This systematic review of a small number of trials indicates that early palliative care interventions may have more beneficial effects on quality of life and symptom intensity among patients with advanced cancer than among those given usual/standard cancer care alone. Although we found only small effect sizes, these may be clinically relevant at an advanced disease stage with limited prognosis, at which time further decline in quality of life is very common. At this point, effects on mortality and depression are uncertain. We have to interpret current results with caution owing to very low to low certainty of current evidence and between-study differences regarding participant populations, interventions, and methods. Additional research now under way will present a clearer picture of the effect and specific indication of early palliative care. Upcoming results from several ongoing studies (N = 20) and studies awaiting assessment (N = 10) may increase the certainty of study results and may lead to improved decision making. In perspective, early palliative care is a newly emerging field, and well-conducted studies are needed to explicitly describe the components of early palliative care and control treatments, after blinding of participants and outcome assessors, and to report on possible adverse events.
PurposeLung cancer is a disease with a high percentage of patients diagnosed in an advanced stage. In a situation of palliative treatment, both patients and their relatives experience diverse types of distress and burden. Little research has been done to identify the individual difficulties and resources for patients with advanced lung cancer and their relatives. Especially, standardized questionnaire-based exploration may not assess the specific distressing issues that pertain to each individual on a personal level. The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore and compare individual difficulties and resources for lung cancer patients and their relatives within the palliative care context.MethodsData were collected by qualitative interviews. A total of 18 participants, nine patients diagnosed with advanced lung cancer (International Classification of Diseases, tenth edition, diagnosis C-34, stage IV) starting or receiving palliative treatment and nine relatives, were interviewed. Data were interpreted through qualitative content analysis.ResultsWe identified four main categories of difficulties: communication and conflicts, home and everyday life, thinking about cancer, and treatment trajectory. In general, difficulties were related to interpersonal relationships as well as to impact of chemotherapy. Family, professional caregivers, and social life were significant resources and offered support to both patients and relatives.ConclusionResults suggest that patient and relative education could reduce difficulties in several areas. Patients seem to struggle with the fear of not having any perspective in therapy. Relatives seem to experience helplessness regarding their partner’s deterioration and have to handle their own life and the care work simultaneously. The most important resource for both patients and relatives is their family. In addition, professional lung cancer nurses support relatives in an emotional and organizational way. Intense supportive care for relatives should be standardized.
BackgroundMost patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) will face treatment with systemic therapy. Current clinical studies are demonstrating improvements in chemotherapy and overall survival. However, it remains unclear whether these results are translated into clinical practice.MethodsWe reviewed all stage IV NSCLC patients without second malignancies that were diagnosed from 2004 to 2006 at our institution. 493 consecutive patients were included into this retrospective analysis and were followed-up until end of 2011.Results352 patients (71.4%) received systemic therapy for up to 7 lines. For most patients, adjustments of dosages or applications had to be made at some point of the treatment, but the total applied dose remained generally close to the intended dose. The best disease control (BDC) rate decreased with increasing therapy lines from 59.7% to about 35%. Patients with palliative local therapy but no systemic treatment demonstrated inferior survival (median 2.9 versus 8.7 months, p < 0.001). The median interval between last treatment and death was 50 days and 15 days for chemotherapy and anti-EGFR therapy, respectively. BDC to the previous therapy lines was predictive for improved BDC to third- but not second-line therapy. Performing multivariate analysis, BDC to previous therapy, never-/ former-smoking status, and age > 70 years were associated with improved survival performing third-line therapy.ConclusionsStage IV NSCLC patients may receive substantial systemic therapy resulting in response and median survival rates that are comparable to data from clinical studies. However, preselection factors are increasingly important to improve therapy outcome and life quality.
Epoetin alfa administered at 40,000 U weekly parallel to BEACOPP chemotherapy was safe in patients with advanced-stage HL and reduced the number of RBC transfusions but had no impact on fatigue and other PRO domains.
Communication and the care of patients with advanced cancer are a dynamic, interactive and challenging process, often characterised in every day practice by discontinuity and lack of coordination. The objective of this study was to explore the patients' and family-caregivers' needs and preferences regarding communication, quality of life and care over the trajectory of disease. The second aim was to assess health professionals' views on a longitudinally structured, forward-thinking communication approach based on defined milestones. A qualitative approach was chosen incorporating semi-structured interviews with nine patients with metastatic lung cancer and nine relatives, and focus groups with 15 healthcare providers from different professions involved in the care of these patients. Patients and relatives described a situation of shock and coping deficits with moments of insufficient communication and lack of continuity in care. Healthcare providers reported the strong need for improvement in communication within the team and between patients and professionals and welcomed the implementation of a longitudinal communication approach. Requirements for the implementation of a longitudinal communication approach include specific communication training with focus on the process that patients and relatives are involved in. Team-building measures and the necessary flexibility to respect individuality in life should be incorporated.
BackgroundThe care needs of patients with a limited prognosis (<12 months median) are complex and dynamic. Patients and caregivers must cope with many challenges, including physical symptoms and disabilities, uncertainty. and compromised self-efficacy. Healthcare is often characterized by disruptions in the transition between healthcare providers. The Milestones Communication Approach (MCA) is a structured, proactive, interprofessional concept that involves physicians and nurses and is aimed at providing coherent care across the disease trajectory. This study aims to evaluate these aspects of MCA: (1) the training of healthcare professionals, (2) implementation context and outcomes, (3) patient outcomes, and (4) effects on interprofessional collaboration.Methods/designA multiphase mixed-methods design will be used for the study. A total of 100 patients and 120 healthcare professionals in a specialized oncology hospital will be involved. The training outcomes will be documented using a questionnaire. Implementation context and outcomes will be explored through semi-structured interviews and written questionnaires with healthcare professionals and with the training participants and through a content analysis of patient files. Patient outcomes will be assessed in a pragmatic non-blinded randomized controlled trial and in qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers. Trial outcomes are supportive care needs (SCNS-SF34-G), quality of life (SeiQol and Fact-L), depression and anxiety symptoms (PHQ-4), and distress (Distress Thermometer). Qualitative semi-structured interviews on patients’ views will focus on shared decision-making, communication needs, feeling empathy, and further utilization of healthcare services. Interprofessional collaboration will be explored using the UWE-IP-D before the implementation of MCA (t0) and after 3 (t1), 9 (t2), and 12 (t3) months.DiscussionUsing guideline-concordant early palliative care, MCA aims to foster patient-centered communication with shared decision-making and facilitation of advance care planning including end-of-life decisions, thus increasing patient quality of life and decreasing aggressive medical care at the end of life. It is assumed that the communication skills training and interprofessional coaching will improve the communication behavior of healthcare providers and influence team communications and team processes.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00013649 and DRKS00013469. Registered on 22 December 2017.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2814-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Background. To address the support needs of newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer with limited prognosis, the Milestone Communication Approach (MCA) was developed and implemented. The main elements of the MCA are situation-specific conversations along the disease trajectory conducted by an interprofessional tandem of physician and nurse. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of MCA on addressing support needs, quality of life, and mood as compared with standard oncological care. Patients and Methods. A randomized trial was conducted with baseline assessment and follow-up assessments at 3, 6, and 9 months in outpatients with newly diagnosed lung cancer stage IV at a German thoracic oncology hospital. The primary outcome was the Health System and Information Needs subscale of the Short Form Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS-SF34-G) at 3-month follow-up.Secondary outcomes included the other subscales of the SCNS-SF34-G, the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy lung module, the Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression and Anxiety, and the Distress Thermometer. Results. At baseline, 174 patients were randomized, of whom 102 patients (MCA: n = 52; standard care: n = 50) provided data at 3-month follow-up. Patients of the MCA group reported lower information needs at 3-month followup (mean AE SD, 33.4 AE 27.5; standard care, 43.1 AE 29.9; p = .033). No effects were found for secondary outcomes. Conclusion.MCA lowered patient-reported information needs but did not have other effects. MCA contributed to tailored communication because an adequate level of information and orientation set the basis for patient-centeredcare. The Oncologist 2021;26:1-15 Implications for Practice: By addressing relevant issues at predefined times, the Milestone Communication Approach provides individual patient-centered care facilitating the timely integration of palliative care for patients with a limited prognosis. The needs of patients with lung cancer must be assessed and addressed throughout the disease trajectory. Although specific topics may be relevant for all patients, such as information about the disease and associated health care, situations of individual patients and their families must be considered. Additionally, using the short form of the Supportive Care Needs Survey in clinical practice to identify patients' problems might support individually targeted communication and preference-sensitive care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.