The association of cancer-related fatigue on the social, vocational and healthcare-related dimensions of cancer survivorship.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is well documented in cancer survivors, but little is known about the personal and societal impact of CRF. This study aimed to examine the impact of CRF in relation to social and vocational functioning and health care utilization in a large sample of post-treatment cancer survivors. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study of early stage breast and colorectal cancer survivors (n = 454) who were within 5 years from treatment completion. Social difficulties (SDI-21), work status, absenteeism and presenteeism (WHO-HPQ) and healthcare utilization (HSUQ) were compared in those with (CFR +) and without (CRF -) clinically significant fatigue (FACT-F ≤ 34). RESULTS: A total of 32% met the cut-off criteria for CRF (≤ 34). Participants with CRF + had significantly higher scores on the SDI-21 across all domains and 55% of CRF + vs. 11% in CRF - was above the SDI cut-off (> 10) for significant social difficulties. Participants with CRF + were 2.74 times more likely to be unemployed or on leave (95% CI 1.62, 4.61, p < 0.001). In the subgroup of participants who were currently working (n = 249), those with CRF + reported working on average 27.4 fewer hours in the previous 4 weeks compared to CRF - (p = 0.05), and absolute presenteeism was on average 13% lower in the CRF + group (95% CI 8.0, 18.2, p < 0.001). Finally, individuals with CRF + reported significantly more physician (p < 0.001), other health care professional (p = 0.03) and psychosocial visits (p = 0.002) in the past month. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: CRF is associated with substantial disruption in social and work role functioning in the early transitional phase of cancer survivorship. Better management of persistent CRF and funding for the implementation of existing guidelines and recommended evidence-based interventions are urgently needed.

Early palliative care and quality of dying and death in patients with advanced cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Early palliative care (EPC) in the outpatient setting improves quality of life for patients with advanced cancer, but its impact on quality of dying and death (QODD) and on quality of life at the end of life (QOL-EOL) has not been examined. Our study investigated the impact of EPC on patients' QODD and QOL-EOL and the moderating role of receiving inpatient or home palliative care. METHOD: Bereaved family caregivers who had provided care for patients participating in a cluster-randomised trial of EPC completed a validated QODD scale and indicated whether patients had received additional home palliative care or care in an inpatient palliative care unit (PCU). We examined the effects of EPC, inpatient or home palliative care, and their interactions on the QODD total score and on QOL-EOL (last 7 days of life). RESULTS: A total of 157 caregivers participated. Receipt of EPC showed no association with QODD total score. However, when additional palliative care was included in the model, intervention patients demonstrated better QOL-EOL than controls (p=0.02). Further, the intervention by PCU interaction was significant (p=0.02): those receiving both EPC and palliative care in a PCU had better QOL-EOL than those receiving only palliative care in a PCU (mean difference=27.10, p=0.002) or only EPC (mean difference=20.59, p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Although there was no association with QODD, EPC was associated with improved QOL-EOL, particularly for those who also received inpatient care in a PCU. This suggests a long-term benefit from early interdisciplinary palliative care on care throughout the illness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (#NCT01248624).

Phase II Trial of Symptom Screening With Targeted Early Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Routine early palliative care (EPC) improves quality of life (QoL) for patients with advanced cancer, but it may not be necessary for all patients. We assessed the feasibility of Symptom screening with Targeted Early Palliative care (STEP) in a phase II trial. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer were recruited from medical oncology clinics. Symptoms were screened at each visit using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised (ESAS-r); moderate to severe scores (screen-positive) triggered an email to a palliative care nurse, who called the patient and offered EPC. Patient-reported outcomes of QoL, depression, symptom control, and satisfaction with care were measured at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months. The primary aim was to determine feasibility, according to predefined criteria. Secondary aims were to assess whether STEP identified patients with worse patient-reported outcomes and whether screen-positive patients who accepted and received EPC had better outcomes over time than those who did not receive EPC. RESULTS: In total, 116 patients were enrolled, of which 89 (77%) completed screening for ≥70% of visits. Of the 70 screen-positive patients, 39 (56%) received EPC during the 6-month study and 4 (6%) received EPC after the study end. Measure completion was 76% at 2 months, 68% at 4 months, and 63% at 6 months. Among screen-negative patients, QoL, depression, and symptom control were substantially better than for screen-positive patients at baseline (all P<.0001) and remained stable over time. Among screen-positive patients, mood and symptom control improved over time for those who accepted and received EPC and worsened for those who did not receive EPC (P<.01 for trend over time), with no difference in QoL or satisfaction with care. CONCLUSIONS: STEP is feasible in ambulatory patients with advanced cancer and distinguishes between patients who remain stable without EPC and those who benefit from targeted EPC. Acceptance of the triggered EPC visit should be encouraged. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT04044040.