Improving patient and caregiver outcomes in oncology: Team-based, timely, and targeted palliative care.
01 Sep 2018-CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians (American Cancer Society)-Vol. 68, Iss: 5, pp 356-376
TL;DR: In this state‐of‐the‐science review directed at the practicing cancer clinician, the authors first discuss the contemporary literature examining the impact of specialist palliative care on various health outcomes, and conceptual models are provided to support team‐based, timely, and targeted palliatives care.
Abstract: Over the past decade, a large body of evidence has accumulated supporting the integration of palliative care into oncology practice for patients with advanced cancer. The question is no longer whether palliative care should be offered, but what is the optimal model of delivery, when is the ideal time to refer, who is in greatest need of a referral, and how much palliative care should oncologists themselves be providing. These questions are particularly relevant given the scarcity of palliative care resources internationally. In this state-of-the-science review directed at the practicing cancer clinician, the authors first discuss the contemporary literature examining the impact of specialist palliative care on various health outcomes. Then, conceptual models are provided to support team-based, timely, and targeted palliative care. Team-based palliative care allows the interdisciplinary members to address comprehensively the multidimensional care needs of patients and their caregivers. Timely palliative care, at its best, is preventive care to minimize crises at the end of life. Targeted palliative care involves identifying the patients most likely to benefit from specialist palliative care interventions, akin to the concept of targeted cancer therapies. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of innovative care models, such as outpatient clinics, embedded clinics, nurse-led palliative care, primary palliative care provided by oncology teams, and automatic referral, are summarized. Moving forward, more research is needed to determine how different health systems can best personalize palliative care to provide the right level of intervention, for the right patient, in the right setting, at the right time. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;680:00-00. 2018 American Cancer Society, Inc.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: A state-of-the-science synopsis of the literature that supports each of the five clinical models of specialist palliative care delivery, including outpatient clinics, inpatient consultation teams, acute palliATIVE care units, community-based palliatives care, and hospice care are provided.
Abstract: Palliative care has evolved over the past five decades as an interprofessional specialty to improve quality of life and quality of care for patients with cancer and their families. Existing evidence supports that timely involvement of specialist palliative care teams can enhance the care delivered by oncology teams. This review provides a state-of-the-science synopsis of the literature that supports each of the five clinical models of specialist palliative care delivery, including outpatient clinics, inpatient consultation teams, acute palliative care units, community-based palliative care, and hospice care. The roles of embedded clinics, nurse-led models, telehealth interventions, and primary palliative care also will be discussed. Outpatient clinics represent the key point of entry for timely access to palliative care. In this setting, patient care can be enhanced longitudinally through impeccable symptom management, monitoring, education, and advance care planning. Inpatient consultation teams provide expert symptom management and facilitate discharge planning for acutely symptomatic hospitalized patients. Patients with the highest level of distress and complexity may benefit from an admission to acute palliative care units. In contrast, community-based palliative care and hospice care are more appropriate for patients with a poor performance status and low to moderate symptom burden. Each of these five models of specialist palliative care serve a different patient population along the disease continuum and complement one another to provide comprehensive supportive care. Additional research is needed to define the standards for palliative care interventions and to refine the models to further improve access to quality palliative care.
99 citations
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center1, American Society of Clinical Oncology2, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center3, University of Wisconsin-Madison4, Medical University of South Carolina5, University of Technology, Sydney6, Johns Hopkins University7, Rutgers University8, University of Bologna9, Harvard University10, Wayne State University11
TL;DR: In this article, the authors provide guidance on the clinical management of dyspnea in adult patients with advanced cancer using an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations, based on which the authors make recommendations.
Abstract: PURPOSETo provide guidance on the clinical management of dyspnea in adult patients with advanced cancer.METHODSASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. An...
57 citations
TL;DR: This study examined the changes in outpatient palliative care services at US cancer centers over the past decade with a focus on inpatient services.
Abstract: BACKGROUND This study examined the changes in outpatient palliative care services at US cancer centers over the past decade. METHODS Between April and August 2018, all National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and a random sample of 1252 non-NCI-designated cancer centers were surveyed. Two surveys used previously in a 2009 national study were sent to each institution: a 22-question cancer center executive survey regarding palliative care infrastructure and attitudes toward palliative care and an 82-question palliative care program leader survey regarding detailed palliative care structures and processes. Survey findings from 2018 were compared with 2009 data from 101 cancer center executives and 96 palliative care program leaders. RESULTS The overall response rate was 69% (140 of 203) for the cancer center executive survey and 75% (123 of 164) for the palliative care program leader survey. Among NCI-designated cancer centers, a significant increase in outpatient palliative care clinics was observed between 2009 and 2018 (59% vs 95%; odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-48.2; P < .001) with no significant changes in inpatient consultation teams (92% vs 90%; P = .71), palliative care units (PCUs; 26% vs 40%; P = .17), or institution-operated hospices (31% vs 18%; P = .14). Among non-NCI-designated cancer centers, there was no significant increase in outpatient palliative care clinics (22% vs 40%; P = .07), inpatient consultation teams (56% vs 68%; P = .27), PCUs (20% vs 18%; P = .76), or institution-operated hospices (42% vs 23%; P = .05). The median interval from outpatient palliative care referral to death increased significantly, particularly for NCI-designated cancer centers (90 vs 180 days; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Despite significant growth in outpatient palliative care clinics, there remain opportunities for improvement in the structures and processes of palliative care programs.
54 citations
Cites background from "Improving patient and caregiver out..."
...This survey was conducted before the publication of multiple studies reporting that timely palliative care improves patients’ quality of life, symptom burden, quality of end-of-life care, satisfaction, communication, caregiver outcomes, and cost of care.(5-12) This body of knowledge has led to calls by several national organizations, including the Institute of Medicine and the American Society for Clinical Oncology, to involve specialist palliative care early in the disease trajectory for patients with advanced cancer....
[...]
TL;DR: A national strategy to implement supportive care is needed to acknowledge evolving oncology practice, changing disease patterns and the changing patient demographic.
45 citations
Cites background from "Improving patient and caregiver out..."
...The need for ‘supportive oncology’ to become a specialty in its own right is borne out not just by the progress in its development in the UK and abroad, but by the unmet supportive care need [21,22], amplified by the rising incidence of cancer worldwide, with many patients living longer with incurable illness because of more effective cancer treatments [6]....
[...]
TL;DR: The ability of current screening tools to identify patients with advanced progressive diseases who are likely to have palliative care needs in primary care is limited and further research is needed to identify standardised screening processes that are based not only on predicting mortality and deterioration but also on anticipating the palliatives care needs and predicting the rate and course of functional decline.
Abstract: Background:Despite increasing evidence of the benefits of early access to palliative care, many patients do not receive palliative care in a timely manner. A systematic approach in primary care can...
39 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: The combined cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2015 by a total of 26%, translating to approximately 2,378,600 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak.
Abstract: Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data, available through 2014, were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data, available through 2015, were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, 1,735,350 new cancer cases and 609,640 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2005-2014) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% annually in men, while the cancer death rate (2006-2015) declined by about 1.5% annually in both men and women. The combined cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2015 by a total of 26%, translating to approximately 2,378,600 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Of the 10 leading causes of death, only cancer declined from 2014 to 2015. In 2015, the cancer death rate was 14% higher in non-Hispanic blacks (NHBs) than non-Hispanic whites (NHWs) overall (death rate ratio [DRR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.13-1.15), but the racial disparity was much larger for individuals aged <65 years (DRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.29-1.32) compared with those aged ≥65 years (DRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09) and varied substantially by state. For example, the cancer death rate was lower in NHBs than NHWs in Massachusetts for all ages and in New York for individuals aged ≥65 years, whereas for those aged <65 years, it was 3 times higher in NHBs in the District of Columbia (DRR, 2.89; 95% CI, 2.16-3.91) and about 50% higher in Wisconsin (DRR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.56-2.02), Kansas (DRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.25-1.81), Louisiana (DRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.60), Illinois (DRR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.57), and California (DRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.38-1.54). Larger racial inequalities in young and middle-aged adults probably partly reflect less access to high-quality health care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:7-30. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
14,011 citations
TL;DR: Among patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, early palliative care led to significant improvements in both quality of life and mood and, as compared with patients receiving standard care, patients received less aggressive care at the end of life but longer survival.
Abstract: Background Patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer have a substantial symptom burden and may receive aggressive care at the end of life. We examined the effect of introducing palliative care early after diagnosis on patient-reported outcomes and end-of-life care among ambulatory patients with newly diagnosed disease. Methods We randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer to receive either early palliative care integrated with standard oncologic care or standard oncologic care alone. Quality of life and mood were assessed at baseline and at 12 weeks with the use of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lung (FACT-L) scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, respectively. The primary outcome was the change in the quality of life at 12 weeks. Data on end-of-life care were collected from electronic medical records. Results Of the 151 patients who underwent randomization, 27 died by 12 weeks and 107 (86% of the remaining patients) completed assessments. Patients assigned to early palliative care had a better quality of life than did patients assigned to standard care (mean score on the FACT-L scale [in which scores range from 0 to 136, with higher scores indicating better quality of life], 98.0 vs. 91.5; P = 0.03). In addition, fewer patients in the palliative care group than in the standard care group had depressive symptoms (16% vs. 38%, P = 0.01). Despite the fact that fewer patients in the early palliative care group than in the standard care group received aggressive end-of-life care (33% vs. 54%, P = 0.05), median survival was longer among patients receiving early palliative care (11.6 months vs. 8.9 months, P = 0.02). Conclusions Among patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer, early palliative care led to significant improvements in both quality of life and mood. As compared with patients receiving standard care, patients receiving early palliative care had less aggressive care at the end of life but longer survival. (Funded by an American Society of Clinical Oncology Career Development Award and philanthropic gifts; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01038271.)
5,450 citations
Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation1, University of Washington2, Iran University of Medical Sciences3, King's College London4, Arabian Gulf University5, University of North Texas6, Auckland University of Technology7, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium8, Columbia University9, Wuhan University10, Imperial College London11, University of Alabama at Birmingham12, University at Albany, SUNY13, City University of New York14, University of California, San Francisco15, Griffith University16, Environment Agency17, New York University18, Southern University College19, Emory University20, University of Ottawa21, Kosin University22, University of Toronto23, University of British Columbia24, United Arab Emirates University25, Albert Einstein College of Medicine26, University of São Paulo27, Nova Southeastern University28, University of Sydney29, Heidelberg University30, Case Western Reserve University31, Cancer Treatment Centers of America32, University of Oxford33, George Mason University34, James Cook University35, University of Trieste36, University of Calgary37, Wageningen University and Research Centre38, University of Gothenburg39, University of the Witwatersrand40, Harvard University41, Jackson State University42, University of Arizona43, University of Hong Kong44, Tehran University of Medical Sciences45, University of Western Australia46, Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust47, Veterans Health Administration48, University of Colorado Denver49, Royal Children's Hospital50, University of Melbourne51, Australian National University52, University of Marburg53, Charité54, Health Canada55, College of Health Sciences, Bahrain56, Karolinska Institutet57, Northumbria University58, University of Edinburgh59, National Research University – Higher School of Economics60, Queen Mary University of London61, Addis Ababa University62, Northwestern University63, Northeastern University64, Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research65, Arak University of Medical Sciences66, University of Nottingham67, University of Tokyo68, Public Health Foundation of India69, University of Groningen70, University of the Philippines Manila71, University of Bologna72, Kyung Hee University73, Brighton and Sussex Medical School74, University of Bergen75, Stavanger University Hospital76, University of Queensland77, National Centre for Disease Control78, University of Sheffield79, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana80, University College London81, Genentech82, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman83, Norwegian Institute of Public Health84
TL;DR: To estimate mortality, incidence, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years for 28 cancers in 188 countries by sex from 1990 to 2013, the general methodology of the Global Burden of Disease 2013 study was used.
Abstract: Importance Cancer is among the leading causes of death worldwide. Current estimates of cancer burden in individual countries and regions are necessary to inform local cancer control strategies. Objective To estimate mortality, incidence, years lived with disability (YLDs), years of life lost (YLLs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 28 cancers in 188 countries by sex from 1990 to 2013. Evidence Review The general methodology of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2013 study was used. Cancer registries were the source for cancer incidence data as well as mortality incidence (MI) ratios. Sources for cause of death data include vital registration system data, verbal autopsy studies, and other sources. The MI ratios were used to transform incidence data to mortality estimates and cause of death estimates to incidence estimates. Cancer prevalence was estimated using MI ratios as surrogates for survival data; YLDs were calculated by multiplying prevalence estimates with disability weights, which were derived from population-based surveys; YLLs were computed by multiplying the number of estimated cancer deaths at each age with a reference life expectancy; and DALYs were calculated as the sum of YLDs and YLLs. Findings In 2013 there were 14.9 million incident cancer cases, 8.2 million deaths, and 196.3 million DALYs. Prostate cancer was the leading cause for cancer incidence (1.4 million) for men and breast cancer for women (1.8 million). Tracheal, bronchus, and lung (TBL) cancer was the leading cause for cancer death in men and women, with 1.6 million deaths. For men, TBL cancer was the leading cause of DALYs (24.9 million). For women, breast cancer was the leading cause of DALYs (13.1 million). Age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs) per 100 000 and age-standardized death rates (ASDRs) per 100 000 for both sexes in 2013 were higher in developing vs developed countries for stomach cancer (ASIR, 17 vs 14; ASDR, 15 vs 11), liver cancer (ASIR, 15 vs 7; ASDR, 16 vs 7), esophageal cancer (ASIR, 9 vs 4; ASDR, 9 vs 4), cervical cancer (ASIR, 8 vs 5; ASDR, 4 vs 2), lip and oral cavity cancer (ASIR, 7 vs 6; ASDR, 2 vs 2), and nasopharyngeal cancer (ASIR, 1.5 vs 0.4; ASDR, 1.2 vs 0.3). Between 1990 and 2013, ASIRs for all cancers combined (except nonmelanoma skin cancer and Kaposi sarcoma) increased by more than 10% in 113 countries and decreased by more than 10% in 12 of 188 countries. Conclusions and Relevance Cancer poses a major threat to public health worldwide, and incidence rates have increased in most countries since 1990. The trend is a particular threat to developing nations with health systems that are ill-equipped to deal with complex and expensive cancer treatments. The annual update on the Global Burden of Cancer will provide all stakeholders with timely estimates to guide policy efforts in cancer prevention, screening, treatment, and palliation.
2,375 citations
TL;DR: End-of-life discussions with physicians are associated with less aggressive medical care near death and earlier hospice referrals, and Aggressive care is associated with worse patient quality of life and worse bereavement adjustment.
Abstract: Context Talking about death can be difficult. Without evidence that end-of-life discussions improve patient outcomes, physicians must balance their desire to honor patient autonomy against a concern of inflicting psychological harm. Objective To determine whether end-of-life discussions with physicians are associated with fewer aggressive interventions. Design, Setting, and Participants A US multisite, prospective, longitudinal cohort study of patients with advanced cancer and their informal caregivers (n = 332dyads), September 2002-February 2008. Patients were followed up from enrollment to death, a median of 4.4 months later. Bereaved caregivers' psychiatric illness and quality of life was assessed a median of 6.5 months later. Main Outcome Measures Aggressive medical care (eg, ventilation, resuscitation) and hospice in the final week of life. Secondary outcomes included patients' mental health and caregivers' bereavement adjustment. Results One hundred twenty-three of 332 (37.0%) patients reported having end-of-life discussions before baseline. Such discussions were not associated with higher rates of major depressive disorder (8.3% vs 5.8%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-3.32), or more worry (mean McGill score, 6.5 vs 7.0; P = .19). After propensity-score weighted adjustment, end-of-life discussions were associated with lower rates of ventilation (1.6% vs 11.0%; adjusted OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83), resuscitation (0.8% vs 6.7%; adjusted OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.80), ICU admission (4.1% vs 12.4%; adjusted OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14-0.90), and earlier hospice enrollment (65.6% vs 44.5%; adjusted OR, 1.65;95% CI, 1.04-2.63). In adjusted analyses, more aggressive medical care was associated with worse patient quality of life (6.4 vs 4.6; F = 3.61, P = .01) and higher risk of major depressive disorder in bereaved caregivers (adjusted OR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.12-10.13), whereas longer hospice stays were associated with better patient quality of life (mean score, 5.6 vs 6.9; F = 3.70, P = .01). Better patient quality of life was associated with better caregiver quality of life at follow-up (β = .20; P = .001). Conclusions End-of-life discussions are associated with less aggressive medical care near death and earlier hospice referrals. Aggressive care is associated with worse patient quality of life and worse bereavement adjustment.
2,300 citations
TL;DR: Clinical benefits were associated with symptom self-reporting during cancer care and were greater for participants lacking prior computer experience.
Abstract: Purpose There is growing interest to enhance symptom monitoring during routine cancer care using patientreported outcomes, but evidence of impact on clinical outcomes is limited. Methods We randomly assigned patients receiving routine outpatient chemotherapy for advanced solid tumors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to report 12 common symptoms via tablet computers or to receive usual care consisting of symptom monitoring at the discretion of clinicians. Those with home computers received weekly e-mail prompts to report between visits. Treating physicians received symptom printouts at visits, and nurses received e-mail alerts when participants reported severe or worsening symptoms. The primary outcome was change in health-related quality of life (HRQL) at 6 months compared with baseline, measured by the EuroQol EQ-5D Index. Secondary endpoints included emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival. Results Among 766 patients allocated, HRQL improved among more participants in the intervention group than usual care (34% v 18%) and worsened among fewer (38% v 53%; P , .001). Overall, mean HRQL declined by less in the intervention group than usual care (1.4- v 7.1-point drop; P , .001). Patients receiving intervention were less frequently admitted to the ER (34% v 41%; P = .02) or hospitalized (45% v 49%; P = .08) and remained on chemotherapy longer (mean, 8.2 v 6.3 months; P = .002). Although 75% of the intervention group was alive at 1 year, 69% with usual care survived the year (P = .05), with differences also seen in quality-adjusted survival (mean of 8.7 v. 8.0 months; P = .004). Benefits were greater for participants lacking prior computer experience. Most patients receiving intervention (63%) reported severe symptoms during the study. Nurses frequently initiated clinical actions in response to e-mail alerts. Conclusion Clinical benefits were associated with symptom self-reporting during cancer care. J Clin Oncol 34:557-565. © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
1,534 citations