Early Palliative Care for Patients with Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
ABSTRACT 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.
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.
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).
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.)
Full-textDOI: · Available from: Vicki A Jackson, May 14, 2015
SourceAvailable from: André FringerWorld Congress of the European Association for Palliative Care, Copenhagen, Denmark; 05/2015
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This article aims to define the major trends currently affecting space needs for academic medical center (AMC) cancer centers. It will distinguish between the trends that promote the concentration of services with those that promote decentralization as well as identify opportunities for achieving greater effectiveness in cancer care space planning. Changes in cancer care-higher survival rates, increased clinical trials, new technology, and changing practice models-increasingly fill hospitals' and clinicians' schedules and strain clinical space resources. Conflicts among these trends are concentrating some services and dispersing others. As a result, AMCs must expand and renovate intelligently to continue providing state-of-the-art, compassionate care. Although the typical AMC cancer center can expect to utilize more space than it would have 10 years ago, a deeper understanding of the cancer center enterprise can lead to opportunities for more effectively using available facility resources. Each AMC must determine for itself the appropriate balance of patient volume, clinical activity, and services between its main hospital campus and satellite branches. As well, space allocation should be flexible, as care trends, medical technology, and the provider's own priorities shift over time. The goal isn't necessarily more space-it's better space. © The Author(s) 2015.HERD 01/2015; 8(2):85-94. DOI:10.1177/1937586714565598 · 0.39 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Many patients wish to stay at home during the terminal stage of cancer. However, there is concern that medical care provided at home may negatively affect survival. This study therefore explored whether the survival duration differed between cancer patients who received inpatient care and those who received home care. We retrospectively investigated the place of care/death and survival duration of 190 cancer patients after their referral to a palliative care consultation team in a Japanese general hospital between 2007 and 2012. The patients were classified into a hospital care group consisting of those who received palliative care in the hospital until death, and a home care group including patients who received palliative care at home from doctors in collaboration with the palliative care consultation team. Details of the place of care, survival duration, and patient characteristics (primary site, gender, age, history of chemotherapy, and performance status) were obtained from electronic medical records, and analyzed after propensity score matching in the place of care. Median survival adjusted for propensity score was significantly longer in the home care group (67.0 days, n = 69) than in the hospital care group (33.0 days, n = 69; P = 0.0013). Cox's proportional hazard analysis revealed that the place of care was a significant factor for survival following adjustment for covariates including performance status. This study suggests that the general concern that home care shortens the survival duration of patients is not based on evidence. A cohort study including more known prognostic factors is necessary to confirm the results.BMC Palliative Care 01/2015; 14:7. DOI:10.1186/s12904-015-0003-5 · 1.79 Impact Factor