Search

Background: While multiple clinical trials have demonstrated benefits of early palliative care for people with cancer, access to these services is frequently very late if at all. Establishing evidence-based, disease-specific 'triggers' or times for the routine integration of early palliative care may address this evidencepractice gap. Aim: To test the feasibility of using defined triggers for the integration of standardised, early palliative (STEP) care across three advanced cancers. Method: Phase II, multi-site, open-label, parallel-arm, randomised trial of usual best practice cancer care +/- STEP Care conducted in four metropolitan tertiary cancer services in Melbourne, Australia in patients with advanced breast, prostate and brain cancer. The primary outcome was the feasibility of using triggers for times of integration of STEP Care, defined as enrolment of at least 30 patients per cancer in 24 months. Triggers were based on hospital admission with metastatic disease (for breast and prostate cancer), or development of disease recurrence (for brain tumour cohort). A mixed method study design was employed to understand issues of feasibility and acceptability underpinning trigger points. Results: The triggers underpinning times for the integration of STEP care were shown to be feasible for brain but not breast or prostate cancers, with enrolment of 49, 6 and 10 patients across the three disease groups respectively. The varied feasibility across these cancer groups suggested some important characteristics of triggers which may aid their utility in future work. Conclusions: Achieving the implementation of early palliative care as a standardized component of quality care for all oncology patients will require further attention to defining triggers. Triggers which are 1) linked to objective points within the illness course (not dependent on recognition by individual clinicians), 2) Identifiable and visible (heralded through established service-level activities) and 3) Not reliant upon additional screening measures may enhance their feasibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundWhile multiple clinical trials have demonstrated benefits of early palliative care for people with cancer, access to these services is frequently very late if at all. Establishing evidence-based, disease-specific ‘triggers’ or times for the routine integration of early palliative care may address this evidence-practice gap.AimTo test the feasibility of using defined triggers for the integration of standardised, early palliative (STEP) care across three advanced cancers.MethodPhase II, multi-site, open-label, parallel-arm, randomised trial of usual best practice cancer care +/- STEP Care conducted in four metropolitan tertiary cancer services in Melbourne, Australia in patients with advanced breast, prostate and brain cancer. The primary outcome was the feasibility of using triggers for times of integration of STEP Care, defined as enrolment of at least 30 patients per cancer in 24 months. Triggers were based on hospital admission with metastatic disease (for breast and prostate cancer), or development of disease recurrence (for brain tumour cohort). A mixed method study design was employed to understand issues of feasibility and acceptability underpinning trigger points.ResultsThe triggers underpinning times for the integration of STEP care were shown to be feasible for brain but not breast or prostate cancers, with enrolment of 49, 6 and 10 patients across the three disease groups respectively. The varied feasibility across these cancer groups suggested some important characteristics of triggers which may aid their utility in future work.ConclusionsAchieving the implementation of early palliative care as a standardized component of quality care for all oncology patients will require further attention to defining triggers. Triggers which are 1) linked to objective points within the illness course (not dependent on recognition by individual clinicians), 2) Identifiable and visible (heralded through established service-level activities) and 3) Not reliant upon additional screening measures may enhance their feasibility.

Background: Prognostication can be used within a tailored decision-making process to achieve a more personalized approach to the care of patients with cancer. This prospective observational study evaluated the accuracy of the Palliative Prognostic score (PaP score) to predict survival in patients identified by oncologists as candidates for palliative radiotherapy (PRT). We also studied interrater variability for the clinical prediction of survival and PaP scores and assessed the accuracy of the Survival Prediction Score (SPS) and TEACHH score. Materials and methods: Consecutive patients were enrolled at first access to our Radiotherapy and Palliative Care Outpatient Clinic. The discriminating ability of the prognostic models was assessed using Harrell's C index, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were obtained by bootstrapping. Results: In total, 255 patients with metastatic cancer were evaluated, and 123 (48.2%) were selected for PRT, all of whom completed treatment without interruption. Then, 10.6% of the irradiated patients who died underwent treatment within the last 30 days of life. The PaP score showed an accuracy of 74.8 (95% CI, 69.5-80.1) for radiation oncologist (RO) and 80.7 (95% CI, 75.9- 85.5) for palliative care physician (PCP) in predicting 30-day survival. The accuracy of TEACHH was 76.1 (95% CI, 70.9-81.3) and 64.7 (95% CI, 58.8- 70.6) for RO and PCP, respectively, and the accuracy of SPS was 70 (95% CI, 64.4-75.6) and 72.8 (95% CI, 67.3-78.3). Conclusion: Accurate prognostication can identify candidates for low-fraction PRT during the last days of life who are more likely to complete the planned treatment without interruption.All the scores showed good discriminating capacity; the PaP had the higher accuracy, especially when used in a multidisciplinary way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundPrognostication can be used within a tailored decision-making process to achieve a more personalized approach to the care of patients with cancer. This prospective observational study evaluated the accuracy of the Palliative Prognostic score (PaP score) to predict survival in patients identified by oncologists as candidates for palliative radiotherapy (PRT). We also studied interrater variability for the clinical prediction of survival and PaP scores and assessed the accuracy of the Survival Prediction Score (SPS) and TEACHH score.Materials and methodsConsecutive patients were enrolled at first access to our Radiotherapy and Palliative Care Outpatient Clinic. The discriminating ability of the prognostic models was assessed using Harrell’s C index, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were obtained by bootstrapping.ResultsIn total, 255 patients with metastatic cancer were evaluated, and 123 (48.2%) were selected for PRT, all of whom completed treatment without interruption. Then, 10.6% of the irradiated patients who died underwent treatment within the last 30 days of life. The PaP score showed an accuracy of 74.8 (95% CI, 69.5–80.1) for radiation oncologist (RO) and 80.7 (95% CI, 75.9–85.5) for palliative care physician (PCP) in predicting 30-day survival. The accuracy of TEACHH was 76.1 (95% CI, 70.9–81.3) and 64.7 (95% CI, 58.8–70.6) for RO and PCP, respectively, and the accuracy of SPS was 70 (95% CI, 64.4–75.6) and 72.8 (95% CI, 67.3–78.3).ConclusionAccurate prognostication can identify candidates for low-fraction PRT during the last days of life who are more likely to complete the planned treatment without interruption.All the scores showed good discriminating capacity; the PaP had the higher accuracy, especially when used in a multidisciplinary way.