Symptom intensity in cancer and palliative care patients is frequently assessed using a 0-10 ranking score. Results are then often grouped into verbal categories (mild, moderate, or severe) to guide therapy. Numerical cutpoints separating these categories are often variable, with previous work suggesting different cutpoints across different symptoms, which is unwieldy for clinical use. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Symptom (ESAS) assesses nine common symptoms using this 0-10 scale. The primary aim of this study was to examine the relationship between the numerical and verbal scores using the ESAS and to identify a single cutpoint to separate severe from nonsevere symptomatology. A second goal was to similarly identify a cutpoint to separate moderate or severe from none or mild symptom intensity. Consenting patients (n=400) completed both a standard ESAS and an identical form that replaced 0-10 with none, mild, moderate, and severe. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated to identify the best fit between sensitivity and specificity. For the "severe" ranking, six symptoms had a best fit of 7, with sensitivity for the remaining three symptoms still greater than 80%. For the combined grouping of moderate or severe, results were less uniform. A cutpoint of either 4 or 5 would be supported by our data, with a greater sensitivity using 4 and improved specificity using 5 as the cutpoint. Across all ESAS symptoms, then, 7 or higher represents a severe symptom by patient definition, whereas a cutpoint of either 4 or 5 could reasonably define combined moderate and severe symptoms.

Administration of antileukemic chemotherapy at diagnosis of chloroma is associated with a significantly lower probability of developing acute myeloid leukemia and with longer survival.

ObjectiveThe road to legalization of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) across Canada has largely focused on legislative details such as eligibility and establishment of regulatory clinical practice standards. Details on how to implement high-quality, person-centered MAID programs at the institutional level are lacking. This study seeks to understand what improvement opportunities exist in the delivery of the MAID process from the family caregiver perspective.MethodThis multi-methods study design used structured surveys, focus groups, and unstructured e-mail/phone conversations to gather experiential feedback from family caregivers of patients who underwent MAID between July 2016 and June 2017 at a large academic hospital in Toronto, Canada. Data were combined and a qualitative, descriptive approach used to derive themes within family perspectives.ResultImprovement themes identified through the narrative data (48% response rate) were grouped in two categories: operational and experiential aspects of MAID. Operational themes included: process clarity, scheduling challenges and the 10-day period of reflection. Experiential themes included clinician objection/judgment, patient and family privacy, and bereavement resources.Significance of resultsTo our knowledge, this is the first time that family caregivers’ perspectives on the quality of the MAID process have been explored. Although practice standards have been made available to ensure all legislated components of the MAID process are completed, detailed guidance for how to best implement patient and family centered MAID programs at the institutional level remain limited. This study provides guidance for ways in which we can enhance the quality of MAID from the perspective of family caregivers.

Purpose of reviewAcross all jurisdictions in which assisted dying is legally permissible, cancer is the primary reported underlying diagnosis. Therefore, oncologists are likely to be asked about assisted dying and should be equipped to respond to inquiries or requests for assisted dying. Because Medical Assistance in Dying was legalized in Canada in 2016, it is a relatively new end-of-life practice and has prompted the need to revisit the academic literature to inform communication with patients about assisted dying. Recent findingsWe reviewed applicable literature published in the past 5 years, pertaining to assisted dying and communication. In total, 86 articles were identified, 21 were flagged as relevant to review in detail, and six were included in the review. Key themes included perceived barriers and benefits to communicating with patients on the topic, pragmatic approaches for facilitating the conversation with patients, and the issue of proactively discussing assisted dying by broaching it as an option with patients.

Interventions such as chemotherapy and TPN may be appropriate in a carefully selected subgroup of patients. A collaborative approach is required for the optimal clinical management and palliation of MBO.

Despite spirituality being highlighted as important to care, few HCPs felt able to provide this, raising questions around how such care can be encouraged and developed in busy acute care settings.

Performance scales are used by clinicians to objectively represent a patient's level of function and have been shown to be important predictors of response to therapy and survival. Four different scales are commonly used in the palliative care setting, two of which were specifically developed to more accurately represent this population. It remains unclear which scale is best suited for this setting. The objectives of this study were to determine the correlations among the four scales and concurrently compare interrater reliability for each. Patients were each assessed at the same point in time by three different health care professionals, and all four scales were used to rate each patient. Spearman correlation coefficient values and both weighted and unweighted kappa values were calculated to determine correlation and interrater reliability. The results confirmed highly significant linear correlation among and between all four scales. Whether using a reliability measure that incorporates the concept of "partial credit" for "near misses" or a measure reflecting exact rater agreement, no one scale emerged as having a significantly higher likelihood of agreement among raters. We propose that what may be more important than clinical experience or rater profession is the level of training an individual health care professional rater receives on the administration of any particular performance scale. In addition, given that low levels of exact rater agreement could have substantial clinical implications for patients, we suggest that this parameter be considered in the design of future comparative studies.

In a patient population referred for specialist palliative care consultation with diverse diagnoses and a wide range of CES, time-based categorization of survival estimates along with PPS and possibly gender could be used to inform the CES process for individual patients. Intentionally incorporating these objective elements into what has historically been the subjective process of CES may lead to improvements in accuracy.