Background Patients often view “palliative care” (PC) as an approach that is synonymous with end-of-life and death, leading to shock and fear. Differing cultural and social norms and religious affiliations greatly determine perception of PC among diverse populations. Methods This prospective observational study aimed to explore perceptions of PC among South Asian community members at one Canadian site. Patients who identified themselves as being of South Asian origin were consented and enrolled at a PC Clinic at a community hospital in Brampton, Ontario serving a large South Asian population. Participants filled out an 18-question survey created for the study and responded to a semi-structured interview consisting of 8 questions that further probed their perceptions of PC. Survey responses and semi-structured interviews content were analyzed by four authors who reached consensus on key exploratory findings. Results Thirty-four participants of South Asian origin were recruited (61.8% males), and they were distributed by their age group as follows: [(30–49) - 18%; (50–64) – 21%; (65–79) - 41%; (≥ 80) – 21%]. Five main exploratory findings emerged: (i) differing attitudes towards talking about death; (ii) the key role of family in providing care; (iii) a significant lack of prior knowledge of PC; (iv) a common emphasis on the importance of alleviating suffering and pain to maintain comfort; and (v) that cultural values, faith, or spiritual belief do not pose a necessary challenge to acceptance of PC services. Conclusions Observations from this study provide a source of reference to understand the key findings and variability in perceptions of palliative care in South Asian communities. Culturally competent interventions based on trends observed in this study could assist Palliative Physicians in delivering personalized care to South Asian populations.

Introduction: Active surveillance (AS) of small renal masses (SRM) is increasingly recognized as a safe option. A recent U.S. study found that half of patients receiving treatment on AS were for preference, but these findings may not be generalizable to other jurisdictions and healthcare models. We aimed to investigate AS failure rates and causes among a contemporary biopsy-evaluated cohort in Canada. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of SRM patients on AS undergoing treatment at our tertiary care center (1999–2018). All patients had undergone renal biopsy and been diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Demographic and clinical parameters surrounding the decision to treat were extracted from chart review. Indications for treatment were dichotomized into clinical (radiographical) progression or preference. Qualitative assessment of clinic notes confirmed treatment indication. Ethics approval was obtained. Results: A total of 38 SRM-RCC patients who underwent treatment on AS were identified, of which 29 had been on AS ≥1 year. Most (75.9%) were male, and the mean age beginning AS was 65.9±9.0 years. Most patients had clear-cell RCC with low-grade disease. Seventeen of 29 (58.6%) patients experienced clinical progression after 3.82 (2.57–7.16) years, whereas preference accounted for 12/29 (41.4%) after 2.22 (1.69–3.53) years (time-to-treatment p=0.032). The longest duration on AS was 14.2 years prior to clinical progression. No patients had metastatic progression before treatment. Conclusions: Two-fifths of patients received treatment for preference and at a much higher rate vs. clinical progression. These findings suggest a clinical gap where effective patient counselling, prior to and during AS, may improve adherence.

No abstract