Back to Search Start Over

Palliative care delivery according to age in 12,000 women with metastatic breast cancer: Analysis in the multicentre ESME-MBC cohort 2008-2016

Authors :
Thomas Bachelot
Lionel Uwer
Marianne Leheurteur
Anne Patsouris
Florence Dalenc
Virginie Perotin
Laurence Vanlemmens
Jean S Frenel
Camille Sabathe
Carole Bouleuc
Marie Ange Mouret-Reynier
Suzette Delaloge
C. Courtinard
Anne Jaffre
Anthony Gonçalves
Jean Marc Ferrero
Isabelle Desmoulins
Matthieu Frasca
Jean C Eymard
Thierry Petit
Simone Mathoulin-Pélissier
Angéline Galvin
Christelle Levy
Véronique Diéras
Michaël Chevrot
Bordeaux population health (BPH)
Université de Bordeaux (UB)-Institut de Santé Publique, d'Épidémiologie et de Développement (ISPED)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)
Imagerie Moléculaire et Stratégies Théranostiques (IMoST)
Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université Clermont Auvergne [2017-2020] (UCA [2017-2020])
Centre Jean Perrin [Clermont-Ferrand] (UNICANCER/CJP)
UNICANCER
Centre Paul Strauss
CRLCC Paul Strauss
Source :
European Journal of Cancer, European Journal of Cancer, Elsevier, 2020, 137, pp.240-249. ⟨10.1016/j.ejca.2020.07.007⟩
Publication Year :
2020

Abstract

Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) often require inpatient palliative care (IPC). However, mounting evidence suggests age-related disparities in palliative care delivery. This study aimed to assess the cumulative incidence function (CIF) of IPC delivery, as well as the influence of age.The national ESME (Epidemio-Strategy-Medical-Economical)-MBC cohort includes consecutive MBC patients treated in 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centres. ICD-10 palliative care coding was used for IPC identification.Our analysis included 12,375 patients, 5093 (41.2%) of whom were aged 65 or over. The median follow-up was 41.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 40.5-42.5). The CIF of IPC was 10.3% (95% CI, 10.2-10.4) and 24.8% (95% CI, 24.7-24.8) at 2 and 8 years, respectively. At 2 years, among triple-negative patients, young patients (65 yo) had a higher CIF of IPC than older patients after adjusting for cancer characteristics, centre and period (65+/65: β = -0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.01). Among other tumour sub-types, older patients received short-term IPC more frequently than young patients (65+/65: β = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03). At 8 years, outside large centres, IPC was delivered less frequently to older patients adjusted to cancer characteristics and period (65+/65: β = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.06 to -0.01).We found a relatively low CIF of IPC and that age influenced IPC delivery. Young triple-negative and older non-triple-negative patients needed more short-term IPCs. Older patients diagnosed outside large centres received less long-term IPC. These findings highlight the need for a wider implementation of IPC facilities and for more age-specific interventions.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
09598049
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
European Journal of Cancer, European Journal of Cancer, Elsevier, 2020, 137, pp.240-249. ⟨10.1016/j.ejca.2020.07.007⟩
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....cbdd4f641d640e8cb28a6fc61aaaa9d2