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.

Association between Nutritional Status and Treatment Response and Survival in Patients Treated with Immunotherapy for Lung Cancer: A Retrospective French Study.

Malnutrition is associated with a greater risk of morbidity and mortality and lower tolerance to chemotherapy. Our purpose was to study the association between nutritional status and the efficiency and tolerance of immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Nutritional and oncological data were reported at 2 months (M2) and 4 months (M4) after the initiation of immunotherapy (M0). The influence of nutritional status at M0 was estimated with the efficacy and toxicity of immunotherapy at M2 to M4. In total, 127 patients were included in the study, and nutritional status was estimated at M0 for 120 patients: 67% were not malnourished, 20% presented with moderate malnutrition, and 13% presented with severe malnutrition. There was no significant link between the nutritional status at M0 and the toxicity of immunotherapy at M2 and M4. However, severe malnutrition was significantly associated with treatment efficacy at M2 (p = 0.04) and with a lower survival rate with an HR (Hazard Ratio) = 2.32-95% C.I: 1.13-4.75 (p = 0.02). Furthermore, a monthly decrease of 1% of the weight had an HR = 1.17-95% C.I: 1.13-1.21 (p = 0.0001). Severe malnutrition and weight loss are independent factors associated with lower survival. Studies integrating the systemic detection of sarcopenia with a closer nutritional follow-up could highlight an improvement in survival.

[How do we get around the barriers to integrating palliative care in oncology?] / Comment contourner les freins à l'intégration des soins palliatifs en oncologie ?

Supported by numerous scientific publications showing its clinical benefits, early palliative care has become a gold standard in oncology since 2017, recommended for patients with advanced cancer by the major societies of oncology. Nevertheless, palliative care team integration is still too late in France and the intervention of palliative care teams in oncology is still often limited to the management of patients and their relatives at the end of life. First, we will look at the main obstacles: the lack of staff in palliative care teams and the complex functioning of palliative care identified beds; also, the difficulties of communication with the patient and his relatives for the introduction of palliative care. We will then discuss the prospects for development, moving from the concept of early palliative care (systematic from the advanced phase) to integrated palliative care (targeted to patients' needs). Standardization of the integrated palliative care pathway requires the description of referral criteria, screening modalities, different clinical missions, and collaboration modalities with oncologists. Palliative care and oncology teams, working together, can enable holistic medicine that focuses on the needs of patients and their loved ones, giving voice to their preferences and aiming to improve their quality of life.

[COVID-19 and patients with cancer: Experiment of a French comprehensive cancer center]. / Première vague COVID-19 : expérience d'un centre de lutte contre le cancer.

The emergence of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused profound upset in health systems around the world. As cancer patients seem to be at greater risk, the organization of oncological care had to be adapted. We first report the progress of the "first wave" of COVID-19 at the Institut Curie, a French comprehensive cancer center, by describing the measures implemented to limit the risk of transmission of COVID-19 while ensuring as much as possible the continuation of anticancer treatments. Then, we present the results of a prospective institutional database in which the characteristics and outcome of our patients with cancer and suffering from COVID-19 were collected. From March 13 to April 25, 2020, 141 patients followed at Institut Curie for cancer developed COVID-19, of which 26 (18%) died from it. The minimum incidence of COVID-19 in Institut Curie is estimated at 1.4% over this period. No risk factors for developing a severe form of COVID-19 related to cancer have been identified. Cancer patients do not appear to be at greater risk of developing COVID-19, nor of having a more severe form than the general population. With the current increase of COVID-19 cases, it seems essential to share the experience already acquired to minimize the impact of this crisis on the long-term outcome of patients followed for cancer.

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

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

Characteristics and Outcome of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have emerged about the higher risk of fatal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in cancer patients. In this article, we review the experience of a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: A prospective registry was set up at Institut Curie at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. All cancer patients with suspected or proven COVID-19 were entered and actively followed for 28 days. RESULTS: Among 9842 patients treated at Institut Curie between March 13 and May 1, 2020, 141 (1.4%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, based on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing and/or computerized tomography scan. In line with our case mix, breast cancer (40.4%) was the most common tumor type, followed by hematological and lung malignancies. Patients with active cancer therapy or/and advanced cancer accounted for 87.9% and 68.9% of patients, respectively. At diagnosis, 78.7% of patients had COVID-19-related symptoms, with an extent of lung parenchyma involvement inferior to 50% in 95.8% of patients. Blood count variations and C-reactive protein elevation were the most common laboratory abnormalities. Antibiotics and antiviral agents were administered in 48.2% and 6.4% of patients, respectively. At the time of analysis, 26 patients (18.4%) have died from COVID-19, and 100 (70.9%) were cured. Independent prognostic factors at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis associated with death or intensive care unit admission were extent of COVID-19 pneumonia and decreased O2 saturation. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 incidence and presentation in cancer patients appear to be very similar to those in the general population. The outcome of COVID-19 is primarily driven by the initial severity of infection rather than patient or cancer characteristics.

Nutrition and physical activity: French intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up (SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, AFC, SFP-APA, SFNCM, AFSOS).

This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the nutrition and physical activity (PA) management in digestive oncology. This collaborative work was produced under the auspices of all French medical and surgical societies involved in digestive oncology, nutrition and supportive care. It is based on published guidelines, recent literature review and expert opinions. Recommendations are graded according to the level of evidence. Malnutrition affects more than half of patients with digestive cancers and is often underdiagnosed. It has multiple negative consequences on survival, quality of life and risk of treatment complications. Consequently, in addition to anticancer treatments, supportive care including nutritional support and PA plays a central role in the management of digestive cancers. It is crucial to detect malnutrition (diagnostic criteria updated in 2019) early, to prevent it and to act against it at all stages of the cancer and at all times of the care pathway. In this context, we proposed recommendations for the evaluation and management in nutrition and PA in digestive oncology for each stage of the disease (perioperative setting, during radiation therapy, during systemic treatments, at the palliative phase, after cancer). Guidelines for nutrition and PA management aim at increasing awareness about malnutrition in oncology. They are continuously evolving and need to be regularly updated.

Palliative care delivery according to age in 12,000 women with metastatic breast cancer: Analysis in the multicentre ESME-MBC cohort 2008-2016.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) often require inpatient palliative care (IPC). However, mounting evidence suggests age-related disparities in palliative care delivery. This study aimed to assess the cumulative incidence function (CIF) of IPC delivery, as well as the influence of age. METHODS: The national ESME (Epidemio-Strategy-Medical-Economical)-MBC cohort includes consecutive MBC patients treated in 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centres. ICD-10 palliative care coding was used for IPC identification. RESULTS: Our analysis included 12,375 patients, 5093 (41.2%) of whom were aged 65 or over. The median follow-up was 41.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 40.5-42.5). The CIF of IPC was 10.3% (95% CI, 10.2-10.4) and 24.8% (95% CI, 24.7-24.8) at 2 and 8 years, respectively. At 2 years, among triple-negative patients, young patients (<65 yo) had a higher CIF of IPC than older patients after adjusting for cancer characteristics, centre and period (65+/<65: ß = -0.05; 95% CI, -0.08 to -0.01). Among other tumour sub-types, older patients received short-term IPC more frequently than young patients (65+/<65: ß = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03). At 8 years, outside large centres, IPC was delivered less frequently to older patients adjusted to cancer characteristics and period (65+/<65: ß = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.06 to -0.01). CONCLUSION: We found a relatively low CIF of IPC and that age influenced IPC delivery. Young triple-negative and older non-triple-negative patients needed more short-term IPCs. Older patients diagnosed outside large centres received less long-term IPC. These findings highlight the need for a wider implementation of IPC facilities and for more age-specific interventions.

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.

Multicentre analysis of intensity of care at the end-of-life in patients with advanced cancer, combining health administrative data with hospital records: variations in practice call for routine quality evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Accessible indicators of aggressiveness of care at the end-of-life are useful to monitor implementation of early integrated palliative care practice. To determine the intensity of end-of-life care from exhaustive data combining administrative databases and hospital clinical records, to evaluate its variability across hospital facilities and associations with timely introduction of palliative care (PC). METHODS: For this study designed as a decedent series nested in multicentre cohort of advanced cancer patients, we selected 997 decedents from a cohort of patients hospitalised in 2009-2010, with a diagnosis of metastatic cancer in 3 academic medical centres and 2 comprehensive cancer centres in the Paris area. Hospital data was combined with nationwide mortality databases. Complete data were collected and checked from clinical records, including first referral to PC, chemotherapy within 14 days of death, ≥1 intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ≥2 emergency department visits (ED), and ≥ 2 hospitalizations, all within 30 days of death. RESULTS: Overall (min-max) indicator values as reported by facility providing care rather than the place of death, were: 16% (8-25%) patients received chemotherapy within 14 days of death, 16% (6-32%) had ≥2 admissions to acute care, 6% (0-15%) had ≥2 emergency visits and 18% (4-35%) had ≥1 intensive care unit admission(s). Only 53% of these patients met the PC team, and the median (min-max) time between the first intervention of the PC team and death was 41 (17-112) days. The introduction of PC > 30 days before death was independently associated with lower intensity of care. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressiveness of end-of-life cancer care is highly variable across centres. This validates the use of indicators to monitor integrated PC in oncology. Disseminating a quality audit-feedback cycle should contribute to a shared view of appropriate end-of-life care objectives, and foster action for improvement among care providers.