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.

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.

[The surrogate: Partner in the shared decision-making]. / Personne de confiance : un partenaire dans la décision partagée.

UNLABELLED: The legislative process of the surrogate appears to be unclear to health professionals and to patients and next of kin. To better adapt this process to the clinical practice our objective was here to document how the persons designated as surrogate perceived their role and how they described the difficulties encountered in oncology. METHODS: Qualitative survey with an ethnographic approach carried out in 2014-2015, fieldwork, face-to-face interviews (n=26 including 20 surrogates and 6 patients) in a mobile palliative care unit located at a Regional Comprehensive Cancer Centre. RESULTS: Close relationship, psychological and cognitive competences were the main attribute to designate a surrogate. Perceived roles included the fact to be involved in decisions, to protect the patient, to be present, and to be a messenger. This process gives the next of kin the feeling to be part of the patient management. In the context of divorced families, it sometimes allows to rehabilitate and to reinforce the affective links. Our data highlight the confusion between the designation of the 'person to call' and 'the surrogate'. DISCUSSION: Our results highlight the 'surrogate' protective role of the patient, and the positive sides of the process, in particular in the context of divorced/rebuilt families. We recommend splitting the process to designate the 'person to call' and the 'surrogate', as administrative and medical duties, respectively.