Integrated outpatient palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fulton JJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7069657 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Integrated outpatient palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Fulton Jessica J JJ LeBlanc Thomas W TW Cutson Toni M TM Porter Starr Kathryn N KN Kamal Arif A Ramos Katherine K Freiermuth Caroline E CE McDuffie Jennifer R JR Kosinski Andrzej A Adam Soheir S Nagi Avishek A Williams John W JW
Palliative medicine 20181129 2
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionEarly palliative care (PC) in the clinical pathway of advanced cancer patients improves symptom control, quality of life and has a positive impact on overall quality of care. At present, standardised criteria for appropriate referral for early PC in oncology care are lacking. The aim of this project is to develop a set of standardised referral criteria and procedures to implement appropriate early PC for advanced cancer patients (the palliative care referral system, PCRS) and test its impact on user perception of quality of care received, on patient quality of life and on the use of healthcare resources.SettingSelected oncology clinics and PC outpatient clinic.Methods and analysisA scoping literature review and an expert consultation through a nominal group technique will be used to revise existing referral tools and to develop a new one, the PCRS. 25 patients will be enrolled in a pilot study to assess feasibility of the implementation of PCRS; 10 interviews with patients and healthcare professionals will be carried out to evaluate applicability.A pretest-post-test quasiexperimental study involving 150 patients before implementation of the PCRS and 150 patients after implementation will be carried out.Patient satisfaction with care received, quality of life and use of resources, and caregiver satisfaction with care will also be assessed to explore the impact of the intervention.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the study has been granted by the Institutional Review board of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori; approval reference INT201/19.Results will be disseminated through open access publications and through scientific communication presented at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberNCT04936568.
| S-EPMC9621186 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceLimited data suggest that early palliative care (EPC) improves quality of life (QOL) and survival in patients with advanced cancer.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether comprehensive EPC improves QOL; relieves mental, social, and existential burdens; increases survival rates; and helps patients develop coping skills.Design, setting, and participantsThis nonblinded randomized clinical trial (RCT) recruited patients from 12 hospitals in South Korea from September 2017 to October 2018. Patients aged 20 years or older with advanced cancer who were not terminally ill but for whom standard chemotherapy has not been effective were eligible. Participants were randomized 1:1 to the control (receiving usual supportive oncological care) or intervention (receiving EPC with usual oncological care) group. Intention-to-treat data analysis was conducted between September and December 2022.InterventionsThe intervention group received EPC through a structured program of self-study education materials, telephone coaching, and regular assessments by an integrated palliative care team.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the change in overall QOL score (assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative Care) from baseline to 24 weeks after enrollment, with evaluations also conducted at 12 and 18 weeks. Secondary outcomes were social and existential burdens (assessed with the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire) as well as crisis-overcoming capacity and 2-year survival.ResultsA total of 144 patients (83 males [57.6%]; mean [SD] age, 60.7 (7.2) years) were enrolled, of whom 73 were randomized to the intervention group and 71 to the control group. The intervention group demonstrated significantly greater changes in scores in overall health status or QOL from baseline, especially at 18 weeks (11.00 [95% CI, 0.78-21.22] points; P = .04; effect size = 0.42). However, at 12 and 24 weeks, there were no significant differences observed. Compared with the control group, the intervention group also showed significant improvement in self-management or coping skills over 24 weeks (20.51 [95% CI, 12.41-28.61] points; P < .001; effect size = 0.93). While the overall survival rate was higher in the intervention vs control group, the difference was not significant. In the intervention group, however, those who received 10 or more EPC interventions (eg, telephone coaching sessions and care team meetings) showed a significantly increased probability of 2-year survival (53.6%; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis RCT demonstrated that EPC enhanced QOL at 18 weeks; however, no significant improvements were observed at 12 and 24 weeks. An increased number of interventions sessions was associated with increased 2-year survival rates in the intervention group.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03181854.
| S-EPMC11310828 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGrowing evidence demonstrates the benefits of early, integrated palliative care (PC) for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. Yet, data are lacking on the communication patterns within this model of care.ObjectiveThe goals of this study were to describe the content of patient-clinician discussions among patients receiving PC and to compare differences in discussion content between oncologists and PC clinicians.DesignWe conducted a qualitative observational analysis.Setting/subjectsWe included patients with incurable lung and esophageal cancer enrolled in a randomized trial of early, integrated PC versus usual oncology care. We analyzed 68 audio-recorded clinic visits (34 oncologist visits; 34 PC clinician visits) immediately after patients' (N = 19) first and second cancer progressions. We examined themes of clinician communication, comparing the content and frequency of discussions between oncologists and PC clinicians.ResultsAlthough both oncology and PC clinicians discussed symptom management, medical understanding, and treatment decision making with patients at nearly all postprogression visits, PC clinicians tended to assess patient understanding of the treatment process and prognosis more often than oncologists. PC clinicians addressed patient coping, caregiver experiences and needs, and advance care planning more frequently than oncologists.ConclusionPC clinicians play a distinct, complementary role to oncologists in providing care for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. PC clinicians tend to assess and elaborate on patient understanding of prognosis and treatment and emphasize effective coping, caregiver needs, and advance care planning. These results illuminate the communication elements by which early, integrated PC may improve patient and caregiver outcomes.
| S-EPMC6916528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeAdvanced obstructive colorectal cancer (AOCC) presents surgical challenges. Consideration must be given to alleviating symptoms and also quality of life and survival time. This study compared prognostic efficacies of palliative self-expanding metal stents (SEMSs) and surgery to provide insights into AOCC treatment.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies that met inclusion criteria. Using a meta-analysis approach, postoperative complications, survival rates, and other prognostic indicators were compared between patients treated with SEMSs and those treated surgically. Network meta-analysis was performed to compare prognoses between SEMS, primary tumor resection (PTR), and stoma/bypass (S/B).ResultsTwenty-one studies were selected (1754 patients). The odds ratio (OR) of SEMS for clinical success compared with surgery was 0.32 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15, 0.65). The ORs for early and late complications were 0.34 (95% CI 0.19, 0.59) and 2.30 (95% CI 1.22, 4.36), respectively. The ORs for 30-day mortality and stoma formation were 0.65 (95% CI 0.42, 1.01) and 0.11 (95% CI 0.05, 0.22), respectively. Standardized mean difference in hospital stay was - 2.08 (95% CI - 3.56, 0.59). The hazard ratio for overall survival was 1.24 (95% CI 1.08, 1.42). Network meta-analysis revealed that SEMS had the lowest incidence of early complications and rate of stoma formation and the shortest hospital stay. PTR ranked first in clinical success rate and had the lowest late-complication rate. The S/B group exhibited the lowest 30-day mortality rate.ConclusionAmong palliative treatments for AOCC, SEMSs had lower early complication, stoma formation, and 30-day mortality rates and shorter hospital stays. Surgery had higher clinical success and overall survival rates and lower incidence of late complications. Patient condition/preferences should be considered when selecting AOCC treatment.
| S-EPMC11420309 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the benefits and harms of palliative chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer and to compare the outcomes for elderly and younger patients.DesignMeta-analysis of individual patient data and published summary statistics from trials for which individual patient data could not be obtained from the investigators.StudiesAll randomised controlled trials comparing palliative chemotherapy with supportive care in patients with advanced colorectal cancer that were identified by computerised and hand searches of the literature, scanning references, and contacting investigators.Main outcome measuresSurvival, disease progression, quality of life, and toxicity.Results13 randomised controlled trials including a total of 1365 patients met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of seven trials that provided individual patient data (866 patients) showed that palliative chemotherapy was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of death (95% confidence interval 24% to 44%). This translates into an absolute improvement in survival of 16% at both six and 12 months and an improvement in median survival of 3.7 months. No age related differences were found in the effectiveness of chemotherapy, but elderly patients were under represented in trials. The overall quality of evidence relating to treatment toxicity, symptom control, and quality of life was poor.ConclusionsChemotherapy is effective in prolonging time to disease progression and survival in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. The survival benefit may be underestimated in this analysis as some patients in the control arms received chemotherapy.
| S-EPMC27466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although cancer care is often contextualized in terms of survival, there are other important cancer care outcomes, such as quality of life and cost of care. The ASCO Value Framework assesses the value of cancer therapies not only in terms of survival but also with consideration of quality of life and financial cost. Early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer is associated with improved quality of life, mood, symptoms, and overall survival for patients, as well as cost savings. While palliative care has been shown to have numerous benefits, the impact of real-world implementation of outpatient embedded palliative care on value-based metrics is not fully understood. We sought to describe the association between outpatient embedded palliative care in a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology clinic and inpatient value-based metrics. We performed a retrospective cohort study of 215 patients being treated for advanced thoracic malignancies with non-curative intent. We evaluated the association between outpatient embedded palliative care and inpatient clinical outcomes including emergency room visits, hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, hospital charges, as well as hospital quality metrics including 30-day readmissions, admissions within 30 days of death, inpatient mortality, and inpatient hospital charges. Outpatient embedded palliative care was associated with lower hospital charges per day (USD 3807 vs. USD 4695, p = 0.024). Furthermore, patients who received outpatient embedded palliative care had lower hospital admissions within 30 days of death (O.R. 0.45; 95% CI 0.29, 0.68; p < 0.001) and a lower inpatient mortality rate (IRR 0.67; 95% CI 0.48, 0.95; p = 0.024). Our study further supports that outpatient palliative care is a high-value intervention and alternative models of palliative care, including one embedded into a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology clinic, is associated with improved value-based metrics.
| S-EPMC10968799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Advanced gastric cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Patients with metastatic advanced gastric cancer commonly develop a gastric outlet obstruction that considerably worsens their quality of life. Surgical interventions such as gastrojejunostomy and palliative gastrectomy are commonly administered to alleviate this obstruction. However, whether one intervention is better than another at improving morbidity- and mortality-related outcomes is unclear. Thus, in this meta-analysis, we compare outcomes of palliative gastrectomy and gastrojejunostomy (overall hospital stay length, time to oral intake, survival, and complication rates) in patients with metastatic advanced gastric cancer to identify the best procedure. Objective: To compare morbidity and mortality outcomes of palliative gastrectomy and gastrojejunostomy in patients with metastatic advanced gastric cancer. Methods: We followed the PRISMA guidelines to systematically search Web of Science, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus, and MEDLINE for relevant studies. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to find differential outcomes between palliative gastrectomy and gastrojejunostomy among variables such as time to oral intake, overall hospital stay length, complication rates, and survival in patients with metastatic advanced gastric cancer. Results: From 963 studies, we found 7 eligible studies with 642 patients (70.3 ± 4.7 years) who had undergone palliative gastrectomy or gastrojejunostomy. Our meta-analysis revealed an insignificant (p > 0.05) differences in terms of overall survival duration (Hedge's g, 1.22), complication risks (odds ratio, 1.35), and time to oral intake (g, 0.62) and hospital stay length (g, 0.12) between patients undergoing gastrojejunostomy and palliative gastrectomy. Conclusion: In this present study we observed no statistically significant differences in terms of morbidity and mortality outcomes after palliative gastrectomy and gastrojejunostomy in patients with metastatic advanced gastric cancer. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn for the variables evaluated. This study provides a preliminary overview of the risks associated with gastrojejunostomy and palliative gastrectomy to help gastroenterologists manage patients with metastatic advanced-stage gastric cancer.
| S-EPMC8661416 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify and summarise evaluated interventions aiming to improve the communication of palliative care (PC) and end-of-life (EoL) issues in physicians caring for cancer patients. Such interventions are needed with regard to the aim of an earlier communication of those issues in oncology daily practice, which is associated with a range of benefits for patients and caregivers but is often impeded by physicians' communication insecurities.DesignSystematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Data sourcesRelevant publications were systematically searched in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science databases in September 2020 with an update in July 2021.Eligibility criteriaWe included publications reporting a quantitative evaluation of a communication intervention on one or more PC/EoL issues with a communication-related main outcome. Target group had to be physicians caring for cancer patients non-specialist in PC.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent raters extracted intervention characteristics, publication characteristics and publication quality. Results were narratively synthesised.Results24 publications reporting 22 interventions were included. 13 publications reported randomised controlled trials. A majority of the interventions addressed one specific PC/EoL issue, most often breaking bad news. Teaching strategies mostly involved role-plays. Target group were mainly oncologists. In addition to self-reported outcome measurements for evaluation, most publications also reported the use of external rating data. All but one publication reported significant intervention effects on at least one outcome parameter. Publication quality was overall moderate.ConclusionsThe empirically tested communication interventions on PC/EoL issues seem to effectively improve physicians' communication. Future interventions should focus on other issues than breaking bad news, such as preparing for the future. Target group should also be organ-specific oncologists, as all primary caring physicians are responsible for timely communication. Our risk-of-bias assessment revealed some weaknesses, indicating that more high-quality studies for evaluation are needed.Prospero registration numberCRD42020191054.
| S-EPMC9207918 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeQuality assessment is a critical component of determining the value of medical services, including palliative care. Characterization of the current portfolio of measures that assess the quality of palliative care delivered in oncology is necessary to identify gaps and inform future measure development.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of MEDLINE/PubMed and the gray literature for quality measures relevant to palliative care. Measures were categorized into National Quality Forum domains and reviewed for methodology of development and content. Measures were additionally analyzed to draw summative conclusions on scope and span.ResultsTwo hundred eighty-four quality measures within 13 measure sets were identified. The most common domains for measure content were Physical Aspects of Care (35%) and Structure and Processes of Care (22%). Of symptom-related measures, pain (36%) and dyspnea (26%) were the most commonly addressed. Spiritual (4%) and Cultural (1%) Aspects of Care were least represented domains. Generally, measures addressed processes of care, did not delineate benchmarks for success, and often did not specify intended interventions to address unmet needs. This was most evident regarding issues of psychosocial and spiritual assessment and management.ConclusionWithin a large cohort of quality measures for palliative, care is often a focus on physical manifestations of disease and adverse effects of therapy; relatively little attention is given to the other aspects of suffering commonly observed among patients with advanced cancer, including psychological, social, and spiritual distress.
| S-EPMC4094644 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically characterize interventions and effectiveness of palliative care for advanced heart failure (HF) patients.BackgroundPatients with advanced heart failure experience a high burden of distressing symptoms and diminished quality of life. Palliative care expertise with symptom management and healthcare decision-making benefits HF patients.MethodsA systematic PubMed search was conducted from inception to June 2016 for studies of palliative care interventions for HF patients. Studies of humans with a HF diagnosis who underwent a palliative care intervention were included. Data were extracted on study design, participant characteristics, intervention components, and in three groups of outcomes: patient-centered outcomes, quality-of-death outcomes, and resource utilization. Study characteristics were examined to determine if meta-analysis was possible.ResultsThe fifteen identified studies varied in design (prospective, n = 10; retrospective, n = 5). Studies enrolled older patients, but greater variability was found for race, sex, and marital status. A majority of studies measuring patient-centered outcomes demonstrated improvements including quality of life and satisfaction. Quality-of-death outcomes were mixed with a majority of studies reporting clarification of care preferences, but less improvement in death at home and hospice enrollment. A meta-analysis in three studies found that home-based palliative care consults in HF patients lower the risk of rehospitalization by 42% (RR = 0.58; 95% Confidence Interval 0.44, 0.77).DiscussionAvailable evidence suggests that home and team-based palliative interventions for HF patients improve patient-centered outcomes, documentation of preferences, and utilization. Increased high quality studies will aid the determination of the most effective palliative care approaches for the HF population.
| S-EPMC5177994 | biostudies-literature