A Comparison of Caregiver Burden of Patients with Advanced Cancer in Different Palliative Cancer Care Settings.

Background: Informal caregivers may experience a significant burden while caring for cancer patients. Little is known about how caregiver burden varies across different palliative cancer care settings and the factors influencing it. Objectives: We compared the severity of caregiver subjective stress burden (emotional impact) among caregivers of patients seen in the outpatient supportive care center (SCC) with those being cared for in the acute palliative care unit (PCU). Secondary aims were to compare other caregiver burden dimensions, quality of life, and any association of caregiver subjective stress burden to various patient and caregiver factors. Setting and Design: Eligible patients and their informal caregivers in the SCC or PCU at a comprehensive cancer center in the USA were approached and enrolled. The Montgomery-Borgatta Caregiver Burden Scale and the Short-form 36 were used to measure burden and quality of life. Multivariate general linear regression was employed to evaluate the effect of covariates on subjective stress burden. Results: Ninety-eight dyads in the SCC and 74 dyads in the PCU were enrolled. PCU caregivers reported worse subjective stress burden (p = 0.0029) and mental health (p = 0.0299). Multivariate analysis showed correlations between subjective stress burden and caregivers' objective burden (p = 0.0136), subjective demand burden (p ≤ 0.0001), mental health (p = 0.0074), duration of caregiving (p = 0.0680), education (p = 0.0192) and with patients' anxiety (p = 0.0003) and current/recent cancer treatment (p = 0.0579). Conclusion: PCU caregivers demonstrated worse emotional burden and mental health than those in the SCC. More research is needed to tailor interventions for various caregiver burden dimensions. NCI Clinical Trial Registration Number ID: NCI-2019-01197.

Patients' Perspective of Timeliness and Usefulness of an Outpatient Supportive Care Referral at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

CONTEXT: Current guidelines recommend early referral to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer; however, no studies have examined the optimal timing of referral from the patients' perspective. OBJECTIVES: To examine patients' perceptions of timeliness of referral and its association with survival among patients with advanced cancer referred to an outpatient supportive care (SC) clinic. METHODS: This cross-sectional prospective study in an SC clinic at a comprehensive cancer center included patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic cancer. Patients were asked to complete an anonymous survey regarding the timeliness and perceived usefulness of SC referral within four weeks of their first SC consultation. RESULTS: Of 253 eligible patients, 209 (83%) enrolled in the study and 200 completed the survey. Median survival was 10.3 months. Most patients (72%) perceived that referral occurred "just in time," whereas 21% felt it was "late," and 7% felt "early." A majority (83%) found the referral useful, and 88% would recommend it to other patients with cancer. The perception of being referred early was associated with lower reported levels of pain (P = 0.043), fatigue (P = 0.004), drowsiness (P = 0.005), appetite loss (P = 0.041), poor well-being (P = 0.041), and lower physical (P = 0.001) and overall symptom distress (P = 0.001). No other associations were found between perceived timeliness and usefulness and patients' baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION: Most patients with a median survival of 10 months perceived that SC referral was timely and useful. Patient care needs rather than the timing of advanced cancer diagnosis drove this perception of referral timing. Lower symptom burden was associated with the perception of being referred to early.

Continuous palliative sedation for patients with advanced cancer at a tertiary care cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Palliative sedation (PS) is an intervention to treat refractory symptoms and to relieve suffering at the end of life. Its prevalence and practice patterns vary widely worldwide. The aim of our study was to evaluate the frequency, clinical indications and outcomes of PS in advanced cancer patients admitted to our tertiary comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: We retrospectively studied the use of PS in advanced cancer patients who died between March 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2014. PS was defined as the use of continuous infusion of midazolam or neuroleptics for refractory symptoms in the end of life. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of our institution (project number 2481-15). RESULTS: During the study period, 552 cancer patients died at the institution and 374 met the inclusion criteria for this study. Main reason for exclusion was death in the Intensive Care Unit. Among all included patients, 54.2% (n = 203) received PS. Patients who received PS as compared to those not sedated were younger (67.8 vs. 76.4 years-old, p < 0.001) and more likely to have a diagnosis of lung cancer (23% vs. 14%, p = 0.028). The most common indications for sedation were dyspnea (55%) and delirium (19.7%) and the most common drugs used were midazolam (52.7%) or midazolam and a neuroleptic (39.4%). Median initial midazolam infusion rate was 0.75 mg/h (interquartile range - IQR - 0.6-1.5) and final rate was 1.5 mg/h (IQR 0.9-3.0). Patient survival (length of hospital stay from admission to death) of those who had PS was more than the double of those who did not (33.6 days vs 16 days, p < 0.001). The palliative care team was involved in the care of 12% (n = 25) of sedated patients. CONCLUSIONS: PS is a relatively common practice in the end-of-life of cancer patients at our hospital and it is not associated with shortening of hospital stay. Involvement of a dedicated palliative care team is strongly recommended if this procedure is being considered. Further research is needed to identify factors that may affect the frequency and outcomes associated with PS.