.7 kcal/kg/day, p = 0.07) and protein (0.9 vs 1.3 g/kg/day, p = 0.003) intake. Patients reporting a food intake less than usual the past month lost more weight than patients with an unchanged or increased intake (−2.6 kg versus 0.7 kg respectively, p

Abstract Background Despite the high prevalence of insomnia in patients with advanced cancer, there are no randomized controlled trials on pharmacological interventions for insomnia in this group of patients. A variety of pharmacological agents is recommended to manage sleep disturbance for insomnia in the general population, but their efficacy and safety in adults with advanced cancer are not established. Thus, there is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of medications for insomnia in order to improve the evidence in patients with advanced cancer. One of the most used sleep medications at present in patients with cancer is zopiclone. Methods This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter trial. A total of 100 patients with metastatic cancer who report insomnia will be randomly allocated to zopiclone or placebo. The treatment duration with zopiclone/placebo is 6 consecutive nights. The primary endpoint is patient-reported sleep quality during the final study night (night 6) assessed on a numerical rating scale of 0–10, where 0 = Best sleep and 10 = Worst possible sleep. Secondary endpoints include the mean patient-reported total sleep time and sleep onset latency during the final study night (night 6). Discussion Results from this study on treatment of insomnia in advanced cancer will contribute to clinical decision-making and improve the treatment of sleep disturbance in this patient cohort. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807922. Registered on 21 June 2016.

Background: New clinical trials in cancer cachexia are essential, and outcome measures with high responsiveness to detect meaningful changes are crucial. This secondary analysis from a multimodal intervention trial estimates sensitivity to change and between treatment effect sizes (ESs) of outcome measures associated with body composition, physical function, metabolism, and trial intervention.Methods: The study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized pilot study investigating the feasibility of a 6-week multimodal intervention [exercise, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and oral nutritional supplements containing polyunsaturated fatty acids (n−3 PUFAs)] vs. standard cancer care in non-operable non-small-cell lung cancer and advanced pancreatic cancer. Body composition measures from computerized tomography scans and circulating biomarkers were analyzed.Results: Forty-six patients were randomized, and the analysis included 22 and 18 patients in the treatment and control groups, respectively. The between-group ESs were high for body weight (ES = 1.2, p < 0.001), small for body composition and physical function [handgrip strength (HGS)] measures (ES < 0.25), moderate to high for n-3 PUFAs and 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH vitamin D) (ES range 0.64–1.37, p < 0.05 for all), and moderate for serum C-reactive protein (ES = 0.53, p = 0.12). Analysis within the multimodal treatment group showed high sensitivity to change for adiponectin (ES = 0.86, p = 0.001) and n-3 PUFAs (ES > 0.8, p < 0.05 for all) and moderate for 25-OH vitamin D (ES = 0.49, p = 0.03). In the control group, a moderate sensitivity to change for body weight (ES = −0.84, p = 0.002) and muscle mass (ES = −0.67, p = 0.016) and a high sensitivity to change for plasma levels of 25-OH vitamin D (ES = −0.88, p = 0.002) were found.Conclusion: Demonstrating high sensitivity to change and between treatment ES and body composition measures, body weight still stands out as a clinical and relevant outcome measure in cancer cachexia. Body composition and physical function measures clearly are important to address but demand large sample sizes to detect treatment group differences.Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01419145.

Background: Erectile dysfunction is a common side effect of prostate cancer (PC) therapy. In this randomized study (The RIC-study) we used patient reported outcomes to evaluate sexual function 18 months after combined endocrine therapy and radical radiotherapy (RT) given with either wide or tight planning target volume (PTV) margins. We also analyzed the impact of radiation dose to penile bulb on sexual function. Methods: The RIC-study included 257 men with intermediate and high-risk PC. All patients received 6 months of total androgen blockage started 3 months prior to randomization. In high-risk patients, an oral anti-androgen (Bicalutamide) was administered for an additional 2.5 years. Patients were randomized to receive 78 Gy in 39 fractions guided either by weekly offline orthogonal portal imaging or by daily online cone beam computed tomography image-guided RT. Sexual function was evaluated at 18 months after start of RT using the Questionnaire Umeå Fransson Widmark 1994. Ability to have an erection was assessed on an 11-point scale numerical rating scale (0 = no and 10 = very much) as the primary outcome. In addition, the association between penile bulb (PB) radiation dose and erectile function was analyzed. Findings: Of 250 evaluable patients, 228 (mean age 71.8 years) returned the questionnaires. The patients reported a high degree of sexual related problems with mean scores to the primary outcome question (221 respondents) of 7.44 and 7.39 in the 2D weekly IGRT-arm and 3D daily IGRT-arm (p = 0.93) respectively. For four additional questions (scale 0–10) regarding sexual function resulted in mean scores >6.5 with no difference between study arms. The mean dose to PB was substantially larger in the 2D weekly IGRT-arm vs the 3D daily IGRT-arm (mean 59.8 Gy vs mean 35.1 Gy).We found no effect of mean PB-dose on the primary outcome adjusted for study-site, risk-group and age. When adjusting for serum-testosterone level at 18 months in addition, the effect of mean PB-dose remained insignificant. Interpretation: IGRT protocol or PB dose had no effect on ED 18 months after RT in this study population. The low potency rates can partly be explained by the prolonged use of anti-androgen in high risk patients. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the results from the RIC-study.

Abstract Introduction Different definitions of breakthrough pain (BTP) influence the observed BTP prevalence. This study examined BTP prevalence variability due to use of different cutoffs for controlled background pain, different assessment periods for background pain, and difference between worst and average pain intensity (PI). Methods Cancer patients from the EPCRC-CSA study who reported flare-ups of pain past 24 h were potential BTP cases. BTP prevalence was calculated for different cutoffs for background PI on numeric rating scales (NRS 0–10) for the past week, past 48 and past 24 h period. Furthermore, BTP cases were categorized based on the difference between maximum and average PI past 24 h (range, 0 to > 2 points, NRS 0–10). Results Of 696 respondents, 302 patients (43.4%) reported pain flares the past 24 h. The BTP prevalence when using a defined background PI ≤ 4 for the past week was 19.8%. This number varied for different defined cutoffs for background PI. Actual background PI and BTP prevalence also varied between the assessment periods “past week”, “past 48 h”, and “past 24 h” (PI 4.0, 3.6, and 3.4; BTP prevalence 19.8, 22.7, and 24.9% for background PI ≤ 4). For patients with background PI ≤ 4 past week, 105 had a difference between maximum and average PI ≥ one point and 48 had a difference > two points. Conclusions The reported BTP prevalence is dependent on the cutoff for background PI in the BTP definition, population background PI during the assessment period, and defined cutoff for the difference between worst and average PI. Funding NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Abstract Background Radiation therapy (RT) results in pain relief for about 6 of 10 patients with cancer induced bone pain (CIBP) caused by bone metastases. The high number of non-responders, the long median time from RT to pain response and the risk of adverse effects, makes it important to determine predictors of treatment response. Clinical features such as cancer type, performance status and pain intensity, and biomarkers for osteoclast activity are proposed as predictors of response to RT. However, results are inconsistent and there is a need for better predictors of RT response. A similar argument can be stated for the development of cachexia; there are currently no predictors that can identify patients who will develop cachexia later in the cancer disease trajectory. Experimental and preclinical studies show that pain, depression and cachexia are related to inflammation. However, it is not known if inflammatory biomarkers can predict CIBP, depression or development of cachexia. Methods This multicenter, multinational longitudinal observational study will include 600 adult patients receiving RT for CIBP. Demographic data, clinical variables, osteoclast and inflammatory biomarkers will be assessed before start of RT, and 3, 8, 16, 24 and 52 weeks after last course of RT. The primary aim of the study is to identify potential predictors for pain relief from RT. Secondary aims are to explore potential predictors for development of cachexia, the longitudinal relationship between pain intensity and depression, and if inflammatory biomarkers are associated with changes in pain intensity, cachexia and depression during one-year follow up. Discussion The immediate clinical implication of the PRAIS study is to identify potential predictive factors for a RT response on CIBP, and thereby reduce non-efficacious RT. Patient benefits are fewer hospital visits, reduced risk of adverse effects and more individualized pain treatment. The long-term clinical implication of the PRAIS study is to improve the knowledge about inflammation in relation to CIBP, cachexia and depression and potentially identify associations and mechanisms that can be targeted for treatment. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02107664, date of registration April 8, 2014 (retrospectively registered). Trial sponsor The European Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, NTNU, Faculty of medicine and Health Sciences, Trondheim, N-7491, Norway.

Abstract Background Knowledge about disease and treatment is necessary before patients can consent to treatment. One of the few established instruments for evaluating whether sufficient information has been provided, is the EORTC QLQ-INFO25 questionnaire which was developed to measure how patients perceive information. The aim of this study was to investigate whether cancer patients’ level of knowledge about their disease and treatment was associated with their perception of and satisfaction with the information. Methods Breast cancer patients referred for adjuvant chemotherapy and prostate cancer patients referred for curative radiotherapy were included. Level of knowledge about their disease and treatment was measured using study-specific questionnaires. Patients’ perception of and satisfaction with the received information was assessed using EORTC QLQ-INFO25. Assessments were done before the first consultation with an oncologist (T1), after the consultation (T2) and 8 weeks after start of treatment (T3). Results Ninety eight patients were enrolled. Patients with higher education, daily Internet access and in paid employment had the highest baseline knowledge scores. The mean knowledge score increased significantly (T1: 16.4; T2: 20.8; T3: 21.3; p

Abstract The majority of cancer patients with advanced disease experience weight loss, including loss of lean body mass. Severe weight loss is characteristic for cancer cachexia, a condition that significantly impairs functional status and survival. The underlying causes of cachexia are incompletely understood, and currently no therapeutic approach can completely reverse the condition. Autophagy coordinates lysosomal destruction of cytosolic constituents and is systemically induced by starvation. We hypothesized that starvation-mimicking signaling compounds secreted from tumor cells may cause a systemic acceleration of autophagy during cachexia. We found that IL-6 secreted by tumor cells accelerates autophagy in myotubes when complexed with soluble IL-6 receptor (trans-signaling). In lung cancer patients, were cachexia is prevalent, there was a significant correlation between elevated IL-6 expression in the tumor and poor prognosis of the patients. We found evidence for an autophagy-inducing bioactivity in serum from cancer patients and that this is clearly associated with weight loss. Importantly, the autophagy-inducing bioactivity was reduced by interference with IL-6 trans-signaling. Together, our findings suggest that IL-6 trans-signaling may be targeted in cancer cachexia.

BackgroundPeople with advanced cancer experience multiple symptoms during their illness trajectory, which can fluctuate in intensity.AimTo describe the course of self-reported quality of life, emotional functioning, physical functioning and symptom intensity over time in cancer patients receiving palliative care.DesignLongitudinal study with monthly assessments, using the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL. Data were analysed (1) prospectively, from baseline to ≥8-month follow-up; and (2) retrospectively, by taking death as index date and comparing results from three cross-sectional subsamples at different stages of illness (time to death ≥6, 5-3 and 2-0 months). Linear mixed models were calculated.Setting/participantsA total of 1739 patients (mean age 66, 50% male) from 30 palliative care centers in 12 countries were included.ResultsIn prospective analyses, quality of life, functioning and symptoms-except nausea/vomiting-remained generally stable over time. In retrospective analyses, patients 2-0 months before death reported significantly lower quality of life and physical functioning scores than those 5-3 months before death, who in turn scored lower than those ≥6 months before death, suggesting progressive decline. Emotional functioning remained initially unchanged, but decreased in the last months. Pain, fatigue and appetite loss showed a stable increase in intensity towards death. Dyspnea, insomnia and constipation increased from 5-3 to 2-0 months before death. Nausea/vomiting only increased when comparing those ≥6 months before death with those 2-0 months before death.ConclusionWhile the prospective approach showed predominantly stable patterns for quality of life, functioning and symptom severity throughout study duration, retrospective analyses indicated that deterioration was already apparent before the terminal phase and accelerated close to death. Our findings support the importance of early symptom identification and treatment in this population, and highlight the need for further studies to explore what characterizes those with either lower or higher symptom burden at different time points towards death.

BACKGROUND:Systemic inflammation is associated with reduced quality of life and increased symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. The aims of this study were to examine the relationships between inflammatory biomarkers and the Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) of pain, appetite and fatigue; and to explore whether levels of baseline biomarkers were associated with changes in these PROMs following treatment with corticosteroids. MATERIAL AND METHODS:An exploratory analysis was done on a trial examining the analgesic properties of corticosteroids in patients with advanced cancer. Inclusion criteria were: >18 years, taking opioids for moderate or severe cancer pain; pain ≥4 (numerical rating scale 0-10). Serum was extracted and levels of inflammatory biomarkers were assessed. PROMs of pain, appetite and fatigue were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). The relationships between PROMs and inflammatory biomarkers were examined using Spearman Rho-Rank and multiple regression analysis. RESULTS:Data were available on 49 patients. Levels of sTNF-r1, IL-6, IL-18, MIF, MCP-1, TGF-β1, IL-1ra, and C-reactive protein (CRP) and Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were elevated; IL-1β, IL-2, IL-4, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12(p70), interferon-γ, MIP-1α, and TNF-α were below the level of detection. The following correlations were observed: appetite and IL-6 and CRP; fatigue and IL-1ra (rs: 0.38-0.41, p< .01). There was no association between pretreatment biomarkers and effect from corticosteroid treatment. CONCLUSION:In patients with advanced cancer and pain, some pro-inflammatory cytokines were related to appetite and fatigue. Inflammatory biomarkers were not associated with pain or with the efficacy of corticosteroid therapy. Further research examining the attenuation of the systemic inflammatory response and possible effects on symptoms would be of interest.