Differences in performance status assessments between palliative care specialists, nurses, and oncologists.

19 Background: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) is one of the most commonly used assessment tools among oncologists and palliative care specialists caring advanced cancer patients. However, the inter-observer difference between the oncologist and palliative care specialist has never been reported. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients who were first referred to an outpatient palliative care clinic in 2013 and identified 278 eligible patients. The ECOG PS assessments by palliative care specialists, nurses, and oncologists, and the symptom burden measured by Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were analyzed. Results: According to the pairwise comparisons using Sign tests, palliative care specialists rated the ECOG PS grade significantly higher than oncologists (median 0.5 grade, P<0.0001) and nurses also rated significantly higher (median 1.0 grade, P<0.0001). The assessments of palliative care specialists and nurses were not significantly different (P=0.10). Weighted kappa values for inter-observer agreement were 0.26 between palliative care specialists and oncologists, and 0.61 between palliative care specialists and nurses. Palliative care specialists’ assessments showed a moderate correlation with fatigue, dyspnea, anorexia, feeling of well-being, and symptom distress score measured by ESAS. The ECOG PS assessments by all three groups were significantly associated with survival (P<0.001), but the assessments by oncologists could not distinguish survival of patients with PS 2 from 3. Independent predictors of discordance in PS assessments between palliative care specialists and oncologists were the presence of an effective treatment option (odds ratio [OR] 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-5.23) and poor feeling of well-being (≥4) by ESAS (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.34-4.21). Conclusions: ECOG PS assessments by the palliative care specialists and nurses were significantly different from the oncologists. Systematic efforts to increase regular interdisciplinary meetings and communications might be crucial to bridge the gap and establish a best care plan for each advanced cancer patients.

Download Full-text

Frequency, intensity, and correlates of spiritual pain in advanced cancer patients assessed in a supportive/palliative care clinic

Palliative & Supportive Care ◽

10.1017/s147895151500108x ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 14 (4) ◽

pp. 341-348 ◽

Cited By ~ 35

Author(s):

Marvin Omar Delgado-Guay ◽

Gary Chisholm ◽

Janet Williams ◽

Susan Frisbee-Hume ◽

Andrea O. Ferguson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Palliative Care ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Financial Distress ◽

Well Being ◽

Advanced Cancer Patients ◽

Care Clinic ◽

New Instrument ◽

Frequency Intensity

AbstractObjective:Regular assessments of spiritual distress/spiritual pain among patients in a supportive/palliative care clinic (SCPC) are limited or unavailable. We modified the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) by adding spiritual pain (SP) to the scale (0 = best, 10 = worst) to determine the frequency, intensity, and correlates of self-reported SP (≥1/10) (pain deep in your soul/being that is not physical) among these advanced cancer patients.Method:We reviewed 292 consecutive consults of advanced cancer patients (ACPs) who were evaluated at our SCPC between October of 2012 and January of 2013. Symptoms were assessed using the new instrument (termed the ESAS–FS).Results:The median age of patients was 61 (range = 22–92). Some 53% were male; 189 (65%) were white, 45 (15%) African American, and 34 (12%) Hispanic. Some 123 of 282 (44%) of ACPs had SP (mean (95% CI) = 4(3.5–4.4). Advanced cancer patients with SP had worse pain [mean (95% CI) = 5.3(4.8, 5.8) vs. 4.5(4.0, 5.0)] (p = 0.02); depression [4.2(3.7, 4.7) vs. 2.1(1.7, 2.6), p < 0.0001]; anxiety [4.2(3.6, 4.7) vs. 2.5(2.0, 3.0), p < 0.0001]; drowsiness [4.2(3.7, 4.7) vs. 2.8(2.3, 3.2), p < 0.0001]; well-being [5.4(4.9, 5.8) vs. 4.5(4.1, 4.9), p = 0.0136]; and financial distress (FD) [4.4(3.9, 5.0) vs. 2.2(1.8, 2.7), p < 0.0001]. Spiritual pain correlated (Spearman) with depression (r = 0.45, p < 0.0001), anxiety (r = 0.34, p < 0.0001), drowsiness (r = 0.26, p < 0.0001), and FD (r = 0.44, p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed an association with FD [OR (95% Wald CI) = 1.204(1.104–1.313), p < 0.0001] and depression [1.218(1.110–1.336), p < 0.0001]. The odds that patients who had SP at baseline would also have SP at follow-up were 182% higher (OR = 2.82) than for patients who were SP-negative at baseline (p = 0.0029). SP at follow-up correlated with depression (r = 0.35, p < 0.0001), anxiety (r = 0.25, p = 0.001), well-being (r = 0.27, p = 0.0006), nausea (r = 0.29, p = 0.0002), and financial distress (r = 0.42, p < 0.0001).Significance of results:Spiritual pain, which is correlated with physical and psychological distress, was reported in more than 40% of ACPs. Employment of the ESAS–FS allows ACPs with SP to be identified and evaluated in an SCPC. More research is needed.

Download Full-text

Palliative Care and COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Study of Factors Associated With Infection and Death at an Oncological Palliative Care Reference Center

American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® ◽

10.1177/1049909120986962 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 104990912098696

Author(s):

Livia Costa de Oliveira ◽

Karla Santos da Costa Rosa ◽

Ana Luísa Durante ◽

Luciana de Oliveira Ramadas Rodrigues ◽

Daianny Arrais de Oliveira da Cunha ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Diabetes Mellitus ◽

Palliative Care ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Karnofsky Performance Status ◽

Performance Status ◽

Tumor Type ◽

Advanced Cancer Patients ◽

Factors Associated ◽

Reactive Protein

Background: Advanced cancer patients are part of a group likely to be more susceptible to COVID-19. Aims: To describe the profile of advanced cancer inpatients to an exclusive Palliative Care Unit (PCU) with the diagnosis of COVID-19, and to evaluate the factors associated with death in these cases. Design: Retrospective cohort study with data from advanced cancer inpatients to an exclusive PCU, from March to July 2020, with severe acute respiratory syndrome. Diagnostic of COVID-19 and death were the dependent variables. Logistic regression analyses were performed, with the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: One hundred fifty-five patients were selected. The mean age was 60.9 (±13.4) years old and the most prevalent tumor type was breast (30.3%). Eighty-three (53.5%) patients had a diagnostic confirmation of COVID-19. Having diabetes mellitus (OR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.1-6.6) and having received chemotherapy in less than 30 days before admission (OR: 3.8; 95% CI: 1.2-12.2) were associated factors to diagnosis of COVID-19. Among those infected, 81.9% died and, patients with Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) < 30% (OR: 14.8; 95% CI 2.7-21.6) and C-reactive protein (CRP) >21.6mg/L (OR: 9.3; 95% CI 1.1-27.8), had a greater chance of achieving this outcome. Conclusion: Advanced cancer patients who underwent chemotherapy in less than 30 days before admission and who had diabetes mellitus were more likely to develop Coronavirus 2019 disease. Among the confirmed cases, those hospitalized with worse KPS and bigger CRP were more likely to die.

Download Full-text

Verbalized desire for death or euthanasia in advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care

Palliative & Supportive Care ◽

10.1017/s1478951514000121 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 13 (2) ◽

pp. 295-303 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Ernest Güell ◽

Adelaida Ramos ◽

Tania Zertuche ◽

Antonio Pascual

Keyword(s):

Palliative Care ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Terminally Ill ◽

Well Being ◽

Semistructured Interview ◽

Advanced Cancer Patients ◽

Terminally Ill Cancer Patients ◽

Symptom Intensity ◽

Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale ◽

Desire To Die

AbstractObjective:We aimed to address the prevalence of desire-to-die statements (DDSs) among terminally ill cancer patients in an acute palliative care unit. We also intended to compare the underlying differences between those patients who make desire-to-die comments (DDCs) and those who make desire-for-euthanasia comments (EUCs).Method:We conducted a one-year cross-sectional prospective study in all patients receiving palliative care who had made a DDC or EUC. At inclusion, we evaluated symptom intensity, anxiety and depression, and conducted a semistructured interview regarding the reasons for these comments.Results:Of the 701 patients attended to during the study period, 69 (9.8%; IC95% 7.7–12.3) made a DDS: 51 (7.3%) a DDC, and 18 (2.5%) an EUC. Using Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) DDC group showed higher percentage of moderate-severe symptoms (ESAS > 4) for well-being (91 vs. 25%; p = 0.001), depression (67 vs. 25%; p = 0.055), and anxiety (52 vs. 13%; p = 0.060) than EUC group. EUC patients also considered themselves less spiritual (44 vs. 84%; p = 0.034). The single most common reason for a DDS was pain or physical suffering, though most of the reasons given were nonphysical.Significance of results:Almost 10% of the population receiving specific oncological palliative care made a DDC (7.3%) or EUC (2.5%). The worst well-being score was lower in the EUC group. The reasons for both a DDC and EUC were mainly nonphysical. We find that emotional and spiritual issues should be identified and effectively addressed when responding to a DDS in terminally ill cancer patients.

Download Full-text

Assessing hope at the end of life: Validation of an experience of hope scale in advanced cancer patients

Palliative & Supportive Care ◽

10.1017/s1478951504040337 ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 2 (3) ◽

pp. 243-253 ◽

Cited By ~ 26

Author(s):

CHERYL L. NEKOLAICHUK ◽

EDUARDO BRUERA

Keyword(s):

Palliative Care ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Symptom Assessment ◽

Well Being ◽

Assessment System ◽

Validity Evidence ◽

Advanced Cancer Patients ◽

Factor I ◽

Factor Ii

Objective:The purpose of this study was to gather validity evidence for an innovative experience of hope scale, theHope Differential-Short (HDS), and evaluate its clinical utility for assessing hope in advanced cancer patients.Methods:A consecutive sampling approach was used to recruit 96 patients from an inpatient tertiary palliative care unit and three hospice settings. Each participant completed an in-person survey interview, consisting of the following measures: HDS (nine items), Herth Hope Index (HHI), hope visual analog scale (Hope-VAS) and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS).Results:Using factor analytic procedures, a two-factor structure for the HDS was identified, consisting ofauthentic spirit(Factor I) andcomfort(Factor II). The HDS factors had good overall internal consistency (α = 0.83), with Factor I (α = 0.83) being higher than Factor II (α = 0.69). The two factors positively correlated with the HHI, Hope-VAS, and one of the ESAS visual analog scales, well-being (range: 0.38 to 0.64) and negatively correlated with depression and anxiety, as measured by the ESAS (range: −0.25 to −0.42).Significance of results:This is the first validation study of the HDS in advanced cancer patients. Its promising psychometric properties and brief patient-oriented nature provide a solid initial foundation for its future use as a clinical assessment measure in oncology and palliative care. Additional studies are warranted to gather further validity evidence for the HDS before its routine use in clinical practice.

Download Full-text

Placebo and nocebo effects in randomized double-blind clinical trials for fatigue in advanced cancer patients

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2009.27.15_suppl.9640 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 9640-9640

Author(s):

M. de la Cruz ◽

D. Hui ◽

H. A. Parsons ◽

P. Lynn ◽

C. Parker ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Side Effects ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Placebo Response ◽

Well Being ◽

Advanced Cancer Patients ◽

Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale ◽

Nocebo Effects

9640 Background: We have previously reported significant placebo response in randomized controlled treatment trials for cancer related fatigue (CRF). We conducted a retrospective study to determine the frequency and predictors of response to placebo and nocebo effect in patients with CRF. Methods: We reviewed patients that received placebo in two previous randomized clinical trials conducted by our group and determined the proportion of patients who demonstrated clinical response to fatigue using an increase (ΔFACIT-F score) > 7 from baseline to day 8, and those with nocebo response as those who reported side effects. Baseline patient characteristics and symptoms recorded from the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were analyzed to determine their association with placebo and nocebo effects. Results: A total of 105 advanced cancer patients received placebo. 59 (56%) patients responded to placebo (median Δ FACIT-F score of 22). Worse baseline anxiety and well-being subscale score (univariate) and well-being (multivariate, MR) were significantly associated with placebo response. Common side effects reported were insomnia (79%), anorexia (53%), nausea (38%) and restlessness (34%). MR analysis showed that worse baseline (ESAS) sleep, appetite, nausea, and restless are associated with increased reporting of these side effects ( Table ). Conclusions: Nearly half of advanced cancer patients enrolled in the fatigue trials responded to placebo. Worse physical well-being score was associated with placebo response. Patients experiencing specific symptoms at baseline were more likely to report these as side effects of the medication. These findings should be considered in fatigue clinical trial design. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Download Full-text

Impact of an outpatient interdisciplinary team (IDT) consultation on symptom clusters in advanced cancer patients seen at a supportive care outpatient clinic (OSC) in a tertiary cancer center

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2009.27.15_suppl.e20542 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. e20542-e20542

Author(s):

S. Yennurajalingam ◽

D. L. Urbauer ◽

R. Chacko ◽

D. Hui ◽

Y. A. Amin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cancer Patients ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Interdisciplinary Team ◽

Well Being ◽

Symptom Clusters ◽

Advanced Cancer Patients ◽

Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale ◽

Cluster Composition ◽

The Impact

e20542 Background: Advanced cancer patients develop severe physical and psychosocial symptom clusters. There is limited data on the impact of an outpatient interdisciplinary team (IDT) consultation lead by palliative care specialists on symptom clusters. Cluster composition and consistence, response rate and predictors of response are unknown. Methods: 914 consecutive patients with advanced cancer presenting in the OSC from Jan 2003 to Oct 2008 with a complete Edmonton symptom assessment scale at the initial and follow-up visit (median 14 days, range 1–4 wks), and CAGE status (alcohol screening) were reviewed. Wilcoxon ranked sign test was used to determine whether symptoms changed over time. Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to determine clusters of symptoms at baseline and at follow-up. The number of factors calculated was determined based upon the number of eigen values that were greater than one. Results: Median age was 59 yrs, female were 46%. The most common primary cancer was Lung (19%). Baseline and follow-up visit scores (mean, SD) were: fatigue 5.7 (2.1) and 5.2 (2.2, p<0.0001), pain 4.9 (2.6) and 4.1 (2.6 p<0.0001), nausea 1.8 (2.4) and 1.7 (2.3, p=0.1), depression 2.6 (2.5) and 2.2(2.4,p<0.0001), anxiety 2.9 (2.7) and 2.4 (2.4, p<0.0001), drowsiness 3.2 (2.8) and 3.2 (2.6, p=0.7), dyspnea 2.6 (2.7) and 2.4 (2.6), p=0.0027), appetite 4.2(2.7) and 3.9 (2.7, p<0.0001), sleep 4.2 (2.6) and 3.8 (2.6, p<0.0001) and well being 4.3 (2.5) and 3.9 (2.3, p<0.0001). During the follow- up the symptom clusters varied from a 3 factor to a 2 factor model, reflecting the impact of the IDT on symptom burden. CAGE positive and CAGE negative patients had a significantly different symptom cluster model. Conclusions: Cluster composition differs when patients are assessed and managed by an IDT and among patients who screen positive for alcoholism. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Download Full-text

Digitally captured step counts for evaluating performance status in advanced cancer patients: A single cohort, prospective trial (Digi-STEPS).

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.tps6651 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. TPS6651-TPS6651

Author(s):

Gillian Gresham ◽

Andrew Eugene Hendifar ◽

Jun Gong ◽

Arash Asher ◽

Christine S. Walsh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Performance Status ◽

Advanced Cancer Patients ◽

Step Counts ◽

Wide Range ◽

Ecog Ps ◽

Single Cohort

TPS6651 Background: Advanced cancer patients undergo dynamic changes in their functionality and physical activity over the course of their treatment. Monitoring patient function is important because it can inform treatment decisions and allow for timely and appropriate intervention. Current scales that assess patient function, such as the ECOG Performance Status (PS), are limited in their ability to capture the wide range in activity that cancer patients can experience on a daily basis outside of the clinic setting. Given recent technological advances in wearable activity monitors, we can collect real-time, objective information about a patient’s daily activity including steps, stairs, heart rate, sleep, and activity intensity. Thus, the primary objective of this study is to determine whether longitudinal changes in objectively-assessed activity are associated with change in physician-rated ECOG PS. Methods: This is a prospective, single cohort trial being conducted at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Stage 3/4 cancer patients who are English or Spanish-speaking, ambulatory (assistive walking devices are allowed) and expected to be seen for treatment or follow-up with their oncologist at least every 8 weeks are eligible for study. Consenting patients will be asked to wear a Fitbit Charge HR continuously for 8 weeks during the study period and for one week prior to the 6 month and 1 year follow-up visits. Primary outcomes are change in average daily step counts and ECOG PS at 8 weeks from baseline. Secondary outcomes include: 1) Change in NIH PROMIS patient-reported outcomes (physical function, pain, sleep, emotional distress, and fatigue), 2) Change in frailty status at 8 weeks, 3) Occurrence of adverse events, and 4) 6-month and 1-year survival outcomes. Baseline assessments include a physical exam, medical history, and frailty assessment. The attending oncologist will rate the patient's ECOG PS at baseline and at the end-of-study visit. Weekly NIH PROMIS questionnaires will be administered online over the 8-week study and again at 6 months and 1 year follow-up. The occurrence of serious cancer-related adverse events, chemotherapy-associated toxicities, and hospitalizations will be documented up to 12 weeks from baseline. Survival will be assessed at 6 months and 1 year. Accrual is ongoing with 20 patients currently enrolled of a target sample size of 60 patients. Clinical trial information: NCT03757182.

Download Full-text