Palliative care in day-hospital for advanced cancer patients: a study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Team-based and timely integrated palliative care is a gold standard of care in oncology, but issues concerning its optimal organization remain. Palliative Care in Day-Hospital (PCDH) could be one of the most efficient service model of palliative care to deliver interdisciplinary and multidimensional care addressing the complex supportive care needs of patients with advanced cancer. We hypothesize that, compared to conventional outpatient palliative care, PCDH allows the clinical benefits of palliative care to be enhanced. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a multicentre parallel group trial with stratified randomization. Patient management in PCDH will be compared to conventional outpatient palliative care. The inclusion criteria are advanced cancer patients referred to a palliative care team with an estimated life expectancy of more than 2 months and less than 1 year. The primary endpoint is health-related quality of life with deterioration-free survival based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. The secondary objectives are the following: increase in patient satisfaction with care using the EORTC PATSAT-C33 and OUT-PATSAT7 questionnaires, better understanding of the prognosis using the PTPQ questionnaire and advance care planning; decrease in the need for supportive care among relatives using the SCNS-P&C-F questionnaire, and reduction in end-of-life care aggressiveness. Patients will complete one to five questionnaires on a tablet before each monthly visit over 6 months and will be followed for 1 year. A qualitative study will take place, aiming to understand the specificity of palliative care management in PCDH. Cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and, an additional economic evaluation based on capability approach will be conducted from a societal point of view. DISCUSSION: The first strength of this study is that it combines the main relevant outcomes assessing integrated palliative care; patient quality of life and satisfaction; discussion of the prognosis and advance care planning, family well-being and end-of-life care aggressiveness. The second strength of the study is that it is a mixed-method study associating a qualitative analysis of the specificity of PCDH organization, with a medical-economic study to analyse the cost of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Name of the registry: IDRCB 2019-A03116-51 Trial registration number: NCT04604873 Date of registration: October 27, 2020 URL of trial registry record.

Implementation of palliative care day hospital for outpatients with advanced cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the population of a palliative care day hospital (PCDH) in oncology and analyse the end-of-life trajectory. METHODS: Monocentric retrospective cohort study of all referred patients for the first time to PCDH over an 8-month period with the data collected in all PCDH in their pathway care. RESULTS: 116 patients were included for 319 stays in PCDH. At first referral PCDH, 62 (53.4%) patients had ongoing anticancer therapy. Twenty-four (20.7%) and 63 (54.3%) patients were in an unstable and deteriorating phase, respectively. Mean (SD) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score was 2.8 (0.7). Mean (SD) stay per patient was 2.8 (2.2). For all stays, mean (SD) of joint intervention of palliative care team and oncologist was 1.2 (1.2) per patient. Mean (SD) of technical acts performed was 0.2 (0.6) per patient. Among the 109 deceased patients, 16 patients (14.7%) and 7 patients (6.4%) had received chemotherapy in the last month and 15 days before death, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our PCDH is a suitable place for a complex population still living at home. The reported patients' demographics and PCDH's organisation lead to a hybrid outpatient intervention between outpatient clinics and hospice care services. A randomised multicentric trial is ongoing to explore the impact of PCDH on patients' trajectory and the use of resources.

CT-Guided Percutaneous Vertebroplasty of the Cervico-Thoracic Junction for the Management of Pathologic Fracture or Symptomatic Lytic Lesion in Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this retrospective observational study is to report author's experience in computed-tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) of the cervicothoracic junction. METHODS: The records of all consecutive patients treated by PV at levels C7, T1, T2, and T3 in a tertiary cancer center during year 2020 were extracted from the Institutional electronic archive. Following data were collected: demographics, indication for PV, procedure features, outcomes, and complications. Technical success was defined as when the trocar was placed into the vertebral body, allowing the injection of polymethyl-metacrylate (PMMA). RESULTS: Eleven patients were identified who received PV on 14 levels. Mean procedure duration was 57 ± 22 min (range [31-142]). A "trans-pedicular approach at the targeted level" was used in 1 vertebra (7%), a "costotransverse approach, at the targeted level" was used in 1 vertebra (7%), a "transpedicular approach via the level below" was used in 3 vertebrae (22%), and a "costotransverse approach via the level below" was used in 9 vertebrae (64%). Meantime to deploy each trocar was 20 ± 5 min (range [12-32]). Technical success was achieved in 14/14 (100%) of vertebrae. Mean postoperative hospitalization duration was 1.9 ± 1.7 days (range [1-11]). According to CIRSE classification, no adverse event occurred. PMMA leakage occurred in two patients; both remained asymptomatic. CONCLUSION: This study provides arguments in favor of safety and efficiency of CT-guided vertebroplasty of levels C7, T1, T2, and T3, for both trocar deployment and monitoring of the vertebral body filling during the PMMA injection.

Advanced cancer and COVID-19 comorbidity: medical oncology-palliative medicine ethics meetings in a comprehensive cancer centre.

OBJECTIVES: In managing patients with cancer in the COVID-19 era, clinical oncologists and palliative care practitioners had to face new, disrupting and complex medical situations, challenging the quality of the shared decision-making process. During the first lockdown in France, we developed an onco-palliative ethics meeting to enhance the quality of the decision-making process for patients with advanced cancer treated for COVID-19. METHODS: A least one of the institutional ethics committee members was present along with oncologists, palliative care teams, psycho-oncologists, radiologists and intensive care specialists. Specific medical parameters were systematically collected to form a standardised framework for the discussions. RESULTS: The main raised issues were the definition of new criteria for the implementation of invasive resuscitation techniques, optimal ways to adapt or delay anticancer treatment and best procedures to address terminal respiratory failure and end-of-life care. The main clinical and ethical guidelines that emerged during these debates are presented. The palliative care team played a major role in assessing and reporting patients' awareness of cancer-related prognosis and their wishes concerning invasive therapies or transfer to intensive care units, enabling an individualised benefit-risk balance assessment. The ethics committee members ensured continuous monitoring during the discussions. Their function was to recall the main ethical principles including dignity, which is conferred on people when there are treated as having equal status. CONCLUSIONS: The onco-palliative ethics meeting provided a powerful avenue for improvement of collegiality and reinforcement of teamwork, which could be a major protection against burnout for healthcare professionals facing an epidemic onslaught.

[The decision to withdraw specific treatments in oncology]. / La décision d'arrêt des traitements spécifiques en oncologie.

Shared medical decision-making is a complex process, especially with regard to the withdrawal of specific treatments in oncology. On the one hand, patients, particularly vulnerable due to their advanced disease, and their family, apprehend this withdrawal. On the other hand, oncologists have more and more treatment options available to them thanks to the medical advances made over recent years. An observational prospective study was carried out in oncology. It focused on the motives which led to the question of treatment withdrawal being raised, to the degree of agreement between the different parties (palliative care team, oncologist, patients and families) and on the final decision.