Radiotherapy and palliative care outpatient clinic: a new healthcare integrated model in Italy.

BACKGROUND: On the basis of substantial evidence demonstrate that palliative care combined with standard care improves patient, caregiver, and society outcomes, we have developed a new healthcare model called radiotherapy and palliative care (RaP) outpatient clinic were a radiation oncologist and a palliative care physician make a joint evaluation of advanced cancer patients. METHODS: We performed a monocentric observational cohort study on advanced cancer patients referred for evaluation at the RaP outpatient clinic. Measures of quality of care were carried out. RESULTS: Between April 2016 and April 2018, 287 joint evaluations were performed and 260 patients were evaluated. The primary tumor was lung in 31.9% of cases. One hundred fifty (52.3%) evaluations resulted in an indication for palliative radiotherapy treatment. In 57.6% of cases was used a single dose fraction of radiotherapy (8 Gy). All the irradiated cohort completed the palliative radiotherapy treatment. An 8% of irradiated patients received the palliative radiotherapy treatment in the last 30 days of life. A total of 80% of RaP patients received palliative care assistance until the end of life. CONCLUSION: At the first descriptive analysis, the radiotherapy and palliative care model seem to respond to the need of multidisciplinary approach in order to obtain an improvement on quality of care for advanced cancer patients.

Nurse-led telephone follow-up for early palliative care patients with advanced cancer.

AIM AND OBJECTIVES: To present our experience of a nursing telephone consultation service, describing patient and caregiver requests, and outlining ensuing nursing or medical interventions. BACKGROUND: Recently, there has been an increase in the use of telephone consultation for cancer patients. However, there is still limited data on the characteristics of this type of service and on the nature of the interventions carried out. DESIGN AND METHODS: In this observational retrospective study, we evaluated the phone calls made over a 6-month period by patients or caregivers to the early palliative care team of a cancer institute. Information regarding telephone calls (frequency, reason and management) was systematically collected by a nursing case manager. The study complies with the STROBE checklist File S1. RESULTS: 171 patients used the service, for a total of 323 phone calls. The majority (80.8%) were from patients followed at the outpatient clinic and the most common requests were for pain management (38.4%) and for updates on the clinical situation (23.8%). Other frequent requests were for medication management (18.9%) and scheduling (18.3%). 210 of the 323 phone calls were handled by the nurse, while 22 were managed in collaboration with a physician. An 87.6% effectiveness in telephone management was observed. CONCLUSION: The overall use of the phone service was higher for early palliative care patients. The majority of phone calls were effectively handled by the nursing case manager. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: An effective and feasible nurse-led telephone follow-up of early palliative care patients with advanced cancer could improve their care experience. Specifically, it could impact on patients and families improving quality of life and symptom control securing access to timely care without travel or additional cost.It can also improve continuity of care, adherence to oncological treatments and minimise acute care visits.

Patients with multiple myeloma referred for palliative care consultation: from retrospective analysis to future directions to improve clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: New treatments have improved the overall survival of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). At diagnosis and during the course of the disease, patients often report pain and other symptoms. Given the long disease trajectory, psychological and social issues are also frequent. Recently, the potential usefulness of early palliative care (EPC) was hypothesized in the area of hematology. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with MM referred to our institute for a palliative care (PC) consultation between January 2017 and June 2020. Our aim was to evaluate the main reasons (pain or other clinical symptoms) for the referral for a first PC consultation. METHODS: We examined the main reasons for the first PC consultation, the number of PC consultations carried out, and the period of time between diagnosis, first and subsequent PC visits, and death. We also recorded information on the type of pain experienced and the treatments administered. RESULTS: Of the 325 patients with MM followed at our hematology unit during the study period, 43 were referred for a PC consultation (39 for pain management and 4 to determine the most appropriate care setting (hospice or palliative homecare service)). Nineteen (44.2%) of the 43 patients reported other symptoms in addition to pain. The median time between MM diagnosis and the first PC consultation was 473 days. Fifteen patients died, with a median 332 days between the first PC visit and death. CONCLUSION: Randomized studies on MM involving larger patient populations with access to EPC are needed to identify an effective clinical model to improve the management of patients with MM.

The challenge of sustainability in healthcare systems: cost of radiotherapy in the last month of life in an Italian cancer center.

PURPOSE: Cost evaluation is becoming mandatory to support healthcare sustainability and optimize the decision-making process. This topic is a challenge, especially for complex and rapidly evolving treatment modalities such as radiotherapy (RT). The aim of the present study was to investigate the cost of RT in the last month of life of patients in an Italian cancer center. METHODS: This was a retrospective study on a cancer population (N= 160) who underwent RT or only an RT planning simulation in an end of life (EOL) setting. The cost of RT procedures performed on patients was collected according to treatment status, care setting, and RT technique used. Costs were valued according to the sum of reimbursements relating to all procedures performed and assessed from the perspective of the National Health System. RESULTS: The total cost of RT in the last month of life was €244,774, with an average cost per patient of €1530. Around 7.7% and 30.3% of the total cost was associated with patients who never started RT or who discontinued RT, respectively, while the remaining 62.0% referred to patients who completed treatment. Costs associated with outpatient and inpatient settings represented 54.3% and 38.6% of the total cost, respectively. The higher average cost per patient for the never-started and discontinued groups was correlated with patients who had a poor ECOG Performance Status. CONCLUSION: Improved prognostic accuracy and a better integration between radiotherapy and palliative care units could be a key to a better use of resources and to a reduction in the cost of EOL RT.

The lower the expectations in controlling the symptoms of advanced cancer patients, the better the clinical response.

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare patients' global impression (PGI) and the achievement of personalised symptom goal response (PSGR), after a comprehensive palliative care treatment in advanced cancer patients having high (HPSG) and low symptom goals (LPSG). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units rated symptoms intensity by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) at admission and then after one week of comprehensive palliative care treatment. For each symptom, patients were divided into two groups, according to their patient symptom goal (PSG): ≥4 (HPSG), and 0-2 (LPSG). PGI and PSGR were evaluated after one week of palliative care. The Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) was assessed at admission. RESULTS: After one week of palliative care, changes in ESAS items were significantly larger in the HPSG group. HPSG patients had a better PGI and reached their target more frequently than LPSG patients for pain, weakness, and poor well-being. LPSG patients were more likely to obtain their target for appetite and insomnia. HPSG patients were more likely to have a lower Karnofsky, a lower educational level, older age, or higher MDAS values for the different ESAS items. CONCLUSION: Advanced cancer patients with low expectations (HPSG) were more likely to achieve their PSGR after a comprehensive palliative care treatment, reporting also a better PGI for some leading symptoms such as pain, weakness, and poor well-being. More fragile patients seem to have lower expectations and to be more likely to be satisfied.

Palliative radiotherapy indications during the COVID-19 pandemic and in future complex logistic settings: the NORMALITY model.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged healthcare systems worldwide over the last few months, and it continues to do so. Although some restrictions are being removed, it is not certain when the pandemic is going to be definitively over. Pandemics can be seen as a highly complex logistic scenario. From this perspective, some of the indications provided for palliative radiotherapy (PRT) during the COVID-19 pandemic could be maintained in the future in settings that limit the possibility of patients achieving symptom relief by radiotherapy. This paper has two aims: (1) to provide a summary of the indications for PRT during the COVID-19 pandemic; since some indications can differ slightly, and to avoid any possible contradictions, an expert panel composed of the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) and the Palliative Care and Supportive Therapies Working Group (AIRO-palliative) voted by consensus on the summary; (2) to introduce a clinical care model for PRT [endorsed by AIRO and by a spontaneous Italian collaborative network for PRT named "La Rete del Sollievo" ("The Net of Relief")]. The proposed model, denoted "No cOmpRoMise on quality of life by pALliative radiotherapy" (NORMALITY), is based on an AIRO-palliative consensus-based list of clinical indications for PRT and on practical suggestions regarding the management of patients potentially suitable for PRT but dealing with highly complex logistics scenarios (similar to the ongoing logistics limits due to COVID-19). MATERIAL AND METHODS: First, a summary of the available literature guidelines for PRT published during the COVID-19 pandemic was prepared. A systematic literature search based on the PRISMA approach was performed to retrieve the available literature reporting guideline indications fully or partially focused on PRT. Tables reporting each addressed clinical presentation and respective literature indications were prepared and distributed into two main groups: palliative emergencies and palliative non-emergencies. These summaries were voted in by consensus by selected members of the AIRO and AIRO-palliative panels. Second, based on the summary for palliative indications during the COVID-19 pandemic, a clinical care model to facilitate recruitment and delivery of PRT to patients in complex logistic scenarios was proposed. The summary tables were critically integrated and shuffled according to clinical presentations and then voted on in a second consensus round. Along with the adapted guideline indications, some methods of performing the first triage of patients and facilitating a teleconsultation preliminary to the first in-person visit were developed. RESULTS: After the revision of 161 documents, 13 papers were selected for analysis. From the papers, 19 clinical presentation items were collected; in total, 61 question items were extracted and voted on (i.e., for each presentation, more than one indication was provided from the literature). Two tables summarizing the PRT indications during the COVID-19 pandemic available from the literature (PRT COVID-19 summary tables) were developed: palliative emergencies and palliative non-emergencies. The consensus of the vote by the AIRO panel for the PRT COVID-19 summary was reached. The PRT COVID-19 summary tables for palliative emergencies and palliative non-emergencies were adapted for clinical presentations possibly associated with patients in complex clinical scenarios other than the COVID-19 pandemic. The two new indication tables (i.e., "Normality model of PRT indications") for both palliative emergencies and palliative non-emergencies were voted on in a second consensus round. The consensus rate was reached and strong. Written forms facilitating two levels of teleconsultation (triage and remote visits) were also developed, both in English and in Italian, to evaluate the patients for possible indications for PRT before scheduling clinical visits. CONCLUSION: We provide a comprehensive summary of the literature guideline indications for PRT during COVID-19 pandemic. We also propose a clinical care model including clinical indications and written forms facilitating two levels of teleconsultation (triage and remote visits) to evaluate the patients for indications of PRT before scheduling clinical visits. The normality model could facilitate the provision of PRT to patients in future complex logistic scenarios.

Personalized goal for insomnia and clinical response in advanced cancer patients.

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the Personalized Insomnia Intensity Goal (PIIG), the achievement of Personalized Goal Response (PGR), and Patient Global Impression (PGI) after a comprehensive symptom management. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units rated pain and symptoms intensity and their PIIG by using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) (T0). In patients with significant levels of insomnia, the achievement of target expected (PIIG) was measured (patient goal response, PIGR), as well the patient global impression (PGI), by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), after a comprehensive symptom management (T7). RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-seven patients with a level of insomnia of ≥ 3 on ESAS were analyzed in this study. The mean values of PIIG at T0 and T7 were 1.2 (SD 1.5) and 0.9 (SD 1.4), respectively. Most patients (n = 406, 89.8%) indicated a PIIG of ≤ 3 as a target at T0. Such target was significantly lower at T7 (p = < 0.0005). PGI, expressed as MCID, was perceived with a mean decrease in insomnia intensity of - 2.3. In a minority of patients (n = 26; 5.8%) insomnia worsened, with a MCID of 0.50 (SD 2.8). Higher insomnia intensity at T0 and lower insomnia intensity at T7 were independently related to PGI. PIGR was achieved in 87.9% of patients. PIGR was associated with PIIG at T0, and inversely associated to insomnia intensity at T0 and T7, and PIIG at T7. CONCLUSION: PGIR and PGI seem to be relevant for evaluating the effects of a comprehensive management of insomnia, suggesting therapeutic decisions according to PIIG. Some factors influencing the individual target and clinical response have been detected.

Personalized Pain Goals and Responses in Advanced Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the personalized pain intensity goal (PPIG), the achievement of a personalized pain goal response (PPGR), and patients' global impression (PGI) in advanced cancer patients after a comprehensive pain and symptom management. DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal. SETTING: Acute pain relief and palliative/supportive care. SUBJECTS: 689 advanced cancer patients. METHODS: Measurement of Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) and personalized pain intensity goal (PPIG) at admission (T0). After a week (T7) personalized pain goal response (PPGR) and patients' global impression (PGI) were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean PPIG was 1.33 (SD 1.59). A mean decrease in pain intensity of - 2.09 was required on PPIG to perceive a minimal clinically important difference (MCID). A better improvement corresponded to a mean change of - 3.41 points, while a much better improvement corresponded to a mean of - 4.59 points. Patients perceived a MCID (little worse) with a mean increase in pain intensity of 0.25, and a worse with a mean increase of 2.33 points. Higher pain intensity at T0 and lower pain intensity at T7 were independently related to PGI. 207 (30.0%) patients achieved PPGR. PPGR was associated with higher PPIG at T0 and T7, and inversely associated to pain intensity at T0 and T7, and Karnofsky level. Patients with high pain intensity at T0 achieved a favorable PGI, even when PPIG was not achieved by PPGR. CONCLUSION: PPIG, PPGR and PGI seem to be relevant for evaluating the effects of a comprehensive management of pain, assisting decision-making process according to patients' expectations. Some factors may be implicated in determining the individual target and the clinical response.

Personalized Symptom Goals and Patient Global Impression on Clinical Changes in Advanced Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the patients' global impression (PGI) after symptom management, as well as the achievement of personalized symptom goals (PSG). The secondary outcome was to assess related factors. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: Advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units rated symptom intensity by using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) at admission and then after 1 week. For each symptom, patient-reported PGI and PSG, as well as the rate of PSG response, were evaluated. RESULTS: Eight hundred seventy-six patients were taken into consideration for this study. A mean of 1.71-2.16 points was necessary to perceive a bit better improvement of symptom intensity. Most patients had a PSG of ≤3. A statistically significant number of patients achieved their PSG after starting palliative care. Patients with high intensity of ESAS items at admission achieved a more favorable PGI response. In the multivariate analysis, symptom intensity and PSG were the most frequent factors independently associated to a best PGI, whereas high levels of Karnofsky had a lower odd ratio. CONCLUSION: PSG and PGI seem to be relevant for patients' assessment and decision-making process, translating in terms of therapeutic intervention. Some factors may be implicated in determining the individual target and clinical response. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Personalized symptom goals and global impression of change are relevant for patients' assessment and decision-making process, translating in terms of therapeutic intervention. Some factors may be implicated in determining the individual target and clinical response.

Systematic vs. on-demand early palliative care in gastric cancer patients: a randomized clinical trial assessing patient and healthcare service outcomes.

PURPOSE: Early palliative care (EPC) has shown a positive impact on quality of life (QoL), quality of care, and healthcare costs. We evaluated such effects in patients with advanced gastric cancer. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter study, 186 advanced gastric cancer patients were randomized 1:1 to receive standard cancer care (SCC) plus on-demand EPC (standard arm) or SCC plus systematic EPC (interventional arm). Primary outcome was a change in QoL between randomization (T0) and T1 (12 weeks after T0) in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI) scores evaluated through the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gastric questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were patient mood, overall survival, and family satisfaction with healthcare and care aggressiveness. RESULTS: The mean change in TOI scores from T0 to T1 was - 1.30 (standard deviation (SD) 20.01) for standard arm patients and 1.65 (SD 22.38) for the interventional group, with a difference of 2.95 (95% CI - 4.43 to 10.32) (p = 0.430). The change in mean Gastric Cancer Subscale values for the standard arm was 0.91 (SD 14.14) and 3.19 (SD 15.25) for the interventional group, with a difference of 2.29 (95% CI - 2.80 to 7.38) (p = 0.375). Forty-three percent of patients in the standard arm received EPC. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicated a slight, albeit not significant, benefit from EPC. Findings on EPC studies may be underestimated in the event of suboptimally managed issues: type of intervention, shared decision-making process between oncologists and PC physicians, risk of standard arm contamination, study duration, timeliness of assessment of primary outcomes, timeliness of cohort inception, and recruitment of patients with a significant symptom burden. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01996540).

The challenge of sustainability in healthcare systems: frequency and cost of diagnostic procedures in end-of-life cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Literature data on the overuse and misuse of diagnostic procedures leading to end-of-life aggressiveness are scarce due to the limited amount of estimated economic waste. This study investigated the potential overuse of diagnostic procedures in a population of end-of-life patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective study on consecutive advanced patients admitted into two Italian hospices. Frequency and relative costs of X-ray imaging, CT scans, MRI, and interventional procedures prescribed in the 3 months before admission were collected in patient electronic charts and/or in administrative databases. We conducted a deeper analysis of 83 cancer patients with a diagnosis of at least 1 year before admission to compare the number of examinations performed at two distant time periods. RESULTS: Out of 541 patients, 463 (85.6%) had at least one radiological exam in the 3 months before last admission. The mean radiological exam number was 3.9 ± 3.2 with a relative mean cost of 278.60 ± 270.20 € per patient with a statistically significant (p < 0.001) rise near death. In the 86-patient group, a higher number of procedures was performed in the last 3 months of life than in the first quarter of the year preceding last admission (38.43 ± 28.62 vs. 27.95 ± 23.21, p < 0.001) with a consequent increase in cost. CONCLUSIONS: Patients nearing death are subjected to a high level of "diagnostic aggressiveness." Further studies on the integration of palliative care into the healthcare pathway could impact the appropriateness of interventions, quality of care, and, ultimately, estimated costs.

The Palliative Radiotherapy and Inflammation Study (PRAIS) - protocol for a longitudinal observational multicenter study on patients with cancer induced bone pain.

BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy (RT) results in pain relief for about 6 of 10 patients with cancer induced bone pain (CIBP) caused by bone metastases. The high number of non-responders, the long median time from RT to pain response and the risk of adverse effects, makes it important to determine predictors of treatment response. Clinical features such as cancer type, performance status and pain intensity, and biomarkers for osteoclast activity are proposed as predictors of response to RT. However, results are inconsistent and there is a need for better predictors of RT response. A similar argument can be stated for the development of cachexia; there are currently no predictors that can identify patients who will develop cachexia later in the cancer disease trajectory. Experimental and preclinical studies show that pain, depression and cachexia are related to inflammation. However, it is not known if inflammatory biomarkers can predict CIBP, depression or development of cachexia. METHODS: This multicenter, multinational longitudinal observational study will include 600 adult patients receiving RT for CIBP. Demographic data, clinical variables, osteoclast and inflammatory biomarkers will be assessed before start of RT, and 3, 8, 16, 24 and 52 weeks after last course of RT. The primary aim of the study is to identify potential predictors for pain relief from RT. Secondary aims are to explore potential predictors for development of cachexia, the longitudinal relationship between pain intensity and depression, and if inflammatory biomarkers are associated with changes in pain intensity, cachexia and depression during one-year follow up. DISCUSSION: The immediate clinical implication of the PRAIS study is to identify potential predictive factors for a RT response on CIBP, and thereby reduce non-efficacious RT. Patient benefits are fewer hospital visits, reduced risk of adverse effects and more individualized pain treatment. The long-term clinical implication of the PRAIS study is to improve the knowledge about inflammation in relation to CIBP, cachexia and depression and potentially identify associations and mechanisms that can be targeted for treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02107664 , date of registration April 8, 2014 (retrospectively registered). TRIAL SPONSOR: The European Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, NTNU, Faculty of medicine and Health Sciences, Trondheim, N-7491, Norway.

A Systematic Review of Prognostic Factors in Patients with Cancer Receiving Palliative Radiotherapy: Evidence-Based Recommendations.

(1) Background: Prognostication in patients with cancer receiving palliative radiotherapy remains a challenge. To improve the process, we aim to identify prognostic factors in this population from the literature and offer evidence-based recommendations on prognostication in patients undergoing palliative radiotherapy for non-curable or advanced cancers. (2) Methods: A systematic review was performed on the medical literature from 2005 to 2023 to extract papers on the prognosis of palliative radiotherapy patients with advanced cancer. The initial selection was performed by at least two authors to determine study relevance to the target area. Studies were then classified based on type and evidence quality to determine final recommendations. (3) Results: The literature search returned 57 papers to be evaluated. Clinical and biological prognostic factors were identified from these papers to improve clinical decision making or construct prognostic models. Twenty prognostic models were identified for clinical use. There is moderate evidence supporting (i) evidence-based factors (patient, clinical, disease, and lab) in guiding decision making around palliative radiation; (ii) that certain biological factors are of importance; (iii) prognostication models in patients with advanced cancer; and that (iv) SBRT or re-irradiation use can be guided by predictions of survival by prognostic scores or clinicians. Patients with more favorable prognoses are generally better suited to SBRT or re-irradiation, and the use of prognostic models can aid in this decision making. (4) Conclusions: This evaluation has identified several factors or tools to aid in prognosis and clinical decision making. Future studies should aim to further validate these tools and factors in a clinical setting, including the leveraging of electronic medical records for data availability. To increase our understanding of how causal factors interact with palliative radiotherapy, future studies should also examine and include prediction of response to radiation as an outcome.

Appropriateness of Mini-Invasive Approaches for Nausea and Vomiting Refractory to Medical Therapy in Palliative Care Setting: A Case Report.

Introduction: Nausea and vomiting are frequent multifactorial symptoms in oncological patients. These manifestations, mainly affecting the advanced disease stages, may lead to existential, psychological, and physical suffering, with a negative impact on the quality of life (QoL) of the individual and his family. The medical approach makes use of a wide range of drugs, with different antiemetic potency and various mechanisms of action, taking into account the etiology and the patient's response to the different therapeutic strategies. In recent years, in addition to pharmacological treatments, some endoscopic procedures have been integrated into clinical practice as promising palliative approaches. Case Presentation: Herein, we describe and discuss a case of a 64-year-old female affected by advanced stage pancreatic adenocarcinoma, in which different techniques - both medical and endoscopic - have been used to approach a refractory symptomatology with a negative impact on the patient's QoL. In the context of a multidisciplinary approach in primary palliative care, a tailored intervention encompassing invasive methods for palliative purposes, may be considered adequate and appropriate when the prognostic expectation and the physical functionality indices allow it. Conclusion: Minimally invasive palliative interventions should be offered to patients with advanced cancer when symptoms become refractory to standard medical therapies, as part of the holistic approach in modern treatments. Therefore, the integration of an early palliative approach into the patient's therapeutic path becomes essential for the management of all the individual's needs.

Explainable Machine Learning Model to Predict Overall Survival in Patients Treated With Palliative Radiotherapy for Bone Metastases.

PURPOSE: The estimation of prognosis and life expectancy is critical in the care of patients with advanced cancer. To aid clinical decision making, we build a prognostic strategy combining a machine learning (ML) model with explainable artificial intelligence to predict 1-year survival after palliative radiotherapy (RT) for bone metastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data collected in the multicentric PRAIS trial were extracted for 574 eligible adults diagnosed with metastatic cancer. The primary end point was the overall survival (OS) at 1 year (1-year OS) after the start of RT. Candidate covariate predictors consisted of 13 clinical and tumor-related pre-RT patient characteristics, seven dosimetric and treatment-related variables, and 45 pre-RT laboratory variables. ML models were developed and internally validated using the Python package. The effectiveness of each model was evaluated in terms of discrimination. A Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) explainability analysis to infer the global and local feature importance and to understand the reasons for correct and misclassified predictions was performed. RESULTS: The best-performing model for the classification of 1-year OS was the extreme gradient boosting algorithm, with AUC and F1-score values equal to 0.805 and 0.802, respectively. The SHAP technique revealed that higher chance of 1-year survival is associated with low values of interleukin-8, higher values of hemoglobin and lymphocyte count, and the nonuse of steroids. CONCLUSION: An explainable ML approach can provide a reliable prediction of 1-year survival after RT in patients with advanced cancer. The implementation of SHAP analysis provides an intelligible explanation of individualized risk prediction, enabling oncologists to identify the best strategy for patient stratification and treatment selection.

Development of a predictive model for patients with bone metastases referred to palliative radiotherapy: Secondary analysis of a multicenter study (the PRAIS trial).

BACKGROUND: The decision to administer palliative radiotherapy (RT) to patients with bone metastases (BMs), as well as the selection of treatment protocols (dose, fractionation), requires an accurate assessment of survival expectancy. In this study, we aimed to develop three predictive models (PMs) to estimate short-, intermediate-, and long-term overall survival (OS) for patients in this clinical setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study constitutes a sub-analysis of the PRAIS trial, a longitudinal observational study collecting data from patients referred to participating centers to receive palliative RT for cancer-induced bone pain. Our analysis encompassed 567 patients from the PRAIS trial database. The primary objectives were to ascertain the correlation between clinical and laboratory parameters with the OS rates at three distinct time points (short: 3 weeks; intermediate: 24 weeks; prolonged: 52 weeks) and to construct PMs for prognosis. We employed machine learning techniques, comprising the following steps: (i) identification of reliable prognostic variables and training; (ii) validation and testing of the model using the selected variables. The selection of variables was accomplished using the LASSO method (Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator). The model performance was assessed using receiver operator characteristic curves (ROC) and the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Our analysis demonstrated a significant impact of clinical parameters (primary tumor site, presence of non-bone metastases, steroids and opioid intake, food intake, and body mass index) and laboratory parameters (interleukin 8 [IL-8], chloride levels, C-reactive protein, white blood cell count, and lymphocyte count) on OS. Notably, different factors were associated with the different times for OS with only IL-8 included both in the PMs for short- and long-term OS. The AUC values for ROC curves for 3-week, 24-week, and 52-week OS were 0.901, 0.767, and 0.806, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully developed three PMs for OS based on easily accessible clinical and laboratory parameters for patients referred to palliative RT for painful BMs. While our findings are promising, it is important to recognize that this was an exploratory trial. The implementation of these tools into clinical practice warrants further investigation and confirmation through subsequent studies with separate databases.

Assessing the effectiveness of palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

Palliative radiotherapy (RT) effectively relieves pain in patients with bone metastases (BMs). Furthermore, several clinical trials, in most cases conducted in high-income countries (HICs), proved that single-fraction RT is equally effective compared to multi-fractionated RT. However, the evidence is scarce regarding low/middle-income countries (LMICs), where the diagnosis of BMs could be later and RT techniques less advanced. Therefore, we conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate the efficacy of palliative RT of BMs in the LMIC setting. A literature search was performed independently by two authors on the PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus databases. Overall, 333 records were screened and after the selection process, 11 papers were included in the analysis. Complete pain response rates ranged from 11.5% to 37.1% (median: 22%) for single-fraction RT and from 0% to 35.1% (median: 19%) for multi-fractionated RT. Partial pain response rates ranged from 23.1% to 76.9% (median: 53.8%) for single fraction RT and from 23.8% to 84.6% (median: 65%) for multi-fractionated RT. Four randomized trials compared single-fraction RT with multiple-fraction RT and none of them showed significant differences in terms of pain relief. Our analysis showed that pain response rates after palliative RT recorded in LMIC are like those reported in studies performed in HIC. Even in this setting, RT in single fraction shows comparable pain response rates to multifractional RT.

Transdermal Fentanyl in Patients with Cachexia-A Scoping Review.

Cachectic patients frequently require transdermal fentanyl (TDF) for pain management, but data on its efficacy and safety are scarce and inconsistent. This scoping review aims to analyze the evidence concerning TDF administration in patients with cachexia irrespective of the underlying pathology. The primary objective is to assess the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of TDF in cachectic patients. The secondary objective is to identify cachexia characteristics that may influence fentanyl pharmacokinetics (PK). A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted up to March 2024. The review included observational and clinical studies on cachectic patients with moderate to severe pain treated with TDF patches at any dosage or frequency. Phase 1 trials, animal studies, case reports, preclinical studies and conference abstracts were excluded. Nine studies were included: four studies reported that cachexia negatively impacted TDF efficacy, increasing required doses and lowering plasma concentrations; three studies found minimal or no impact of cachexia on TDF efficacy and PK; two studies suggested that cachexia might improve TDF outcomes. Study quality ranged from moderate to high, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool. The current evidence is insufficient to provide any definitive recommendations for TDF prescribing in cachectic patients.