No abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Background: For cancer patients nearing death, the prediction of their prognosis by physicians is crucial.This study examined the usefulness of the 1-Day Surprise Question (1DSQ).Methods: This study was conducted as part of a multicenter prospective observational study. The physicians answered the 1DSQ "Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next 1 day?" when patients have palliative performance scale (PPS) ≤20. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the 1DSQ.Moreover, using multivariate analysis, we evaluated the characteristics of patients who died among those whose physicians answered the 1DSQ as "not surprised".Results: Overall, 1,896 patients were enrolled, and 1411 (74.4%) were analyzed between January and December 2017. Among these, 847 (60.0%) patients were placed in the "not surprised" group. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the 1DSQ were 82.0% [95% confidence

Background Eating-related distress (ERD) is one type of psychosocial distress among advanced cancer patients and family caregivers. Its alleviation is a key issue in palliative care; however, there is no validated tool for measuring ERD. Methods The purpose of this study was to validate tools for evaluating ERD among patients and family caregivers. The study consisted of a development and validation/retest phase. In the development phase, we made preliminary questionnaires for patients and family caregivers. After face validity and content validity, we performed an exploratory factor analysis and discussed the final adoption of items. In the validation/retest phase, we examined factor validity with an exploratory factor analysis. We calculated Pearson's correlation coefficients between the questionnaire for patients, the Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy Anorexia Cachexia Subscale (FAACT ACS) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cachexia 24 (EORTC QLQ-CAX24) and Pearson's correlation coefficients between the questionnaire for family caregivers and the Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer (CQOLC) for concurrent validity. We calculated Cronbach's alpha coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for internal consistency and test-retest reliability. We performed the Mann-Whitney U test between the questionnaires and cancer cachexia based on criteria from the international consensus for known-group validity. Results In the development phase, 162 pairs of patients and family caregivers were asked to participate, and 144 patients and 106 family caregivers responded. In the validation/retest phase, 333 pairs of patients and family caregivers were asked to participate, and 234 patients and 152 family caregivers responded. Overall, 183 patients and 112 family caregivers did the retest. Seven conceptual groups were extracted for the ERD among patients and family caregivers, respectively.