[Palliative Care in patients with gastrointestinal cancer]. / Palliativmedizin in der gastrointestinalen Onkologie.

Comprehensive Cancer Care stands for a concept of broad care providing substantial benefits to cancer patients. Beside prevention of cancer as first pillar and curative therapy as second pillar, comprehensive care also encompasses palliative care representing a third pillar providing service for incurable cancer patients burdened with physical symptoms and psychological, social and spiritual needs. This article describes the integration of palliative medicine into comprehensive cancer care for patients with gastrointestinal cancer.

Perspectives of nursing home executives on collaboration with GPs and specialist palliative care teams.

Background: Nursing home (NH) staff, general practitioners (GPs) and specialist outpatient palliative care teams are expected to cooperate to ensure adequate palliative care for NH residents in Germany. Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the perspective of NH executives concerning collaboration with GPs and specialist outpatient palliative care teams. Methods: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with executives of NHs in the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. Interviews were analysed by means of structured content analyses. Results: Executives of 20 NHs participated in the study, eight NHs cooperate with specialist outpatient palliative care teams. Content analysis resulted in two main categories: 'general palliative care by primary carers' and 'collaboration with SAPV in NHs', each with three first-order subcategories. The main barriers to adequate palliative care were reported to be lack of palliative care knowledge in GPs and NH staff, refusal of some GPs to cooperate with specialist outpatient palliative care teams and staff shortage in NHs. Specialist palliative care involvement was described to result in improved palliative care. Conclusion: Solutions seem obvious, e.g., further education in palliative care or round tables to discuss collaboration. However, studies show that even comprehensive educational and management interventions to implement palliative care do not always result in long-term effects and further research is needed.

Screening for Palliative Care Need in Oncology: Validation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

CONTEXT: Leading oncology societies recommend monitoring symptoms and support needs through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), but their use for assessing specialist palliative care (SPC) need has not yet been explored. Research on SPC integration has focused on staff-assessed screening tools, which are time-consuming. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the diagnostic validity of the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS) and NCCN Distress Thermometer (NCCN DT) in identifying need for SPC in patients with incurable cancer. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, patients with incurable cancer (prognosis <2 years) completed PROMs. In an independent process, the palliative care consultation service (PCCS) assessed the need for SPC in each patient through multiprofessional case review, and this was used as the reference standard. ROC analyses were employed to determine diagnostic validity. RESULTS: Of the 208 participants, 71 (34.1 %) were classified as having SPC need by the PCCS. Aiming for a minimum sensitivity of 80%, a cut-off of ≥2 items with high/very high burden in the IPOS resulted in a 90.2% sensitivity (specificity = 50; AUC = 0.791; CI 95%= 0.724-0.858). A cut-off of ≥5 resulted in a sensitivity of 80 % for NCCN DT (specificity = 49.5 %; AUC = 0.687; CI 95% = 0.596-0.777). CONCLUSION: PROMs are useful for identifying SPC need in cancer patients. Their implementation might facilitate timely integration of SPC. Future research should focus on an integrated assessment approach with PROMs that combines the requirements of the different specialties to save patient and staff resources.

Interrater agreement of multi-professional case review as reference standard for specialist palliative care need: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: A wide variety of screening tools for the need for specialist palliative care (SPC) have been proposed for the use in oncology. However, as there is no established reference standard for SPC need to compare their results with, their sensitivity and specificity have not yet been determined. The aim of the study was to explore whether SPC need assessment by means of multi-professional case review has sufficient interrater agreement to be employed as a reference standard. METHODS: Comprehensive case descriptions were prepared for 20 inpatients with advanced oncologic disease at the University Hospital Freiburg (Germany). All cases were presented to the palliative care teams of three different hospitals in independent, multi-professional case review sessions. The teams assessed whether patients had support needs in nine categories and subsequently concluded SPC need (yes / no). Interrater agreement regarding SPC need was determined by calculating Fleiss' Kappa. RESULTS: In 17 out of 20 cases the three teams agreed regarding their appraisal of SPC need (substantial interrater agreement: Fleiss' Kappa κ = 0.80 (95% CI: 0.55-1.0; p < 0.001)). The number of support needs was significantly lower for patients who all teams agreed had no SPC need than for those with agreed SPC need. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed expert case review process shows sufficient reliability to be used as a reference standard. Key elements of the case review process (e.g. clear definition of SPC need, standardized review of the patients' support needs) and possible modifications to simplify the process are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00021686, registered 17.12.2020.

Pharmacological interventions for pruritus in adult palliative care patients.

BACKGROUND: This is the second update of the original Cochrane review published in 2013 (issue 6), which was updated in 2016 (issue 11). Pruritus occurs in patients with disparate underlying diseases and is caused by different pathologic mechanisms. In palliative care patients, pruritus is not the most prevalent but is a burdening symptom. It can cause considerable discomfort and negatively affect patients' quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different pharmacological treatments compared with active control or placebo for preventing or treating pruritus in adult palliative care patients. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) up to 6 July 2022. In addition, we searched trial registries and checked the reference lists of all relevant studies, key textbooks, reviews and websites, and we contacted investigators and specialists in pruritus and palliative care regarding unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different pharmacological treatments, compared with a placebo, no treatment, or an alternative treatment, for preventing or treating pruritus in palliative care patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the identified titles and abstracts, performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality. We summarised the results descriptively and quantitatively (meta-analyses) according to the different pharmacological interventions and the diseases associated with pruritus. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 13 summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: In total, we included 91 studies and 4652 participants in the review. We added 42 studies with 2839 participants for this update. Altogether, we included 51 different treatments for pruritus in four different patient groups. The overall risk of bias profile was heterogeneous and ranged from high to low risk. The main reason for giving a high risk of bias rating was a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm). Seventy-nine of 91 studies (87%) had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm. Eight (9%) studies had low risk of bias in the specified key domains; the remaining studies had an unclear risk of bias (70 studies, 77%) or a high risk of bias (13 studies, 14%). Using GRADE criteria, we judged that the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. pruritus) was high for kappa-opioid agonists compared to placebo and moderate for GABA-analogues compared to placebo. Certainty of evidence was low for naltrexone, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids, topical capsaicin, ondansetron and zinc sulphate compared to placebo and gabapentin compared to pregabalin, and very low for cromolyn sodium, paroxetine, montelukast, flumecinol, and rifampicin compared to placebo. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to serious study limitations regarding risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. For participants suffering from uraemic pruritus (UP; also known as chronic kidney disease (CKD)-associated pruritus (CKD-aP)), treatment with GABA-analogues compared to placebo likely resulted in a large reduction of pruritus (visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10 cm): mean difference (MD) -5.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.56 to -4.55; five RCTs, N = 297, certainty of evidence: moderate. Treatment with kappa-opioid receptor agonists (difelikefalin, nalbuphine, nalfurafine) compared to placebo reduced pruritus slightly (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.71; six RCTs, N = 1292, certainty of evidence: high); thus, this treatment was less effective than GABA-analogues. Treatment with montelukast compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (two studies, 87 participants): SMD -1.40, 95% CI -1.87 to -0.92; certainty of evidence: very low. Treatment with fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids compared to placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (four studies, 160 observations): SMD -1.60, 95% CI -1.97 to -1.22; certainty of evidence: low. Treatment with cromolyn sodium compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -3.27, 95% CI -5.91 to -0.63; two RCTs, N = 100, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with topical capsaicin compared with placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (two studies; 112 participants): SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.57; certainty of evidence: low. Ondansetron, zinc sulphate and several other treatments may not reduce pruritus in participants suffering from UP. In participants with cholestatic pruritus (CP), treatment with rifampicin compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS: 0 to 100, MD -42.00, 95% CI -87.31 to 3.31; two RCTs, N = 42, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with flumecinol compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR > 1 favours treatment group; RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 10.1; two RCTs, N = 69, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with the opioid antagonist naltrexone compared to placebo may reduce pruritus (VAS: 0 to 10 cm, MD -2.42, 95% CI -3.90 to -0.94; two RCTs, N = 52, certainty of evidence: low). However, effects in participants with UP were inconclusive (percentage of difference -12.30%, 95% CI -25.82% to 1.22%, one RCT, N = 32). In palliative care participants with pruritus of a different nature, the treatment with the drug paroxetine (one study), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, compared to placebo may reduce pruritus slightly by 0.78 (numerical analogue scale from 0 to 10 points; 95% CI -1.19 to -0.37; one RCT, N = 48, certainty of evidence: low). Most adverse events were mild or moderate. Two interventions showed multiple major adverse events (naltrexone and nalfurafine). AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: Different interventions (GABA-analogues, kappa-opioid receptor agonists, cromolyn sodium, montelukast, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids and topical capsaicin compared to placebo) were effective for uraemic pruritus. GABA-analogues had the largest effect on pruritus. Rifampin, naltrexone and flumecinol tended to be effective for cholestatic pruritus. However, therapies for patients with malignancies are still lacking. Due to the small sample sizes in most meta-analyses and the heterogeneous methodological quality of the included trials, the results should be interpreted cautiously in terms of generalisability.

"Scanxiety" and a sense of control: the perspective of lung cancer survivors and their caregivers on follow-up - a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Lung cancer survivors often suffer from physical, emotional and social long-term effects of disease and treatment. Caregivers are also affected by the cancer diagnosis throughout the course of the disease and are frequently burdened by high levels of psychosocial stress. However, little is known about how follow-up care after the completed treatment phase can help to improve long-term quality of life. In the context of patient-centred cancer care, considering the survivors' and caregivers' perspectives is an important step toward improving care structures. We therefore explored how lung cancer survivors and their caregivers experience follow-up examinations and their possible psychosocial effects on everyday life in order to shed light on what support is helpful for improving their quality of life. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 25 survivors after curative lung cancer treatment and 17 caregivers underwent a face-to-face semi-structured, audio-recorded interview that was analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Especially burdened cancer survivors and caregivers described recurring anxiety before a follow-up appointment influencing their everyday life. At the same time, follow-up care also provided reassurance of still being healthy and helped regain a sense of security and control until the following scan. Despite possible long-term consequences in everyday life, the interviewees reported that the survivors´ psychosocial needs were not explicitly assessed or discussed. Nevertheless, the interviewees indicated that conversations with the physician were important for the success of "good" follow-up care. CONCLUSION: Anxiety surrounding follow-up scans, also known as "scanxiety", is a common problem. In this study, we expanded on previous findings and found a positive aspect of scans, namely regaining a sense of security and control, which can strengthen the psychological well-being of the survivors and their families. To optimize follow-up care and improve the quality of life of lung cancer survivors and caregivers, strategies to integrate psychosocial care, like the introduction of survivorship care plans or increased use of patient-reported outcomes, should be explored in the future.

Feasibility, use and benefits of patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care units: a multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Research has shown that routinely assessed, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have positive effects in patients with advanced oncologic diseases. However, the transferability of these results to specialist palliative care is uncertain because patients are more impaired and staff doubt the feasibility and benefits. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of patient self-assessment of PROMs, their use by staff and the benefits in palliative care wards. METHOD: A multicentre observational study was conducted in the context of the implementation of the Integrated Patient Outcome Scale (IPOS) in three specialist palliative care wards at university hospitals in Germany. All admitted patients who screened positive regarding their ability to complete questionnaires were asked to participate and complete the IPOS on paper weekly, with assistance if necessary. Feasibility of questionnaire completion (e.g. proportion of patients able to complete them), use (e.g. involvement of different professional groups) and benefit (e.g. unexpected information in IPOS as rated by treating physicians) were assessed. Staff members' opinion was obtained in a written, anonymous evaluation survey, patients' opinion in a short written evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 557 patients were screened for eligibility, 235 were assessed as able to complete the IPOS (42.2%) and 137 participated in the study (24.6%). A majority needed support in completing the IPOS; 40 staff members and 73 patients completed the evaluation. Unexpected information was marked by physicians in 95 of the 137 patient questionnaires (69.3%). The staff differed in their opinions on the question of whether this also improved treatment. A majority of 32 staff members (80.0%) were in favour of continuing the use of IPOS (4 against continuation, 4 no answer); 43 (58.9%) patients rated their overall experience of IPOS use as 'positive', 29 (39.7%) as 'neutral' and 1 (1.4%) as 'negative'. CONCLUSIONS: While most staff wished to continue using IPOS, it was a challenge to integrate the effort to support the completion of IPOS into daily practice. Digital implementation was not successful, despite various attempts. To explore the effects on care and patient outcomes, multicentre cluster-randomised trials could be employed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00016681 (24/04/2019).

Development of a screening tool for the need of specialist palliative care in oncologic inpatients: study protocol for the ScreeningPALL Study.

INTRODUCTION: A range of referral criteria and scores have been developed in recent years to help with screening for the need of specialist palliative care (SPC) in advanced, incurable cancer patients. However, referral criteria have not yet been widely implemented in oncology, as they usually need to be revised by physicians or nurses with limited time resources. To develop an easily applicable screening for the need for SPC in incurable cancer inpatients, we aim to (a) test inter-rater reliability of multiprofessional expert opinion as reference standard for SPC need (phase I) and (b) explore the diagnostic validity of selected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and routine data for the need of SPC (phase II). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Inclusion criteria for patients are metastatic or locally advanced, incurable cancer, ≥18 years of age and informed consent by patient or proxy. (Exclusion criteria: malignant haematological disease as main diagnosis). In phase I, three palliative care consultation teams (PCTs) of three German university hospitals assess the SPC need of 20 patient cases. Fleiss' Kappa will be calculated for inter-rater reliability. In phase II, 208 patients are consecutively recruited in four inpatient oncology wards of Freiburg University Hospital. The PCT will provide assessment of SPC need. As potential referral criteria, patients complete PROMs and a selection of routine data on person, disease and treatment is documented. Logistic regression models and ROC analyses are employed to test their utility in screening for SPC need. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international scientific meetings and congresses. Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Germany (approval no. 20-1103). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00021686, registered on 17 December 2020.

Cross-cultural validity of the Death Reflection Scale during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The global COVID-19 pandemic confronts people with their fragility, vulnerability, and mortality. To date, scales to measure death awareness mainly focus on the anxiety-provoking aspect of mortality cues. This study aims to cross-culturally adapt and validate the Death Reflection Scale (DRS), a scale for measuring positive, growth-oriented cognitions of life reflection and prosocial behavior following confrontation with the finiteness of life. Materials and Methods: The Death Reflection Scale was translated and adapted in a multi-step process to the German language. In this anonymous, cross-sectional, online survey at a large university in Germany, students, healthcare professionals (HCP) and other staff completed the DRS alongside comparison measures. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess configural, metric, and scalar measurement equivalence across four age and occupational groups. Convergent/divergent validity testing was done via Spearman correlations. Results: 1,703 participants provided data for a response rate of ∼5%. 24% of respondents were HCP, 22% students. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a higher-order structure of the DRS with a strong general factor and the originally proposed five subscales (CFI 0.945, SRMR 0.045, RMSEA 0.055). Multi-group CFA showed partial metric equivalence across age groups and partial scalar invariance across occupational groups. Non-invariant scales were the Motivation to live, Putting life into perspective, and Legacy subscales. In the convergent validity testing, two hypotheses were fully confirmed, two partially and four were not confirmed. Experiencing a propensity for increased contemplation and life reflection during the pandemic together with spirituality showed correlations of moderate to large size to the DRS and its subscales (Spearman's rho ranging from 0.31 to 0.52). Conclusion: Further conceptual work for death awareness to explore the construct's stability in different population groups needs to be undertaken. However, the DRS can be mostly used to assess positive and growth-oriented aspects of death awareness and death reflection which may be an important avenue when developing counseling and support interventions for groups experiencing a high burden during the pandemic.

Implementation of an acute palliative care unit for COVID-19 patients in a tertiary hospital: Qualitative data on clinician perspectives.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become apparent that palliative care has dynamically adapted to the care of dying patients with and without COVID-19 and has developed new forms of collaboration. Evaluation is needed to assess which innovations should be integrated into future pandemic management. AIM: To explore the experiences of stakeholders and staff in implementing and operating an ad hoc unit delivering acute palliative care. What lessons were learned? DESIGN: Qualitative interview study (German Clinical Trials Register; identifier 22,473) with qualitative content analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: During the first wave of the pandemic, the University Medical Center Freiburg (Germany) established an ad hoc unit delivering acute palliative care for COVID-19 patients likely to die. Nurses from non-palliative areas and the specialist palliative care team formed a new team working together there. Twenty-nine individuals from management and staff of this unit were interviewed. RESULTS: Patient care and teamwork were rated positively. Joint familiarization, bedside teaching, and team/management support were evaluated as core elements for success. Challenges for the nurses from non-palliative settings included adapting to palliative care routines and culture of care. The palliative care team had to adjust the high standards of palliative care to pandemic conditions. Due to sufficient hospital-wide capacity, only three COVID-19 patients were treated, significantly fewer than anticipated at planning. CONCLUSIONS: Results show the feasibility of an ad hoc COVID-19 acute palliative care unit. In the event of capacity constraints, such a unit can be a viable part of future pandemic management.

Reevaluation of statistically significant meta-analyses in advanced cancer patients using the Hartung-Knapp method and prediction intervals-A methodological study.

Using the Hartung-Knapp method and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) in random-effects meta-analyses is recommended by experts but rarely applied. Therefore, we aimed to reevaluate statistically significant meta-analyses using the Hartung-Knapp method and 95% PIs. In this methodological study, three databases were searched from January 2010 to July 2019. We included systematic reviews reporting a statistically significant meta-analysis of at least four randomized controlled trials in advanced cancer patients using either a fixed-effect or random-effects model. We investigated the impact of switching from fixed-effect to random-effects meta-analysis and of using the recommended Hartung-Knapp method in random-effects meta-analyses. Furthermore, we calculated 95% PIs for all included meta-analyses. We identified 6234 hits, of which 261 statistically significant meta-analyses were included. Our recalculations of these 261 meta-analyses produced statistically significant results in 132 of 138 fixed-effect and 114 of 123 random-effects meta-analyses. When switching to a random-effects model, 19 of 132 fixed-effect meta-analyses (14.4%) were no longer statistically significant. Using the Hartung-Knapp method in random-effects meta-analyses resulted in 34 of 114 nonsignificant meta-analyses (29.8%). In the full sample (N = 261), the null effect was included by the 95% PI in 195 (74.7%) and the opposite effect (e.g., hazard ratio 0.5, opposite effect 2) in 98 meta-analyses (37.5%). Using the Hartung-Knapp method and PIs substantially influenced the interpretation of many published, statistically significant meta-analyses. We strongly encourage researchers to check if using the Hartung-Knapp method and reporting 95% PIs is appropriate in random-effects meta-analyses.

Interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Individuals dying of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may experience distressing symptoms such as breathlessness or delirium. Palliative symptom management can alleviate symptoms and improve the quality of life of patients. Various treatment options such as opioids or breathing techniques have been discussed for use in COVID-19 patients. However, guidance on symptom management of COVID-19 patients in palliative care has often been derived from clinical experiences and guidelines for the treatment of patients with other illnesses. An understanding of the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological palliative interventions to manage specific symptoms of COVID-19 patients is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in individuals with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), medRxiv); Web of Science Core Collection (Science Citation Index Expanded, Emerging Sources); CINAHL; WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; and COAP Living Evidence on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions until 23 March 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We included studies evaluating palliative symptom management for individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 receiving interventions for palliative symptom control, with no restrictions regarding comorbidities, age, gender, or ethnicity. Interventions comprised pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological treatment (e.g. acupressure, physical therapy, relaxation, or breathing techniques). We searched for the following types of studies: randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCTs, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series (with comparison group), prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. We searched for studies comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control with standard care. We excluded studies evaluating palliative interventions for symptoms caused by other terminal illnesses. If studies enrolled populations with or exposed to multiple diseases, we would only include these if the authors provided subgroup data for individuals with COVID-19. We excluded studies investigating interventions for symptom control in a curative setting, for example patients receiving life-prolonging therapies such as invasive ventilation.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a modified version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) to assess bias in the included studies. We included the following outcomes: symptom relief (primary outcome); quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.  As meta-analysis was not possible, we used tabulation to synthesize the studies and histograms to display the outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in hospitalized patients and patients in nursing homes. None of the studies included a comparator. We rated the risk of bias high across all studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for the primary outcome symptom relief, downgrading mainly for high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. Pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control We identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies (five references) investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. Two references used the same register to form their cohorts, and study investigators confirmed a partial overlap of participants. We therefore do not know the exact number of participants, but individual reports included 61 to 2105 participants. Participants received multimodal pharmacological interventions: opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines for relieving dyspnea (breathlessness), delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms.  Primary outcome: symptom relief All identified studies reported this outcome. For all symptoms (dyspnea, delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms), a majority of interventions were rated as completely or partially effective by outcome assessors (treating clinicians or nursing staff). Interventions used in the studies were opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines.  We are very uncertain about the effect of pharmacological interventions on symptom relief (very low-certainty evidence). The initial rating of the certainty of evidence was low since we only identified uncontrolled NRSIs. Our main reason for downgrading the certainty of evidence was high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. We therefore did not find evidence to confidently support or refute whether pharmacological interventions may be effective for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes We planned to include the following outcomes: quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We did not find any data for these outcomes, or any other information on the efficacy and safety of used interventions. Non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control None of the identified studies used non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low certainty evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. We found no evidence on the safety of pharmacological interventions or efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients. The evidence presented here has no specific implications for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients because we cannot draw any conclusions about the effectiveness or safety based on the identified evidence. More evidence is needed to guide clinicians, nursing staff, and caregivers when treating symptoms of COVID-19 patients at the end of life. Specifically, future studies ought to investigate palliative symptom control in prospectively registered studies, using an active-controlled setting, assess patient-reported outcomes, and clearly define interventions. The publication of the results of ongoing studies will necessitate an update of this review. The conclusions of an updated review could differ from those of the present review and may allow for a better judgement regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.

Lessons Learned from Introducing Last Aid Courses at a University Hospital in Germany.

In recent years, so called "Last Aid courses", concerning end-of-life care for people dying, have successfully been established in community settings in several European countries, Australia, and South-America. To date, they have not been evaluated in hospital settings, where educational needs (concerning care of the dying) are especially high, and may differ from the general population. To evaluate if Last Aid courses are feasible in hospital settings, and if informational needs of hospital staff are met by the curriculum, we introduced Last Aid courses at a university hospital. Five courses were offered; participants of courses 1 and 2 completed surveys with open-ended questions; the answers were used to develop the evaluation questionnaire employed in courses 3-5. In these three courses, 55 of the 56 participants completed an evaluation survey to explore their learning goals and obtain feedback. Courses were fully booked; participants were heterogeneous with regard to their professional background. The most prevalent learning goals were "preparation for emotional aspects in care of dying" (65.5% ratings "very important"), "preparation for medical/care aspects in care of dying" (60.0%), and "knowledge of supportive services and facilities" (54.5%). Overall, the evaluation showed that Last Aid courses were more suitable to educate non-medical hospital staff about care of the dying. Medical staff, in contrast to non-medical staff, more often requested courses with an extended curriculum in order to meet their learning goals. Last Aid courses were well accepted and helped to reduce information deficits on care of the dying in a heterogeneous population of hospital staff.

Methodological quality was critically low in 9/10 systematic reviews in advanced cancer patients-A methodological study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality and the consideration of heterogeneity in systematic reviews (SRs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a methodological study (CRD42019134904) and searched three databases from January 2010 to July 2019. Interventional SRs with a statistically significant meta-analysis of at least four randomized controlled trials in advanced cancer patients were included. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 was used to evaluate the SRs' methodological quality. The consideration of heterogeneity was categorized in clinical or/and methodological heterogeneity and not explored. RESULTS: From 6234 identified references, 261 SRs were included. Most SRs had a critically low quality (230, 88.1%). The majority of them (209, 80.1%) was classified as critically low because of non-registration (222, 85.1%) combined with the non-reporting of excluded full-texts and missing justifications for exclusion (218, 83.5%). Heterogeneity in trial results was not explored at all in 51 (19.5%) SRs whereas clinical heterogeneity was considered in 117 (44.8%), methodological heterogeneity in 13 (5.0%), and both clinical and methodological heterogeneity in 80 (30.7%) SRs. CONCLUSION: The consideration of these findings in trainings for review authors and peer reviewers could improve the awareness of quality criteria and the quality of future SRs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-ID: CRD42019134904.

"This is the worst that has happened to me in 86 years": A qualitative study of the experiences of grandparents losing a grandchild due to a neurological or oncological disease.

PURPOSE: Pediatric palliative care focuses mainly on the children suffering from a life-limiting disease, but always includes parents and siblings. However, grandparents are also often highly involved in caring for the child and require additional attention. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the experiences of grandparents during the end-of-life care and after the death of a grandchild. DESIGN AND METHODS: A qualitative approach using semi-structured interviews was chosen. Fifteen grandparents of 10 children who had died of neurological or oncological diseases were interviewed. Participants were recruited among the families cared by the pediatric palliative care team of a children's hospital in northern Switzerland. Grandparents were interviewed at least 1 year after the death of the grandchild. The data was analyzed employing reconstructive interview analysis. RESULTS: Regardless of the child's diagnosis and circumstances of death, the participants described how the child's death had a major impact on them and their entire family. Grandparents felt obligated to support the family and constantly be a source of support for the parents. They bore a heavy psychological burden as they cared and mourned not only for their dying grandchild but also for their own daughter or son. Grandparents struggled with their ability to communicate about disease and death. They tried to process and make sense of their loss by remembering the deceased child. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These findings emphasize the importance of identifying and understanding grandparents' suffering. Pediatric palliative care teams can achieve this by actively making contact with grandparents, taking their concerns seriously and demonstrating appreciation for their role in supporting the family.

Whole-brain irradiation with hippocampal sparing and dose escalation on metastases: neurocognitive testing and biological imaging (HIPPORAD) - a phase II prospective randomized multicenter trial (NOA-14, ARO 2015-3, DKTK-ROG).

BACKGROUND: Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is the standard therapy for multiple brain metastases. However, WBRT has a poor local tumor control and is associated with a decline in neurocognitive function (NCF). Aim of this trial is to assess the efficacy and safety of a new treatment method, the WBRT with hippocampus avoidance (HA) combined with the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) on metastases/resection cavities (HA-WBRT+SIB). METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized, two-arm phase II multicenter trial comparing the impact of HA on NCF after HA-WBRT+SIB versus WBRT+SIB in patients with multiple brain metastases. The study design is double-blinded. One hundred thirty two patients are to be randomized with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Patients between 18 and 80 years old are recruited, with at least 4 brain metastases of solid tumors and at least one, but not exceeding 10 metastases ≥5 mm. Patients must be in good physical condition and have no metastases/resection cavities in or within 7 mm of the hippocampus. Patients with dementia, meningeal disease, cerebral lymphomas, germ cell tumors, or small cell carcinomas are excluded. Previous irradiation and resection of metastases, as well as the number and size of metastases to be boosted have to comply with certain restrictions. Patients are randomized between the two treatment arms: HA-WBRT+SIB and WBRT+SIB. WBRT is to be performed with 30 Gy in 12 daily fractions and the SIB with 51 Gy/42 Gy in 12 daily fractions on 95% of volume for metastases/resection cavities. In the experimental arm, the dose to the hippocampi is restricted to 9 Gy in 98% of the volume and 17Gy in 2% of the volume. NCF testing is scheduled before WBRT, after 3 (primary endpoint), 9, 18 months and yearly thereafter. Clinical and imaging follow-ups are performed 6 and 12 weeks after WBRT, after 3, 9, 18 months and yearly thereafter. DISCUSSION: This is a protocol of a randomized phase II trial designed to test a new strategy of WBRT for preventing cognitive decline and increasing tumor control in patients with multiple brain metastases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The HIPPORAD trial is registered with the German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00004598, registered 2 June 2016).

Quality of life after pulmonary stereotactic fractionated radiotherapy (SBRT): Results of the phase II STRIPE trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Preserving health related quality of life (HRQOL) plays an important role in considering stereotactic body fractionated radiotherapy (SBRT). The prospective monocenter phase II STRIPE trial investigated long-term HRQOL after SBRT, efficacy and toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with ≤2 pulmonary lesions ≤5 cm were treated with 4DPET/CT-based SBRT (3 × 12.5 Gy or risk-adapted 5 × 7 Gy, to 60% isodose). Follow up (FU) was performed 2 and 7 weeks after SBRT, then 3-monthly for 2 years with assessment of response (primary endpoint: 2-year cumulative incidence of local progression (LP); secondary endpoints: local progression free survival (LPFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity (CTCAE)). Impact of predefined patient and treatment related factors on HRQOL (EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-LC13) was evaluated. RESULTS: Between 02/2011 and 11/2014, 100 patients were given SBRT for 56 NSCLC and 44 pulmonary metastases (M1). Long-term FU overall revealed stable Quality of Life (QoL)/Global health status (GHS), functions-scores and symptoms. For QoL/GHS, patients with low (

The views of physicians and nurses on the potentials of an electronic assessment system for recognizing the needs of patients in palliative care.

OBJECTIVES: Patients in oncological and palliative care (PC) often have complex needs, which require a comprehensive treatment approach. The assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to improve identification of patient needs and foster adjustment of treatment. This study explores occupational routines, attitudes and expectations of physicians and nurses with regards to a planned electronic assessment system of PROs. METHODS: Ten physicians and nine nurses from various PC settings in Southern Germany were interviewed. The interviews were analysed with qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The interviewees were sceptical about the quality of data generated through a patient self-assessment system. They criticised the rigidity of the electronic assessment questionnaire, which the interviewees noted may not fit the profile of all palliative patients. They feared the loss of personal contact between medical staff and patients and favoured in-person conversation and on-site observations on site over the potential system. Interviewees saw potential in being able to discover unseen needs from some patients. Interviewees evaluated the system positively in the case that the system served to broadly orient care plans without affecting or reducing the patient-caregiver relationship. CONCLUSIONS: A significant portion of the results touch upon the symbolic acceptance of the suggested system, which stands for an increasing standardisation and technisation of medicine where interpersonal contact and the professional expertise are marginalized. The study results can provide insight for processes and communication in the run-up to and during the implementation of electronic assessment systems.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for advanced cancer pain inpatients in specialist palliative care-a blinded, randomized, sham-controlled pilot cross-over trial.

PURPOSE: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a treatment option for cancer pain, but the evidence is inconclusive. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TENS. METHODS: A blinded, randomized, sham-controlled pilot cross-over trial (NCT02655289) was conducted on an inpatient specialist palliative care ward. We included adult inpatients with cancer pain ≥ 3 on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). Intensity-modulated high TENS (IMT) was compared with placebo TENS (PBT). Patients used both modes according to their preferred application scheme during 24 h with a 24-h washout phase. The primary outcome was change in average pain intensity on the NRS during the preceding 24 h. Responders were patients with at least a "slight improvement." RESULTS: Of 632 patients screened, 25 were randomized (sequence IMT-PBT = 13 and PBT-IMT = 12). Finally, 11 patients in IMT-PBT and 9 in PBT-IMT completed the study (N = 20). The primary outcome did not differ between groups (IMT minus PBT: - 0.2, 95% confidence interval - 0.9 to 0.6). However, responder rates were higher in IMT (17/20 [85%] vs. 10/20 [50%], p = 0.0428). Two patients experienced an uncomfortable feeling caused by the current, one after IMT and one after PBT. Seven patients (35%) desired a TENS prescription. Women and patients with incident pain were most likely to benefit from TENS. CONCLUSION: TENS was safe, but IMT was unlikely to offer more analgesic effects than PBT. Even though many patients desired a TENS prescription, 50% still reported at least "slight pain relief" from PBT. Differences for gender and incident pain aspects demand future trials.

Severe symptoms and very low quality-of-life among outpatients newly diagnosed with advanced cancer: data from a multicenter cohort study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to identify symptoms of severe intensity or very low scores for quality of life (QoL) domains in newly diagnosed outpatients with advanced cancer. METHODS: This multicenter cohort study from a state-wide palliative care network included adult outpatients with advanced cancer diagnosed within the preceding 8 weeks from four comprehensive cancer centers (DRKS00006162, registered on 19 May 2014). We used the Palliative Outcome Scale (POS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire-C30. For each questionnaire, cut-off scores defined symptoms and QoL domains that were considered "severe" or "very low." RESULTS: Of 3155 patients screened, 481/592 (81.3%) were analyzed (mean age 62.4; women n = 245, 50.9%). We identified 324/481 (67.4%) patients experiencing at least one severe symptom or a very low QoL domain (median 2; range 0 to 16). Role functioning (n = 180, 37.4%), fatigue (n = 162, 33.7%), and social functioning (n = 126, 26.2%) were most commonly affected. QoL was very low in 89 patients (18.5%). Women experienced more anxiety symptoms, fatigue, and had lower POS scores. Patients often mentioned physical symptoms and fears of adverse events resulting from disease-modifying therapies (e.g., chemotherapy) as most relevant problems. CONCLUSIONS: Already within the first 8 weeks after diagnosis, the majority of patients reported at least one severe symptom or a very low QoL domain. Gender differences were evident. The findings illustrate the value of early routine assessment of patient burden and the development of multi-professional and interdisciplinary palliative care.