Assessing the Preparatory Grief in Advanced Cancer Patients (PGAC) instrument in an American population.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 225-225
Author(s):  
Maxwell Thomas Vergo ◽  
Jeremy D. Whyman ◽  
Jeanne Kestel ◽  
Christopher Rector

225 Background: Only 50% of cancer patients who screen positive on the Distress Thermometer accept referral to psychosocial resources and mainly for challenges coping with overwhelming emotional response to losses. The Preparatory Grief in Advanced Cancer (PGAC) instrument was shown to have significant associations with hopelessness, anxiety, and depression in a Greek population with favorable potential as a screening tool. We aimed to assess the use of the PGAC in a sample of American patients diagnosed with incurable cancer as a more efficient screening tool for patients who would benefit from additional psychosocial referrals. Methods: We conducted this survey with participants from Northwestern University in Chicago, IL. Participants were US citizens and >18 years old with an incurable cancer and no history of substance abuse or current psychiatric diagnosis. Patients were asked to complete a single survey composed of demographic data and scales including the PGAC, Distress Thermometer, HADS, ESAS and QOL. We used pair-wise correlation measurements, which included p-value measurements for testing whether the correlation coefficient was significantly different from 0. We then used pair-wise correlation coefficients to assess for p-value < 0.05 at different PGAC scores. Results: 53 patients were surveyed, of which 57% (30) were outpatients. The PGAC score was associated with the distress thermometer (R=0.74, p=<0.001), HADS (R=0.65, p=<0.01), and ESAS (R=0.49, p=<0.01) as well as inversely correlated with QOL score (R=-0.45, p=<0.001). Additionally, PGAC > 21 (p=0.02) was associated with elevated distress thermometer score (p=0.02) and elevated HADS scores (p=0.04). Conclusions: We tested the PGAC in an American population for the first time and found correlation between PGAC other validated measures (Distress Thermometer, ESAS, HADS, QOL) in an American population. We propose a PGAC cutoff of >21 to assess for preparatory grief due to its association with elevated scores on Distress and HADS scales above this threshold. This instrument may better identify patients struggling with coping who would benefit from additional support but further investigation is needed.

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maxwell T. Vergo ◽  
Jeremy Whyman ◽  
Zhigang Li ◽  
Jeanne Kestel ◽  
Spencer L. James ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9519-9519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Catherine Enzinger ◽  
Baohui Zhang ◽  
Tracy A. Balboni ◽  
Deborah Schrag ◽  
Holly Gwen Prigerson

9519 Background: Many oncologists are reluctant to discuss life expectancy with advanced cancer patients. We examined the frequency of prognostic disclosure and its impact on patients’ prognostic understanding, the patient-doctor relationship, and psychological distress. Methods: Coping with Cancer was an NCI-funded, multi-site prospective cohort of 726 patients with advanced incurable cancer, enrolled 2002-2008. At baseline, patients were asked if their oncologist had ever discussed prognosis, and if so what estimate was communicated. Patients also estimated their prognosis. The therapeutic alliance scale measured patient-doctor relationship, and the McGill QOL instrument assessed symptoms of depression and anxiety. Multivariable analyses (MVA) assessed relationships between prognostic disclosure and psychological symptoms, controlling for confounds. Results: Among this cohort of terminally ill patients (median survival 4mos), most (72%) wanted to be told their life expectancy. Only 19.8% (104/525) of patients had received a prognostic estimate from their oncologist (median estimate 6mos; IQR 6-15mos). When queried about factors informing their prognostic understanding, 85.9% of patients cited personal or religious beliefs; only 11.7% cited a physician’s estimate. Of the 299 patients willing to estimate their life expectancy, patients who had been previously informed of their prognosis were substantially more realistic in their own estimate (median 12mos v 48mos, Wilcoxon test p<0.001). Moreover, patients’ and oncologists’ prognostic estimates were significantly correlated (ρ=0.49, p<0.001). Prognostic disclosure was not associated with poor patient-doctor relationship rating (Fisher’s Exact, p=0.625), nor was it associated with depressive symptoms (β 0.06, p=0.242) or anxiety (β 0.06, p=0.234) in MVA. Conclusions: Few advanced cancer patients are informed of their life expectancy, although most want this information. Prognostic disclosure is associated with substantial improvement in patients’ prognostic understanding, without compromising the patient-doctor relationship or increasing psychological distress.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 211-211
Author(s):  
Su-Jin Koh ◽  
So Yeon Oh ◽  
Ji Yeon Baek ◽  
Kyung A. Kwon ◽  
Hei-Cheul Jeung ◽  
...  

211 Background: Malnutrition and a loss of muscle mass are frequent in cancer patients and have a negative effect on clinical outcome. Nutrition risk screening aims to increase awareness and allow early recognition and treatment of cancer cachexia. Therefore, screenings should be brief, inexpensive, highly sensitive, and have good specificity. SNAQ is a simple screening tool including 4 questions, and validated to predict weight loss within 6 months in community-dwelling adults and nursing home residents. Our study aimed to translate the SNAQ into Korean, and to assess the validity and reliability of the translated screening tool in advanced cancer patients. Methods: The SNAQ was translated into Korean according to linguistic validation. The internal consistency of the SNAQ was evaluated by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Test–retest reliability was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Concurrent validity was evaluated by measuring the Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the SNAQ and Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA) and Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA). Results: In the 194 patients included in full analysis set, cancer stage was predominantly (98.5%) metastatic, the mean age was 60 years, and the mean BMI was 24 kg/m2. According to MNA score ≤11, 57 patients (29.3%) were malnourished. The mean score of the Korean version of the SNAQ was 13.8 (SD = 2.5) with a range of 6–19. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.74, and intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.87. The SNAQ was moderately correlated with MNA(r = 0.4043, p < 0.0001) and PG-SGA(r = -0.5297, p < 0.0001). A significant weight loss of 5% of the original body weight within 6 months occurred in 46 (24.7%) of the 186 patients. SNAQ score ≤14 predicted 5% weight loss with a sensitivity of 56.5% and a specificity of 44.3%. Conclusions: The Korean version of the SNAQ had high validity and reliability. SNAQ is useful for the screening tool for advanced cancer patients. The SNAQ had a limitation to predict impending weight loss in advanced cancer patients.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 78-78
Author(s):  
Jideuma Ikenna Egwim ◽  
Smita Palejwala

78 Background: Advanced cancers remain a major cause of mortality in Nigeria. Participation in clinical trials (PCTs) and palliative end-of-life care (PEOLC) are two approaches to incurable cancer management in the developed nations but these have been less adopted in Nigeria. This study set out to determine patients’ preferred approach between PCTs and PEOLC for management of advanced cancers in Nigeria. Methods: A survey of 120 advanced cancer patients was conducted using a questionnaire with 5-point Likert scale, variables of interest included demographic information, knowledge and perception about PCTs and PEOLC. Results: Majority of the patients (84%) agree PCTs is an option in management of incurable cancer but just about half accept it is beneficial and will improve their QOL, as against PEOLC, where all the patients considered it an option and deem it beneficial; with 99% and 98% respectively agreeing it will enhance their QOL and that of family members. About 56% believe PCTs carries a risk of burdensome interventions and 52% increased hospital stay at EOL while 47% are of the opinion it will increase cost of care with 45% stating it will lead to increased ICU death. Sixty-nine percent (69%) and 63% respectively agree PCTs increases the suffering of patients and family members while 43% believe it carries a net negative risk-benefit profile, nevertheless, 83% are ready to overlook the risk of PCTs for possible therapeutic benefit while for 87%, the primary motivation for PCTs is personal cure. Majority (58%) believe PCTs does not improve quality of dying/death contrary to PEOLC where 88% believe it would improve the quality of dying/death. Overall, by direct comparison 78%:13% prefer PEOL to PCTs; {X2(p-value), 40.26(0.001)}. Conclusions: Both modalities are acceptable to advanced cancer patients but the study reveals several ethical issues with PCTs including risk of burdensome interventions, suffering of patients, therapeutic misconception and misperception of curability. A major determinant to accepting PEOL is its positive impact on patients’ QOL. Concerted efforts are needed to significantly enhance access of PEOLC to cancer patients.


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-62
Author(s):  
Grace Meijuan Yang ◽  
Eeyang Ng ◽  
Sherman Lian ◽  
Marcus Eng Hock Ong

For advanced cancer patients, an emergency department (ED) visit in the last week of life may result in aggressive care that is inappropriate and futile. The objective of this study is to explore the characteristics of advanced cancer patients who present to ED in the last week of life. Specifically, we describe the spectrum of presenting symptoms. This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of ED attendances in the Singapore General Hospital during a one-year period. The electronic medical record system was used to retrieve demographic data, characteristics of the ED visits and presenting complaints. A total of 145 patients with advanced cancer dying in hospital within seven days of an ED visit were included. Breathlessness was the most common reason for presenting to ED (85 patients, 58.62%), followed by pain (50 patients, 34.48%), generalised weakness or lethargy (39 patients, 26.90%) and decreased appetite or anorexia (35 patients, 24.14%). Strategies to improve end-of-life care can focus on pre-emptive management of breathlessness and pain. Community programmes can also help prepare families for symptoms like generalised weakness and appetite loss which may signal a progression of the disease. Supportive and palliative care interventions will need to be implemented in the ED setting to better manage the symptoms suffered by these advanced cancer patients.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12110-12110
Author(s):  
Carole Bouleuc ◽  
Alexis Burnod ◽  
Paul H. Cottu ◽  
Jean-Yves Pierga ◽  
Sylvie Dolbeault

12110 Background: Accuracy of prognosis perception is a key element to allow advanced cancer patients to make informed decisions and to reflect on their end-of-life priorities. This study aims to explore whether a question prompt list can promote discussions on prognosis and end-of-life issues during palliative care consultations for advanced cancer patients. Methods: In this multicentric randomised study, patients assigned in the interventional arm receive a question prompt list during the first palliative care consultation (T1) after referral by oncologists. The primary endpoint is the number of questions asked by patients during the second palliative care consultation (T2) one month later. Secondary objectives are anxiety and depression, quality-of-life, satisfaction with care, coping assessed at baseline (T1) and at two months (T3). Palliative care teams from 3 french comprehensive cancer centers participate in the study. Main inclusion criteria were adult patients with metastatic non-haematological cancer referred to the palliative care team and with an estimated life expectancy less than one year. Results: Patients (n = 71) in the QPL arm asked more questions (mean 21.8 versus 18.2, p-value = 0.03) during the palliative care consultations compared to patients in the control arm (n = 71). These questions addressed palliative care (mean 5.6 versus 3.7, p-value = 0.012) and end-of-life issues (mean 2.2 versus 1, p = 0.018) more frequently than in the control arm. At two months, compared to baseline, there was no change in anxio-depressive symptoms or quality of life. Conclusions: QPL favours discussion on prognosis and end-of-life care during the palliative care consultations for advanced cancer patients. Clinical trial information: NCT02854293 .


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document