scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Amy P. Abernethy

Bio: Amy P. Abernethy is an academic researcher from Duke University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Palliative care & Population. The author has an hindex of 76, co-authored 586 publications receiving 25420 citations. Previous affiliations of Amy P. Abernethy include University of Technology, Sydney & Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is the Panel's expert consensus that combined standard oncology care and palliative care should be considered early in the course of illness for any patient with metastatic cancer and/or high symptom burden.
Abstract: Purpose American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to ASCO’s membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO addresses the integration of palliative care services into standard oncology practice at the time a person is diagnosed with metastatic or advanced cancer. Clinical Context Palliative care is frequently misconstrued as synonymous with end-of-life care. Palliative care is focused on the relief of suffering, in all of its dimensions, throughout the course of a patient’s illness. Although the use of hospice and other palliative care services at the end of life has increased, many patients are enrolled in hospice less than 3 weeks before their death, which limits the benefit they may gain from these services. By potentially improving quality of life (QOL), cost of care, and even survival in patients with metastatic cancer, palliative care has increasing relevance for the care of patients with cancer. Until recently, data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating the benefits of palliative care in patients with metastatic cancer who are also receiving standard oncology care have not been available. Recent Data Seven published RCTs form the basis of this PCO. Provisional Clinical Opinion Based on strong evidence from a phase III RCT, patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer should be offered concurrent palliative care and standard oncologic care at initial diagnosis. While a survival benefit from early involvement of palliative care has not yet been demonstrated in other oncology settings, substantial evidence demonstrates that palliative care—when combined with standard cancer care or as the main focus of care—leads to better patient and caregiver outcomes. These include improvement in symptoms, QOL, and patient satisfaction, with reduced caregiver burden. Earlier involvement of palliative care also leads to more appropriate referral to and use of hospice, and reduced use of futile intensive care. While evidence clarifying optimal delivery of palliative care to improve patient outcomes is evolving, no trials to date have demonstrated harm to patients and caregivers, or excessive costs, from early involvement of palliative care. Therefore, it is the Panel’s expert consensus that combined standard oncology care and palliative care should be considered early in the course of illness for any patient with metastatic cancer and/or high symptom burden. Strategies to optimize concurrent palliative care and standard oncology care, with evaluation of its impact on important patient and caregiver outcomes (eg, QOL, survival, health care services utilization, and costs) and on society, should be an area of intense research. NOTE. ASCO’s provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) reflect expert consensus based on clinical evidence and literature available at the time they are written and are intended to assist physicians in clinical decision making and identify questions and settings for further research. Because of the rapid flow of scientific information in oncology, new evidence may have emerged since the time a PCO was submitted for publication. PCOs are not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent evidence. PCOs cannot account for individual variation among patients and cannot be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other treatments. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine the best course of treatment for the patient. Accordingly, adherence to any PCO is voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding its application to be made by the physician in light of each patient’s individual circumstances. ASCO PCOs describe the use of procedures and therapies in clinical trials and cannot be assumed to apply to the use of these interventions in the context of clinical practice. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of ASCO’s PCOs, or for any errors or omissions.

1,141 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The U.S. palliative care model adds another layer of specialized care to a complex, expensive health care environment, and there are too few palliatives care specialists to meet demand.
Abstract: The U.S. palliative care model adds another layer of specialized care to a complex, expensive health care environment, and there are too few palliative care specialists to meet demand. Distinguishing primary from specialist palliative care would improve quality of care.

1,110 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Insured patients undergoing cancer treatment and seeking copayment assistance experience considerable subjective financial burden, and they may alter their care to defray out-of-pocket expenses.
Abstract: Purpose. Cancer patients carry rising burdens of health care-related out-of-pocket expenses, and a growing number of patients are considered “underinsured.” Our objective was to describe experiences of insured cancer patients requesting copayment assistance and to describe the impact of health care expenses on well-being and treatment.

796 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Evidence demonstrates favorable validity, reliability, and responsiveness in a large, heterogeneous US sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment in a patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).
Abstract: Importance To integrate the patient perspective into adverse event reporting, the National Cancer Institute developed a patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Objective To assess the construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE items. Design, Setting, and Participants A total of 975 adults with cancer undergoing outpatient chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy enrolled in this questionnaire-based study between January 2011 and February 2012. Eligible participants could read English and had no clinically significant cognitive impairment. They completed PRO-CTCAE items on tablet computers in clinic waiting rooms at 9 US cancer centers and community oncology practices at 2 visits 1 to 6 weeks apart. A subset completed PRO-CTCAE items during an additional visit 1 business day after the first visit. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary comparators were clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Results A total of 940 of 975 (96.4%) and 852 of 940 (90.6%) participants completed PRO-CTCAE items at visits 1 and 2, respectively. At least 1 symptom was reported by 938 of 940 (99.8%) participants. Participants’ median age was 59 years; 57.3% were female, 32.4% had a high school education or less, and 17.1% had an ECOG PS of 2 to 4. All PRO-CTCAE items had at least 1 correlation in the expected direction with a QLQ-C30 scale (111 of 124, P P r = 0.43 [0.10-.56]; all P ≤ .006). Conclusions and Relevance Evidence demonstrates favorable validity, reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE in a large, heterogeneous US sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment. Studies evaluating other measurement properties of PRO-CTCAE are under way to inform further development of PRO-CTCAE and its inclusion in cancer trials.

738 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Reading a book as this basics of qualitative research grounded theory procedures and techniques and other references can enrich your life quality.

13,415 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Authors/Task Force Members: Piotr Ponikowski* (Chairperson) (Poland), Adriaan A. Voors* (Co-Chair person) (The Netherlands), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Héctor Bueno (Spain), John G. F. Cleland (UK), Andrew J. S. Coats (UK)

13,400 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: ACCF/AHAIAI: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor as discussed by the authors, angio-catabolizing enzyme inhibitor inhibitor inhibitor (ACS inhibitor) is a drug that is used to prevent atrial fibrillation.
Abstract: ACC/AHA : American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ACCF/AHA : American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association ACE : angiotensin-converting enzyme ACEI : angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ACS : acute coronary syndrome AF : atrial fibrillation

7,489 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Authors/Task Force Members: Piotr Ponikowski* (Chairperson) (Poland), Adriaan A. Voors* (Co-Chair person) (The Netherlands), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Héctor Bueno (Spain), John G. F. Cleland (UK), Andrew J. S. Coats (UK)
Abstract: ACC/AHA : American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ACCF/AHA : American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association ACE : angiotensin-converting enzyme ACEI : angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ACS : acute coronary syndrome AF : atrial fibrillation

6,757 citations