353. New Negative Symptom Assessment Tools for Clinical Trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 81 (10) ◽  
pp. S145
Author(s):  
William Horan ◽  
Felice Reddy ◽  
Michael Green
2012 ◽  
Vol 142 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 88-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory P. Strauss ◽  
William R. Keller ◽  
Robert W. Buchanan ◽  
James M. Gold ◽  
Bernard A. Fischer ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (9) ◽  
pp. 1151-1158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hsien Seow ◽  
Lisa Barbera ◽  
Rinku Sutradhar ◽  
Doris Howell ◽  
Deborah Dudgeon ◽  
...  

Purpose Ontario's cancer system is unique because it has implemented two standardized assessment tools population-wide to improve care: the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) measures severity of nine symptoms (scale 0 to 10; 10 indicates the worst) and the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) measures performance status (scale 0 to 100; 0 indicates death). This article describes the trajectory of ESAS and PPS scores 6 months before death. Patients and Methods Observational cohort study of cancer decedents between 2007 and 2009. Decedents required ≥1 ESAS or PPS assessment in the 6 months before death for inclusion. Outcomes were the decedents' average ESAS and PPS scores per week before death. Results Ten thousand seven hundred fifty-two (ESAS) and 7,882 (PPS) decedents were included. The mean age was 65 years, half were female, and approximately 75% of assessments occurred in cancer clinics. Average PPS score declined slowly over the 6 months before death, starting at approximately 70 and ending at 40, declining more rapidly in the last month. For ESAS symptoms, average pain, nausea, anxiety, and depression scores remained relatively stable over the 6 months. Conversely, shortness of breath, drowsiness, well-being, lack of appetite, and tiredness increased in severity over time, particularly in the month before death. More than one third of the cohort reported moderate to severe scores (ie, 4 to 10) for most symptoms in the last month of life. Conclusion In this large outpatient cancer population, trajectories of mean ESAS scores followed two patterns: increasing versus generally flat. The latter was perhaps due to available treatment (eg, prescriptions) for those symptoms. Future research should prioritize addressing symptoms that worsen over time.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e037466
Author(s):  
Patricia Harasym ◽  
Sarah Brisbin ◽  
Misha Afzaal ◽  
Aynharan Sinnarajah ◽  
Lorraine Venturato ◽  
...  

ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted ongoing challenges to optimal supportive end-of-life care for adults living in long-term care (LTC) facilities. A supportive end-of-life care approach emphasises family involvement, optimal symptom control, multidisciplinary team collaboration and death and bereavement support services for residents and families. Community-based and palliative care specialist physicians who visit residents in LTC facilities play an important role in supportive end-of-life care. Yet, perspectives, experiences and perceptions of these physicians remain unknown. The objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators to optimal supportive end-of-life palliative care in LTC through the experiences and perceptions of community-based and palliative specialist physicians who visit LTC facilities.DesignQualitative study using semi-structured interviews, basic qualitative description and directed content analysis using the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation - behaviour) theoretical framework.SettingResidential long-term care.Participants23 physicians who visit LTC facilities from across Alberta, Canada, including both in urban and rural settings of whom 18 were community-based physicians and 5 were specialist palliative care physicians.ResultsMotivation barriers include families’ lack of frailty knowledge, unrealistic expectations and emotional reactions to grief and uncertainty. Capability barriers include lack of symptom assessment tools, as well as palliative care knowledge, training and mentorship. Physical and social design barriers include lack of dedicated spaces for death and bereavement, inadequate staff, and mental health and spiritual services of insufficient scope for the population.ConclusionFindings reveal that validating families’ concerns, having appropriate symptom assessment tools, providing mentorship in palliative care and adapting the physical and social environment to support dying and grieving with dignity facilitates supportive, end-of-life care within LTC.


2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 134-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna Spaner ◽  
Valerie B. Caraiscos ◽  
Christina Muystra ◽  
Margaret Lynn Furman ◽  
Jodi Zaltz-Dubin ◽  
...  

Background: Optimal care for patients in the palliative care setting requires effective clinical teamwork. Communication may be challenging for health-care workers from different disciplines. Daily rounds are one way for clinical teams to share information and develop care plans for patients. Objective: The objective of this initiative was to improve the structure and process of daily palliative care rounds by incorporating the use of standardized tools and improved documentation into the meeting. We chose a quality improvement (QI) approach to address this initiative. Our aims were to increase the use of assessment tools when discussing patient care in rounds and to improve the documentation and accessibility of important information in the health record, including goals of care. Methods: This QI initiative used a preintervention and postintervention comparison of the outcome measures of interest. The initiative was tested in a palliative care unit (PCU) over a 22-month period from April 2014 to January 2016. Participants were clinical staff in the PCU. Results: Data collected after the completion of several plan-do-study-act cycles showed increased use and incorporation of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and Palliative Performance Scale into patient care discussions as well as improvement in inclusion of goals of care into the patient plan of care. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that the effectiveness of daily palliative care rounds can be improved by incorporating the use of standard assessment tools and changes into the meeting structure to better focus and direct patient care discussions.


Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 4242-4242
Author(s):  
Efstathios Kastritis ◽  
Evangelos Terpos ◽  
Nikolaos Kanellias ◽  
Vasiliki Babali ◽  
Spyridon Orfanopoulos ◽  
...  

Abstract The diagnosis of MM that requires therapy in elderly individuals is increasing. The management of such patients is challenging due to several factors, besides disease characteristics and age that affect outcome. Geriatric assessment (GA) is a multidimensional diagnostic approach that collects data on the medical, psychosocial and functional capabilities and limitations of elderly patients to develop treatment and care decisions and improve the use of health care resources. The IMWG has proposed a simplified GA ("frailty score") based on 3 tools (Katz Activity of Daily Living (ADL), the Lawton Instrumental Activity of Daily Living (IADL) and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)) as a measure of frailty (Palumbo et al, Blood 2015). "Frailty score" was developed on patients who participated in clinical trials, thus, may have a selection bias. In our current "Real-World" study, we prospectively evaluated consecutive patients >65 years, irrespective of their participation in clinical trials and physical condition, in order to evaluate several different GA tools and comorbidity indices, along with standard disease related prognostic factors. The following tools were used: G8 geriatric assessment screening tool (G8-GAS), VES-13, GDS, Katz ADL, Lawton IADL, MMSE, KPS (%), ECOG PS, number of falls in the past 1 & 6 months, lower-extremity function and disability in elderly tool, nutritional assessment tools (DETERMINE and Mini Nutritional Assessment), social support score, cognition evaluation tools (MMSE), Geriatric Depression Scale and comorbidity indices (CCI, CIRS-G, ACE-27 tool). Since January 2012, 120 consecutive patients >65 years were diagnosed with symptomatic MM in our center (Department of Clinical Therapeutics, University of Athens) and had a GA. The median age of patients with a GA was 76 years (range 66-92); 55% were males; 26% had ISS-1, 24% ISS-2 and 50% ISS-3. In 100 patients cytogenetics were available: 19% had high risk cytogenetics (del17p or t(4;14)). Median eGFR was 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 and 22% had eGFR<30 ml/min/1.73 m2. Treatment was based on IMiDs in 47% of patients (thalidomide in 13% and lenalidomide in 34%) and proteasome inhibitors (mainly bortezomib) in 53%. At least PR was achieved by 78% of evaluable patients. Median follow up was 20 months and 2-year overall survival (OS) was 71%. Age was associated with OS and the risk of early death (<3 months): the respective HRs for death for ages ≤70 vs 71-80 vs >80 years was 1, 1.5 and 3 and early death rates were 3%, 8% and 20%, respectively. ISS was associated with OS (p=0.004) but the presence of high risk cytogenetics was not (2-year OS 75% vs 68%, p=0.714). There was no significant difference in the OS according to different types of primary therapy (p=0.593). Per IMWG "frailty score", 29% were fit, 17% intermediately fit and 54% frail; the respective 2-year OS was 77%, 81% and 62%. The differences in the allocation of patients in frailty categories compared to the original IMWG cohort (39%, 31% & 30%) is probably due to the fact that our patients were unselected. In univariate analysis several different GA tools showed prognostic significance: number of falls in the past 6 months (0 vs ≥1, p=0.002), lower extremity function (score <9 vs ≥9, p=0.014), mini nutritional assessment (score <11 vs ≥11, p=0.014), G8-GAS (score <12 vs ≥12, p<0.001), KPS <50% (p<0.001), ECOG PS >2 (p=0.04) and MMSE (score ≥6 vs <6, p=0.024). There was an association of early death with KPS ≤50% (p=0.003), ECOG PS >2 (p=0.05), Geriatric depression score (p=0.018) and G8-GAS score (p=0.015). IMWG "frailty score" was not associated with early death. In multivariate analysis, which included ISS and age, number of falls in the past 6 months (0 vs ≥1, HR: 4.7, p=0.007) and score <12 in the G8-GAS tool (HR: 4.7, p=0.004) were independent factors for survival. Addition of cytogenetics did not change the multivariate model. We also evaluated IMWG "frailty score" in a multivariate analysis, which included ISS stage, and we did not find statistical significance for OS. In conclusion, in elderly myeloma patients, G8-GAS provides prognostic information related to the risk of early death and overall survival, independently from disease characteristics and the treatment type. IMWG "frailty score" provides a simple tool which may be useful for patients fit to participate in clinical trials but in unselected, "Real-World", patients may have reduced prognostic performance. Disclosures Terpos: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel expenses; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: travel expenses; Novartis: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Genesis: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Onyx: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9560-9560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Pickar Abernethy ◽  
Ryan David Nipp ◽  
David Currow ◽  
Nathan Cherny ◽  
Florian Strasser ◽  
...  

9560 Background: BSC as a control arm in clinical trials is poorly defined. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate clinical trial concordance with published, consensus-based framework for BSC delivery in trials. Methods: A consensus-based Delphi panel previously identified 4 key domains of BSC delivery in trials: multidisciplinary care; supportive care documentation; symptom assessment at least as often as the intervention arm; and guideline-based symptom management. A systematic review of trials including BSC control arms assessed BSC concordance to the consensus-based domains. Databases were searched from 2002-2012 using search strings: “cancer”; “best supportive care”; “randomized” or “random allocation”; and “supportive” or “palliative.” Exclusion criteria were: no BSC arm, non-human trial, not randomized, not English, not advanced cancer, or not including anticancer therapy. Data were independently extracted by 2 reviewers and scored by 4 reviewers for conformance with consensus-based BSC framework. Results: 373 articles were retrieved, 17 retained after applying exclusion criteria. Overall, trials conformed to <18% of the consensus-based BSC standards. 35% of articles offered a detailed description of BSC. 65% reported baseline and regular symptom assessment, and 47% reported using validated symptom assessment measures. 35% reported symptom assessment at identical intervals in both experimental and BSC arms. None listed an evidence-based guideline for symptom management. None of the multicenter trials reported standardization of BSC across sites. No studies reported educating patients on symptom management or goals of anti-cancer therapy. No studies reported offering access to palliative care specialists, social workers, financial or spiritual counseling. Conclusions: Reporting of BSC in trials is incomplete, resulting in uncertain internal and external validity. Such poorly defined interventions and variation between sites is unacceptable for other aspects of a clinical trial. Unless it is truly best supportive care, such studies may risk systematically over-estimating the clinical effect of the comparator arms. Standardization of a BSC delivery framework is needed to improve trial design and data generalization.


2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 145-145
Author(s):  
Lindsey E Pimentel ◽  
Maxine Grace De la Cruz ◽  
Angelique Wong ◽  
Debra Castro ◽  
Eduardo Bruera

145 Background: Integration of Palliative Care (PC) in oncology has been found to improve symptom distress, quality of life and survival in patients with advanced cancer. Early integration is most appropriate in the outpatient (OP) setting. However, most PC services in the U.S. do not have an OP component. Our study aims to provide a snapshot of the type of patients that are referred to this novel setting for the delivery of early PC. Methods: We reviewed a day in the SCC to illustrate the structure and process involved in the delivery of outpatient PC. We highlighted 9 patients seen that day to show the variety of patients, scope of services, and the unique roles that PC interdisciplinary team members perform. Results: 41 patients were seen that day in the SCC: 10 scheduled consults, 22 scheduled follow-ups, 9 (22%) same-day unscheduled patients: 4 follow-ups, 1 consult and 4 nurse triages. There were also 31 telephone encounters. Most patients seen were for routine follow-up and symptom assessment. However, 10 presented with worsening symptoms with one needing hospital admission. 21 patients required additional counseling: 2 for hospice transitioning, 12 for psychosocial distress, 7 for opioid education. PC was delivered predominantly by physicians and nurses with collaboration with our pharmacist, counselors, and case manager. Conclusions: Traditionally, PC has been delivered predominantly to patients with advanced disease and to aid in transition to end of life. In recent years, OP centers have dramatically changed the nature of PC work as in our snapshot. In addition to patients regarded as traditional PC patients, such as those transitioning to end of life, there are now patients who come in soon after arrival to a cancer center requiring specialized care to address a variety of symptom and educational needs, thus requiring adaptation of structure and processes to allow access for frequent follow ups and counseling and flexibility for walk-in visits. Our findings suggest that SCC needs to practice in a very different way which requires certain skills and assessment tools that are not conventionally present in traditional oncology clinic setting. More research is needed to identify the type of patients that would benefit most from a PC referral.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21611-e21611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salman Ali Eraj ◽  
Mona K Jomaa ◽  
Crosby Douglas Rock ◽  
Abdallah Mohamed ◽  
Adam S. Garden ◽  
...  

e21611 Background: Given the potential for older patients (pts) to experience exaggerated toxicity and symptoms, this study was performed to characterize pt reported outcomes (PROs) in older pts following definitive radiation therapy (RT) for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). Methods: Disease-free head and neck cancer survivors ( > 6 mos. since tx) were eligible for participation in a questionnaire-based study. Participants completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck module (MDASI-HN). Those who had been treated for OPC with definitive RT (w/ or w/o systemic therapy) and were > 65 y/o at time of RT were included. Individual and overall symptom severity and clinical variables were analyzed. Results: Of the 79 participants analyzed, 82% were male, 95% white, 41% T3/4 disease, 39% RT alone, 27% induction chemotherapy, 52% concurrent, and 18% both, and 96% IMRT. Median age at the time of RT was 71 yrs. (range: 65-85); median time from end of RT to MDASI-HN completion was 46 mos. (2/3 > 24 mos.). The top 5 MDASI-HN items rated most severe in terms of mean (±SD) ratings (0-10 scale) were dry mouth (3.48±2.95), taste (2.81±3.29), swallowing (2.59±2.96), mucus in mouth/throat (2.04±2.68), and choking (1.30±2.38) reported at moderate to severe levels (≥5) by 35, 29, 29, 18, and 13%, respectively. Thirty-nine % reported none (0) or no more than mild (1-4) symptoms across all 22 MDASI-HN symptoms items, and 38% had at least one item rated as severe (≥7). Hierarchal cluster analysis resulted in 3 patient groups: 1) ~75% with generally no to moderate symptom burden, 2) ~25% with moderate to severe ratings for a subset of classically RT-related symptoms (e.g. dry mouth, mucus, swallow, taste), and 3) only 2 pts with severe ratings of nearly all items. Subgroup comparisons will be presented. Conclusions: The overall long-term symptom burden seen in this older OPC cohort was largely favorable, yet a higher symptom group (~25%) with a distinct pattern of mostly local symptoms was identified. We have implemented the routine use of symptom assessment tools as part of OPC survivorship programs and plan to explore age-dose-modeling of symptoms identified and associated normal structures.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document