Opinion statement Evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses has shown that early integration of specialized palliative care improves symptoms and quality of life for patients with advanced cancer. There are various models of early integration, which may be classified based on setting of care and method of palliative care referral. Most successful randomized controlled trials of early palliative care have used a model of specialized teams providing in-person palliative care in free-standing or embedded outpatient clinics. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth has become a prominent model for palliative care delivery. This model of care has been well received by patients and palliative care providers, although evidence to date is limited. Despite evidence from trials that routine early integration of palliative care into oncology care improves patient outcomes, referral to palliative care still occurs mostly according to the judgment of individual oncologists. This hinders equitable access to palliative care and to its known benefits for patients and their caregivers. Automated referral based on triggering criteria is being actively explored as an alternative. In particular, routine technology-assisted symptom screening, combined with targeted needs-based automatic referral to outpatient palliative care, may improve integration and ultimately increase quality of life.

Background: Routine early palliative care (EPC) improves quality of life (QoL) for patients with advanced cancer, but it may not be necessary for all patients. We assessed the feasibility of Symptom screening with Targeted Early Palliative care (STEP) in a phase II trial. Methods: Patients with advanced cancer were recruited from medical oncology clinics. Symptoms were screened at each visit using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised (ESAS-r); moderate to severe scores (screen-positive) triggered an email to a palliative care nurse, who called the patient and offered EPC. Patient-reported outcomes of QoL, depression, symptom control, and satisfaction with care were measured at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months. The primary aim was to determine feasibility, according to predefined criteria. Secondary aims were to assess whether STEP identified patients with worse patient-reported outcomes and whether screen-positive patients who accepted and received EPC had better outcomes over time than those who did not receive EPC. Results: In total, 116 patients were enrolled, of which 89 (77%) completed screening for ≥70% of visits. Of the 70 screen-positive patients, 39 (56%) received EPC during the 6-month study and 4 (6%) received EPC after the study end. Measure completion was 76% at 2 months, 68% at 4 months, and 63% at 6 months. Among screen-negative patients, QoL, depression, and symptom control were substantially better than for screen-positive patients at baseline (all P<.0001) and remained stable over time. Among screen-positive patients, mood and symptom control improved over time for those who accepted and received EPC and worsened for those who did not receive EPC (P<.01 for trend over time), with no difference in QoL or satisfaction with care. Conclusions: STEP is feasible in ambulatory patients with advanced cancer and distinguishes between patients who remain stable without EPC and those who benefit from targeted EPC. Acceptance of the triggered EPC visit should be encouraged. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04044040.

Background Evidence from randomized controlled trials has demonstrated benefits in quality of life outcomes from early palliative care concurrent with standard oncology care in patients with advanced cancer. We hypothesized that there would be earlier referral to outpatient palliative care at a comprehensive cancer center following this evidence. Materials and Methods Administrative databases were reviewed for two cohorts of patients: the pre‐evidence cohort was seen in outpatient palliative care between June and November 2006, and the post‐evidence cohort was seen between June and November 2015. Timing of referral was categorized, according to time from referral to death, as early (>12 months), intermediate (>6 months to 12 months), and late (≤6 months from referral to death). Univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were used to determine demographic and medical factors associated with timing of referral. Results Late referrals decreased from 68.8% pre‐evidence to 44.8% post‐evidence; early referrals increased from 13.4% to 31.1% (p < .0001). The median time from palliative care referral to death increased from 3.5 to 7.0 months (p < .0001); time from diagnosis to referral was also reduced (p < .05). On multivariable regression analysis, earlier referral to palliative care was associated with post‐evidence group (p < .0001), adjusting for shorter time since diagnosis (p < .0001), referral for pain and symptom management (p = .002), and patient sex (p = .04). Late referrals were reduced to <50% in the breast, gynecological, genitourinary, lung, and gastrointestinal tumor sites. Conclusions Following robust evidence from trials supporting early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer, patients were referred substantially earlier to outpatient palliative care. Implications for Practice Following published evidence demonstrating the benefit of early referral to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer, there was a substantial increase in early referrals to outpatient palliative care at a comprehensive cancer center. The increase in early referrals occurred mainly in tumor sites that have been included in trials of early palliative care. These results indicate that oncologists’ referral practices can change if positive consequences of earlier referral are demonstrated. Future research should focus on demonstrating benefits of early palliative care for tumor sites that have tended to be omitted from early palliative care trials.