Palliative Care Interventions and End-of-Life Care for Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Multicentre Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe the implementation of integrated palliative care (PC) and the intensity of care in the last 3 months before death for patients with metastatic breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicentric study of all adult patients with metastatic breast cancer who died over a 4-month period. Complete data were collected and checked from clinical records, including PC interventions and criteria regarding EOL care aggressiveness. RESULTS: A total of 340 decedent patients from 12 comprehensive cancer centres in France were included in the study. Sixty-five percent met the PC team with a median time of 39 days between the first intervention and death. In the last month before death, 11.5% received chemotherapy, the frequency of admission to intensive care unit was 2.4%, and 83% experienced acute hospitalization. The place of death was home for 16.7%, hospitalization for 63.3%, PC unit for 20%. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed factors independently associated with a higher frequency of chemotherapy in the last month before death: having a dependent person at home, meeting for the first time with a PC team < 30 days before death, and time between the first metastasis and death below the median. CONCLUSION: PC team integration was frequent and late for patients with metastatic breast cancer. However, PC intervention > 30 days is associated with less chemotherapy in the last month before death. Further studies are needed to better understand how to implement a more effective mode of PC integration for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Parallel evolution and differences in seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody between patients with cancer and health care workers in a tertiary cancer centre during the first and second wave of COVID-19 pandemic: canSEROcov-II cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are a population at high risk of severe infection from SARS-CoV-2. Patients with cancer regularly attend specialised healthcare centres for management and treatment, where they are in contact with healthcare workers (HCWs). Numerous recommendations target both patients with cancer and HCWs to minimise the spread of SARS-CoV-2 during these interactions. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the parallel evolution of the COVID-19 epidemic in these 2 populations over time, we studied the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after both the first and second waves of the pandemic, and in both cancer patients and HCWs from a single specialised anti-cancer centre. Factors associated with seropositivity were identified in both populations. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study after the second wave of the COVID pandemic in France. All participants were invited to undergo serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 and complete a questionnaire collecting data about their working conditions (for HCWs) or medical management (for patients) during this period. Results after the second wave were compared to those of a previous study among 1011 patients with cancer and 663 HCWs performed in the same centre after the first wave, using the same evaluations. FINDINGS: We included 502 HCWs and 507 patients with cancer. Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was higher after the second wave than after the first wave in both HCWs (15.1% versus 1.8%; p < 0.001), and patients (4.1% versus 1.7%; p = 0.038). By multivariate analysis, the factors found to be associated with seropositivity after the second wave for HCWs were: working in direct patient care (p = 0.050); having worked in a dedicated COVID-19 unit (p = 0.0036); contact with a person with COVID-19-positive in the workplace (p = 0.0118) or outside of the workplace (p = 0.0297). Among patients with cancer, only a contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19 was found to be significantly associated with positive serology. The proportion of reported contacts with individuals with COVID-19-positive was significantly lower among patients with cancer than among HCWs (7.6% versus 40.7%, respectively; p < 0.0001) INTERPRETATION: Between the first and second waves of the epidemic in France, the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies increased to a lesser extent among patients with cancer than among their HCWs, possibly due to better self-protection, notably social distancing. The risk factors for infection identified among HCWs plead in favour of numerous intra-hospital contaminations, especially for HCWs in contact with high-risk patients. This underlines the compelling need to pursue efforts to implement strict hygiene and personal protection measures (including vaccination) to protect HCWs and patients with cancer.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among the staff and patients of a French cancer centre after first lockdown: The canSEROcov study.

BACKGROUND: In view of the potential gravity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection for patients with cancer, epidemiological data are vital to assess virus circulation among patients and staff of cancer centres. We performed a prospective study to investigate seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among staff and patients with cancer at a large cancer centre, at the end of the period of first national lockdown in France and to determine factors associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: After the first lockdown, all medical and non-medical staff, as well as all patients attending the medical oncology department were invited to undergo serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 between 11 May and 30 June 2020. All participants were also invited to complete a questionnaire collecting data about their living and working conditions, and for patients, medical management during lockdown. FINDINGS: A total of 1,674 subjects (663 staff members, 1011 patients) were included. Seroprevalence was low in both staff (1.8%) and patients (1.7%), despite more features of high risk for severe forms among patients. None of the risk factors tested in our analysis (working or living conditions, comorbidities, management characteristics during lockdown) was found to be statistically associated with seroprevalence in either staff or patients. There was no significant difference in the proportion of symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects between staff and patients. Only fever, loss of smell, and loss of taste were significantly more frequent among seropositive patients, in both staff and patients. INTERPRETATION: We report very low seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in the staff (caregiving and non-caregiving) and patients of a large cancer care centre in which strict hygiene, personal protection, and social distancing measures were implemented.

[Multidisciplinary team meeting in supportive care: 12 years of experience in a French comprehensive cancer center]. / RCP soins de support : 12 ans d'expérience d'un centre de lutte contre le cancer.

In 2006, in response to DHOS Circular 2005/101, we have created a multidisciplinary supportive care meeting. As available literature covering this subject is rare, we report here our own experience. For this purpose, available files from the six initial months of 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2018 were analyzed, representing 405 situations corresponding to 352 patients. The majority of patients were women (55,7 %, n=196) and the median age was 66 years old [20-93]. Treatment was curative in 8 % (n=32) of the situations, palliative in 58 % (n=233), exclusively palliative in 31.3 % (n=128) and concerned post-cancer situations in 2.7 % (n=11). The median number of participants in multidisciplinary team meeting was 10, with a regular presence of oncologists, palliative care team members, social workers, dietician, physiotherapist and psychologist. The two most common reasons for case presentation were advice on follow-up and support on a precise palliative situation. Multidisciplinary support care meeting decisions were relatively well implemented, with a compliance rate of 81.8 %. Nevertheless, cases were presented late with a median time of 1.5 months from presentation to patient death. The creation of a cross-supportive care department has increased this meeting relevance and it would be important in the near future to evaluate whether this organization allows a better foresight of supportive care.

PALLIA-10, a screening tool to identify patients needing palliative care referral in comprehensive cancer centers: A prospective multicentric study (PREPA-10).

PURPOSE: The identification and referral of patients in need of palliative care should be improved. The French society for palliative support and care recommended to use the PALLIA-10 questionnaire and its score greater than 3 to refer patients to palliative care. We explored the use of the PALLIA-10 questionnaire and its related score in a population of advanced cancer patients. METHODS: This prospective multicentric study is to be conducted in authorized French comprehensive cancer centers on hospitalized patients on a given day. We aimed to use the PALLIA-10 score to determine the proportion of palliative patients with a score >3. Main secondary endpoints were to determine the proportion of patients already managed by palliative care teams at the study date or referred to palliative care in six following months, the prevalence of patients with a score greater than 5, and the overall survival using the predefined thresholds of 3 and 5. RESULTS: In 2015, eighteen French cancer centers enrolled 840 patients, including 687 (82%) palliative patients. 479 (69.5%) patients had a score >3, 230 (33.5%) had a score >5, 216 (31.4%) patients were already followed-up by a palliative care team, 152 patients were finally referred to PC in the six subsequent months. The PALLIA-10 score appeared as a reliable predictive (adjusted ORRef≤3 : 1.9 [1.17-3.16] and 3.59 [2.18-5.91]) and prognostic (adjusted HRRef≤3  = 1.58 [95%CI 1.20-2.08] and 2.18 [95%CI 1.63-2.92]) factor for patients scored 4-5 and >5, respectively. CONCLUSION: The PALLIA-10 questionnaire is an easy-to-use tool to refer cancer inpatients to palliative care in current practice. However a score greater than 5 using the PALLIA-10 questionnaire would be more appropriate for advanced cancer patients hospitalized in comprehensive cancer center.