The PROVIEW+ tool: Developing and validating a tool to predict risk of poor performance status and severe symptoms in cancer patients over time.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12095-12095
Author(s):  
Hsien Seow ◽  
Rinku Sutradhar ◽  
Lisa Catherine Barbera ◽  
Peter Tanuseputro ◽  
Dawn Guthrie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Severe Pain ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Low Performance ◽  
Performance Scale ◽  
Over Time

12095 Background: There are numerous predictive cancer tools that focus on survival. However, no tools predict risk of low performance status or severe symptoms, which are important for patient decision-making and early integration of palliative care. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a model for all cancer types that predicts the risk for having low performance status and severe symptoms. Methods: A retrospective, population-based, predictive study using linked administrative data from cancer patients from 2008-2015 in Ontario, Canada. Patients were randomly selected for model derivation (60%) and validation (40%). The derivation cohort was used to develop a multivariable logistic regression model to predict the risk of having the reported outcomes in the subsequent 6 months. Model performance was assessed using discrimination and calibration plots. The main outcome was low performance status using the Palliative Performance Scale. Secondary outcomes included severe pain, dyspnea, well-being, and depression using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. Outcomes were recalculated after each of 4 annual survivor marks. Results: We identified 255,494 cancer patients (57% female; median age of 64; common cancers were breast (24%) and lung (13%)). At diagnosis, the risk of having low performance status, severe pain, well-being, dyspnea, and depression in 6-months is 1%, 3%, 6%, 13% and 4%, respectively for the reference case (i.e. male, lung cancer, stage I, no symptoms). Generally these covariates increased the outcome risk by > 10% across all models: obstructive lung disease, dementia, diabetes; radiation treatment; hospital admission; high pain; depression; Palliative Performance Scale score of 60-10; issues with appetite; or homecare. Model discrimination was high across all models. Conclusions: The model accurately predicted changing cancer risk for low performance status and severe symptoms over time. Providing accurate predictions of future performance status and symptom severity can support decision-making and earlier initiation of palliative care, even alongside disease modifying therapies.

scholarly journals Development and validation of a prediction model of poor performance status and severe symptoms over time in cancer patients (PROVIEW+)

2021 ◽  
pp. 026921632110193
Author(s):  
Hsien Seow ◽  
Peter Tanuseputro ◽  
Lisa Barbera ◽  
Craig C Earle ◽  
Dawn M Guthrie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Severe Pain ◽  
Radiation Treatment ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Poor Performance Status ◽  
Derivation Cohort ◽  
Low Performance ◽  
Over Time

Background: Predictive cancer tools focus on survival; none predict severe symptoms. Aim: To develop and validate a model that predicts the risk for having low performance status and severe symptoms in cancer patients. Design: Retrospective, population-based, predictive study Setting/Participants: We linked administrative data from cancer patients from 2008 to 2015 in Ontario, Canada. Patients were randomly selected for model derivation (60%) and validation (40%). Using the derivation cohort, we developed a multivariable logistic regression model to predict the risk of an outcome at 6 months following diagnosis and recalculated after each of four annual survivor marks. Model performance was assessed using discrimination and calibration plots. Outcomes included low performance status (i.e. 10–30 on Palliative Performance Scale), severe pain, dyspnea, well-being, and depression (i.e. 7–10 on Edmonton Symptom Assessment System). Results: We identified 255,494 cancer patients (57% female; median age of 64; common cancers were breast (24%); and lung (13%)). At diagnosis, the predicted risk of having low performance status, severe pain, well-being, dyspnea, and depression in 6-months is 1%, 3%, 6%, 13%, and 4%, respectively for the reference case (i.e. male, lung cancer, stage I, no symptoms); the corresponding discrimination for each outcome model had high AUCs of 0.807, 0.713, 0.709, 0.790, and 0.723, respectively. Generally these covariates increased the outcome risk by >10% across all models: lung disease, dementia, diabetes; radiation treatment; hospital admission; pain; depression; transitional performance status; issues with appetite; or homecare. Conclusions: The model accurately predicted changing cancer risk for low performance status and severe symptoms over time.

Trajectory of Performance Status and Symptom Scores for Patients With Cancer During the Last Six Months of Life

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (9) ◽  
pp. 1151-1158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hsien Seow ◽  
Lisa Barbera ◽  
Rinku Sutradhar ◽  
Doris Howell ◽  
Deborah Dudgeon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Average Pain ◽  
Observational Cohort ◽  
Over Time

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.

scholarly journals Disparities in access to palliative care facilities for patients with and without cancer: A retrospective review

2021 ◽  
pp. 026921632110073
Author(s):  
Christine Lau ◽  
Christopher Meaney ◽  
Matthew Morgan ◽  
Rose Cook ◽  
Camilla Zimmermann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Care Needs ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Palliative Care Services ◽  
Low Performance ◽  
Electronic Referral

Background: To date, little is known about the characteristics of patients who are admitted to a palliative care bed for end-of-life care. Previous data suggest that there are disparities in access to palliative care services based on age, sex, diagnosis, and socioeconomic status, but it is unclear whether these differences impact access to a palliative care bed. Aim: To better identify patient factors associated with the likelihood/rate of admission to a palliative care bed. Design: A retrospective chart review of all initiated palliative care bed applications through an electronic referral program was conducted over a 24-month period. Setting/participants: Patients who apply and are admitted to a palliative care bed in a Canadian metropolitan city. Results: A total of 2743 patients made a total of 5202 bed applications to 9 hospice/palliative care units in 2015–2016. Referred and admitted cancer patients were younger, male, and more functional than compared to non-cancer patients (all p < 0.001). Referred and admitted patients without cancer were more advanced in their illness trajectory, with an anticipated prognosis <1 month and Palliative Performance Status of 10%–20% (all p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, a diagnosis of cancer and a prognosis of <3 months were associated with increased likelihood and/or rate of admission to a bed, whereas the presence of care needs, a longer prognosis and a PPS of 30%–40% were associated with decreased rates and/or likelihood of admission. Conclusion: Patients without cancer have reduced access to palliative care facilities at end-of-life compared to patients with cancer; at the time of their application and admission, they are “sicker” with very low performance status and poorer prognoses. Further studies investigating disease-specific clinical variables and support requirements may provide more insights into these observed disparities.

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

2004 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 243-253 ◽  
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.

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

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 19-19
Author(s):  
YuJung Kim ◽  
Yi Zhang ◽  
Ji Chan Park ◽  
David Hui ◽  
Gary B. Chisholm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale ◽  
Ecog Ps

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.

Development and validation of a risk prediction model for poor performance status and severe symptoms among cancer patients.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12097-12097
Author(s):  
Hsien Seow ◽  
Peter Tanuseputro ◽  
Lisa Catherine Barbera ◽  
Craig Earle ◽  
Dawn Guthrie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Index Date ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Poor Performance Status ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Over Time

12097 Background: Existing cancer predictive tools focus on survival, but few incorporate patient-reported outcomes to predict quality-of-life domains, such as symptoms and performance status. The objective was to develop and validate a predictive cancer model (called PROVIEW) for poor performance status and severe symptoms over time. Methods: We used a retrospective, population-based, cohort study of patients, with a cancer diagnosis, in Ontario, Canada between 2008-2015. We randomly selected 60% of patients for model derivation and 40% for validation. Using the derivation cohort, we developed multivariable logistic regression models with baseline characteristics, using a backward stepwise variable selection process. The primary outcome was odds of having poor performance status six months from index date, as measured by a score < = 30 out of 100 on the Palliative Performance Scale. The index date for each model was diagnosis (Year 0), which was then re-calculated at each of 4 annual survivor marks after diagnosis (up to Year 4). Secondary outcomes included having severe pain, dyspnea, well-being, or depression, as measured by a score of > = 7 out of 10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. Covariates included demographics, clinical information, current symptoms and performance status, and healthcare utilization. Model performance was assessed by AUC statistics and calibration plots. Results: Our population-based cohort identified 125,479 cancer patients for the performance status model in Year 0. The median diagnosis age was 64 years, 57% were female, and the most common cancers were breast (24%), lung (13%), and prostate (9%). 32% had Stage 3 or 4 disease. In Year 0 after backwards selection, the odds of having a poor performance status in 6 months was increased by more than 10% when the patient had: COPD, dementia, diabetes; radiation treatment; a hospital admission in the prior 3 months; high pain or depression; a current performance status < = 30; any issues with appetite; or received end-of-life homecare. Generally, these variables were also associated with a > 10% increased odds in other years and for the secondary outcomes. The average AUC across all 25 models is 0.7676 which indicates high model discrimination. Conclusions: The PROVIEW model accurately predicts risk of having a poor performance status or severe symptoms over time among cancer patients. It has the potential to be a useful online tool for patients to integrate earlier supportive and palliative care.

Toward proven and prioritized quality measures: Which ASCO QOPI and other supportive care measures associate with improved quality of life (QOL)?

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 165-165
Author(s):  
Arif Kamal ◽  
Janet Bull ◽  
Amy Pickar Abernethy
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Quality Measures ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
The Impact

165 Background: An expanding array of quality measures, including the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) metrics, is being developed for oncology. To date, evidence demonstrating the impact of each metric on outcomes, ultimately aiding in prioritization of individual measures, remains immature. We investigated the relationship between conformance with quality measures and higher patient QOL among cancer patients receiving palliative care. Methods: A comprehensive systematic review of PUBMED and the gray literature (1995-2012) identifed all described supportive care quality measures. Patients receiving palliative care in 4 community-based programs were entered into a longitudinal quality registry; analyses focused on cancer patients registered between 6/08-10/11. To find predictors of higher QOL, conformance cohorts were examined for demographic variables, performance status (measured by palliative performance scale, PPS) and provider estimation of prognosis and included in univariate and multivariate regression. Results: The systematic review yielded 303 quality measures. Of these, 18 measures, representing components of the ASCO QOPI, Hospice PEACE, and Cancer-ASSIST measure sets, were evaluable using registry data. 460 cancer patients were included. 60% of patients had weeks to 6 months expected prognosis. Among QOPI measures, conformance with two measures was significantly associated with better QOL: constipation assessment at time of narcotic prescription and emotional well-being assessment (both p<0.05). Other significant findings were conformance with screening of symptoms at first visit (p=0.017), timely treatment for uncontrolled dyspnea (p=0.005), and assessment of fatigue (p=0.007). In a multivariate model predicting higher QOL, measures involving emotional well-being assessment (OR 1.60; p=0.026) and screening of symptoms (OR 1.74, p=0.008) remained significant. Conclusions: Clinical care that conforms to quality measures reflecting regular symptom and emotional assessment is significantly associated with better patient experiences (QOL) and should be prioritized in quality assessment efforts.

Changes in the Last Months of Life (DRAFT)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaclyn Yoong ◽  
Fiona Runacres
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment System ◽  
Symptom Scores ◽  
Observational Cohort ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Anxiety Depression ◽  
Performance Scale

This study aimed to assess symptoms and performance status of cancer patients during the last six months of life. In Ontario, Canada, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) scores and Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) scores of outpatients with cancer were systemically collected. This was an observational cohort study of cancer decedents’ ESAS and PPS scores between 2007 and 2009. Outcomes were the average ESAS and PPS scores per week before death. A total of 10,752 decedents with ESAS and 7,882 with PPS scores were included. General patterns of symptoms scores were observed: (1) generally stable (pain, nausea, anxiety, depression) versus (2) increased severity over time (shortness of breath, drowsiness, well-being, lack of appetite, tiredness). More than one-third reported moderate to severe symptom scores in the last month of life. Average PPS scores declined slowly for the initial five months, then more rapidly in the last month before death.

scholarly journals Impact of Palliative Care in Evaluating and Relieving Symptoms in Patients with Advanced Cancer. Results from the DEMETRA Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (22) ◽  
pp. 8429
Author(s):  
Oscar Corli ◽  
Giacomo Pellegrini ◽  
Cristina Bosetti ◽  
Luca Riva ◽  
Matteo Crippa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Symptom Burden ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Intervention Patient ◽  
Almost All

Background: Cancer patients experience multiple symptoms throughout the course of the disease. We aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the symptom burden in patients with advanced cancer at admission to specialist palliative care (PC) services and seven days later to estimate the immediate impact of PC intervention. Patient and methods: The analysis was based on an observational, prospective, multicenter study (named DEMETRA) conducted in Italy on new patients accessing network specialist PC centers during the period May 2017–November 2017. The prevalence and intensity of symptoms were assessed at baseline and after seven days using three tools including the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). Results: Five PC centers recruited 865 cancer patients. Thirty-three different symptoms were observed at the baseline, the most frequent being asthenia (84.9%) and poor well-being (71%). The intensity of the most frequent symptoms according to ESAS ranged from 5.5 for asthenia to 3.9 for nausea. The presence and intensity of physical symptoms increased with increasing levels of anxiety and depression. After seven days, prevalence of nausea and breathlessness as well as intensity of almost all symptoms significantly decreased. Conclusions: The study confirmed the considerable symptom burden of patients with advanced cancer. PC intervention has significantly reduced the severity of symptoms, despite the patients’ advanced disease and short survival.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document