Conversion ratios: Why is it so challenging to construct opioid conversion tables?

Standardizing opioid management is challenging due to the absence of a ceiling dose, the unknown ideal therapeutic plasma level, and the lack of an clear relationship between dose and therapeutic response. Opioid rotation or conversion, which is switching from one opioid, route of administration, or both, to another, to improve therapeutic response and reduce toxicities, occurs in 20-40 percent of patients treated with opioids. Opioid conversion is often needed when there are adverse effects, toxicities, or inability to tolerate a certain opioid formulation. A majority of patients benefit from opioid conversion, leading to improved analgesia and less adverse effects. There are different published ways of converting opioids in the literature. This review of 20 years of literature is centered on opioid conversions and aims to discuss the complexity of converting opioids. We discuss study designs, outcomes and measures, pain phenotypes, patient characteristics, comparisons of equivalent doses between opioids, reconciling conversion ratios between opioids, routes, directional differences, half-lives and metabolites, interindividual variability, and comparison to package insert information. Palliative care specialists have not yet come to a consensus on the ideal opioid equianalgesic table; however, we discuss a recently updated table, based on retrospective evidence, that may serve as a gold standard for practical use in the palliative care population. More robust, well-designed studies are needed to validate and guide future opioid conversion data.

Self-reported knowledge of tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol concentration in cannabis products among cancer patients and survivors.

PURPOSE: Cannabis use may introduce risks and/or benefits among people living with cancer, depending on product type, composition, and nature of its use. Patient knowledge of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or cannabidiol (CBD) concentration could provide information for providers about cannabis use during and after treatment that may aide in risk and benefit assessments. This study aimed to examine knowledge of THC or CBD concentration among patients living with cancer who consume cannabis, and factors associated with knowledge of cannabinoid concentrations. METHODS: People living with cancer who consumed cannabis since their diagnosis (n = 343) completed an anonymous, mixed-mode survey. Questions assessed usual mode of delivery (MOD), knowledge of THC/CBD concentration, and how source of acquisition, current cannabis use, and source of instruction are associated with knowledge of THC/CBD concentration. Chi-square and separate binary logistic regression analyses were examined and weighted to reflect the Roswell Park patient population. RESULTS: Less than 20% of people living with cancer had knowledge of THC and CBD concentration for the cannabis products they consumed across all MOD (smoking- combustible products, vaping- vaporized products (e-cigarettes), edibles-eating or drinking it, and oral- taking by mouth (pills)). Source of acquisition (smoking-AOR:4.6, p < 0.01, vaping-AOR:5.8, p < 0.00, edibles-AOR:2.6, p < 0.04), current cannabis use (edibles-AOR:5.4, p < 0.01, vaping-AOR: 11.2, p < 0.00, and oral-AOR:9.3, p < 0.00), and source of instruction (vaping only AOR:4.2, p < 0.05) were found to be variables associated with higher knowledge of THC concentration. CONCLUSION: Self-reported knowledge of THC and CBD concentration statistically differed according to MOD, source of acquisition, source of instruction, and current cannabis use.

Should Cannabis be Used for Anorexia in Patients With Cancer?

Healthcare professionals are frequently asked about the benefits of cannabis for appetite or anorexia-cachexia syndrome. In popular culture, cannabis has a reputation of causing an increased hunger, slang termed "the munchies," so many patients consume this with the hope that it may improve the loss of appetite associated with serious illness such as cancer. There have only been a few randomized, controlled trials studying the controversial question as to if cannabis improves appetite. These studies are small and show no statistically significant benefit for appetite and one small study showed improvement of taste for foods. Due to regulation barriers, the studies have use synthetic products, not the products that represent what is more commonly used in the population, often whole flower smoked, vaporized or oral products. Despite the popularity of cannabis in culture, often touted as a panacea for all maladies, the evidence and education for several adverse effects and potential drug interactions have has yet to catch up with the cultural craze. International cannabis experts in the United States and Australia do not routinely certify patients for medical cannabis off trial for anorexia-cachexia, but one expert in Canada would consider use in selected cancer patients.

Sustained Clinical Benefits of Spiration Valve System in Patients with Severe Emphysema: 24-Month Follow-Up of EMPROVE.

Rationale: Follow-up of patients with emphysema treated with endobronchial valves is limited to 3-12 months after treatment in prior reports. To date, no comparative data exist between treatment and control subjects with a longer follow-up. Objectives: To assess the durability of the Spiration Valve System (SVS) in patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema over a 24-month period. Methods: EMPROVE, a multicenter randomized controlled trial, presents a rigorous comparison between treatment and control groups for up to 24 months. Lung function, respiratory symptoms, and quality-of-life (QOL) measures were assessed. Results: A significant improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second was maintained at 24 months in the SVS treatment group versus the control group. Similarly, significant improvements were maintained in several QOL measures, including the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire and the COPD Assessment Test. Patients in the SVS treatment group experienced significantly less dyspnea than those in the control group, as indicated by the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score. Adverse events at 24 months did not significantly differ between the SVS treatment and control groups. Acute chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation rates in the SVS treatment and control groups were 13.7% (14 of 102) and 15.6% (7 of 45), respectively. Pneumothorax rates in the SVS treatment and control groups were 1.0% (1 of 102) and 0.0% (0 of 45), respectively. Conclusions: SVS treatment resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful durable improvements in lung function, respiratory symptoms, and QOL, as well as a statistically significant reduction in dyspnea, for at least 24 months while maintaining an acceptable safety profile. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01812447).

Palliative Management of Inoperable Malignant Bowel Obstruction: Prospective, Open Label, Phase 2 Study at an NCI Comprehensive Cancer Center.

CONTEXT: Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a common complication of intra-abdominal cancer, frequently seen in advanced gastrointestinal and gynecologic cancer. Management of MBO can be challenging, particularly if the patient is not a surgical candidate. No consensus exists on how best to manage these patients medically. Retrospective studies suggest that the combination of dexamethasone, octreotide and metoclopramide may lead to relief of obstruction and improvement in symptoms associated with the obstruction. OBJECTIVES: This study seeks to prospectively evaluate the combination of drug "triple therapy" dexamethasone 4 mg BID, metoclopramide 10 mg Q6 and octreotide 300 mcg TID to assess tolerability, safety, and effect on symptoms and deobstruction. METHODS: Adults admitted at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center with malignant bowel obstruction were eligible. Eligible patients who constented to the study were started on the triple therapy with close monitoring of symptoms and for adverse effects. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients enrolled in the study. Two patients experienced bradycardia as adverse effect and there was no incidence of bowel perforation. All patients who completed the study had complete resolution of their nausea, and improvement in other symptoms including pain, constipation, tolerance of oral intake and resumption of bowel movements. Only two of the 15 patients were alive to complete the six-month post study follow up. CONCLUSION: "Triple therapy" with dexamethasone, metoclopramide, and octreotide for management of nonsurgical MBO in this small sample size appears safe and well tolerated however a diagnosis of inoperable MBO remains associated with poor prognosis and death within months.

Defining the pathway to timely diagnosis and treatment of interstitial lung disease: a US Delphi survey.

INTRODUCTION: Timely diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD) is limited by obstacles in the current patient pathway. Misdiagnosis and delays are common and may lead to a significant burden of diagnostic procedures and worse outcomes. This Delphi survey aimed to identify consensus on the key steps that facilitate the patient journey to an accurate ILD diagnosis and appropriate management in the US. METHODS: A modified Delphi analysis was conducted, comprising three online surveys based on a comprehensive literature search. The surveys spanned five domains (guidelines, community screening, diagnosis, management and specialist referral) and were completed by a panel of US physicians, including primary care physicians and pulmonologists practising in community or academic settings. A priori definitions of consensus agreement were median scores of 2-3 (agree strongly/agree), with an IQR of 0-1 for questions on a 7-point Likert scale from -3 to 3, or ≥80% agreement for binary questions. RESULTS: Forty-nine panellists completed the surveys and 62 statements reached consensus agreement. There was consensus agreement on what should be included in the primary care evaluation of patients with suspected ILD and the next steps following workup. Regarding diagnosis in community pulmonology care, consensus agreement was reached on the requisition and reporting of high-resolution CT scans and the appropriate circumstances for holding multidisciplinary discussions. Additionally, there was consensus agreement on which symptoms and comorbidities should be monitored, the frequency of consultations and the assessment of disease progression. Regarding specialist referral, consensus agreement was reached on which patients should receive priority access to ILD centres and the contents of the referral package. CONCLUSIONS: These findings clarify the most common issues that should merit further evaluation for ILD and help define the steps for timely, accurate diagnosis and appropriate collaborative specialty management of patients with ILD.

ADCC's Improving Goal Concordant Care Initiative: Implementing Primary Palliative Care Principles.

BACKGROUND: High-quality, timely goals of care communication (GOCC) may improve patient and caregiver outcomes and promote care that is consistent with patient preferences. PROBLEM: Cancer patients, and their loved ones, appreciate GOCC; however, oncologists often lack formal communication training, institutional support and structures necessary to promote the delivery, documentation, and longitudinal follow-up of GOCC. PROPOSED SOLUTION: The Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers (ADCC), representing 10 U.S. academic cancer hospitals, undertook the Improving Goal Concordant Care Initiative (IGCC). This national, 3-year implementation initiative was designed in Fall 2019 by a workgroup of quality, oncology, and palliative care leaders, as well as patient and family advisory committee members (PFAC). IGCC addresses systemic gaps by requiring four core components for participation: 1) Implementation of a formal communication skills training (CST) program, 2) Structured GOCC documentation in the electronic medical record that is visible to all clinicians, 3) Expectations regarding the timing and patient populations for GOCC, and 4) Implementation of a measurement framework. METHOD: Dyads of palliative and oncology leaders committed to attend regularly scheduled, ADCC-led, virtual meetings during the design and implementation phase, incorporating PFAC feedback at every stage. Using the RE-AIM framework, we describe process and outcome evaluation measures defined by implementation and measures workgroups and collected routinely, including: CST completion; trainee evaluation response rate, trainee-reported quality of CST, trainee changes in self-efficacy and distress; percent of high-priority patients participating in GOCC, and patient-reported response to the "Heard and Understood" scale (HU). IGCC's impact will be assessed using claims-based utilization metrics near the end of life (EOLM) and followed longitudinally. Qualitative evaluations near the completion of IGCC will provide insight into perceived barriers, enabling factors, and sustainability. OUTCOMES: Implementation of all IGCC components has begun at all sites. ADCC-wide, 35% of MD/DOs have completed CST (range by site: 8%-100%). CST is highly rated; in Quarter 3, 2022, 93%-100%, 90%-100% and 87%-100% of respondents reported above average to excellent CST quality, likelihood to use the skills and likelihood to recommend CST to others, respectively. Clinician self-efficacy and distress ratings are expected in late 2023. All sites have identified patient populations and continue to refine automated triggers and timelines; uptake of GOCC documentation has been slow. Eight of 10 sites have submitted patient-reported HU data. EOLM data are expected for all sites in early 2024. LESSONS LEARNED: Flexibility in implementation with shared definitions, measures, and learnings about approaches optimizes the ability of all centers to collaborate and make progress in improving GOCC. Flexibility adds to the complexity of understanding intervention effectiveness, the critical intervention components and the fidelity necessary to achieve specific outcomes.

Long-term inhaled treprostinil for pulmonary hypertension due to interstitial lung disease: INCREASE open-label extension study.

INTRODUCTION: The 16-week randomised, placebo-controlled INCREASE trial (RCT) met its primary end-point by improving 6-min walk distance (6MWD) in patients receiving inhaled treprostinil for pulmonary hypertension due to interstitial lung disease (PH-ILD). The open-label extension (OLE) evaluated long-term effects of inhaled treprostinil in PH-ILD. METHODS: Of 258 eligible patients, 242 enrolled in the INCREASE OLE and received inhaled treprostinil. Assessments included 6MWD, pulmonary function testing, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), quality of life and adverse events. Hospitalisations, exacerbations of underlying lung disease and death were recorded. RESULTS: At INCREASE OLE baseline, patients had a median age of 70 years and a mean 6MWD of 274.2 m; 52.1% were male. For the overall population, the mean 6MWD at week 52 was 279.1 m and the mean change from INCREASE RCT baseline was 3.5 m (22.1 m for the prior inhaled treprostinil arm and -19.5 m for the prior placebo arm); the median NT-proBNP decreased from 389 pg·mL-1 at RCT baseline to 359 pg·mL-1 at week 64; and the absolute (% predicted) mean forced vital capacity change from RCT baseline to week 64 was 51 mL (2.8%). Patients who received inhaled treprostinil versus placebo in the RCT had a 31% lower relative risk of exacerbation of underlying lung disease in the OLE (hazard ratio 0.69 (95% CI 0.49-0.97); p=0.03). Adverse events leading to drug discontinuation occurred in 54 (22.3%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the long-term safety and efficacy of inhaled treprostinil in patients with PH-ILD, and are consistent with the results observed in the INCREASE RCT.

MASCC guideline: cannabis for cancer-related pain and risk of harms and adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 18% of patients with cancer use cannabis at one time as palliation or treatment for their cancer. We performed a systematic review of randomized cannabis cancer trials to establish a guideline for its use in pain and to summarize the risk of harm and adverse events when used for any indication in cancer patients. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized trials with or without meta-analysis was carried out from MEDLINE, CCTR, Embase, and PsychINFO. The search involved randomized trials of cannabis in cancer patients. The search ended on November 12, 2021. The Jadad grading system was used for grading quality. Inclusion criteria for articles were randomized trials or systematic reviews of randomized trials of cannabinoids versus either placebo or active comparator explicitly in adult patients with cancer. RESULTS: Thirty-four systematic reviews and randomized trials met the eligibility criteria for cancer pain. Seven were randomized trials involving patients with cancer pain. Two trials had positive primary endpoints, which could not be reproduced in similarly designed trials. High-quality systematic reviews with meta-analyses found little evidence that cannabinoids are an effective adjuvant or analgesic to cancer pain. Seven systematic reviews and randomized trials related to harms and adverse events were included. There was inconsistent evidence about the types and levels of harm patients may experience when using cannabinoids. CONCLUSION: The MASCC panel recommends against the use of cannabinoids as an adjuvant analgesic for cancer pain and suggests that the potential risk of harm and adverse events be carefully considered for all cancer patients, particularly with treatment with a checkpoint inhibitor.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) guidelines: cannabis for psychological symptoms including insomnia, anxiety, and depression.

PURPOSE: During the treatment of cancer, 18% of patients use cannabis for symptom management. Anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances are common symptoms in cancer. A systematic review of the evidence for cannabis use for psychological symptoms in cancer patients was undertaken to develop a guideline. METHODS: A literature search of randomized trials and systematic reviews was undertaken up to November 12, 2021. Studies were independently assessed for evidence by two authors and then evaluated by all authors for approval. The literature search involved MEDLINE, CCTR, EMBASE, and PsychINFO databases. Inclusion criteria included randomized control trials and systematic reviews on cannabis versus placebo or active comparator in patients with cancer and psychological symptom management (anxiety, depression, and insomnia). RESULTS: The search yielded 829 articles; 145 from Medline, 419 from Embase, 62 from PsychINFO, and 203 from CCTR. Two systematic reviews and 15 randomized trials (4 on sleep, 5 on mood, 6 on both) met eligibility criteria. However, no studies specifically assessed the efficacy of cannabis on psychological symptoms as primary outcomes in cancer patients. The studies varied widely in terms of interventions, control, duration, and outcome measures. Six of 15 RCTs suggested benefits (five for sleep, one for mood). CONCLUSION: There is no high-quality evidence to recommend the use of cannabis as an intervention for psychological symptoms in patients with cancer until more high-quality research demonstrates benefit.

Postoperative Restrictive Opioid Protocols and Durable Changes in Opioid Prescribing and Chronic Opioid Use.

Importance: Changes in postsurgical opioid prescribing practices may help reduce chronic opioid use in surgical patients. Objective: To investigate whether postsurgical acute pain across different surgical subspecialties can be managed effectively after hospital discharge with an opioid supply of 3 or fewer days and whether this reduction in prescribed opioids is associated with reduced new, persistent opioid use. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective cohort study with a case-control design, a restrictive opioid prescription protocol (ROPP) specifying an opioid supply of 3 or fewer days after discharge from surgery along with standardized patient education was implemented across all surgical services at a tertiary-care comprehensive cancer center. Participants were all patients who underwent surgery from August 1, 2018, to July 31, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were the rate of compliance with the ROPP in each surgical service, the mean number of prescription days and refill requests, type of opioid prescribed, and rate of conversion to chronic opioid use determined via a state-run opioid prescription program. Postsurgical complications were also measured. Results: A total of 4068 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [13.8] years; 2528 women [62.1%]) were included, with 2017 in the pre-ROPP group (August 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019) and 2051 in the post-ROPP group (February 1, 2019, to July 31, 2019). The rate of compliance with the protocol was 95%. After implementation of the ROPP, mean opioid prescription days decreased from a mean (SD) of 3.9 (4.5) days in the pre-ROPP group to 1.9 (3.6) days in the post-ROPP group (P < .001). The ROPP implementation led to a 45% decrease in prescribed opioids after surgery (mean [SD], 157.22 [338.06] mean morphine milligram equivalents [MME] before ROPP vs 83.54 [395.70] MME after ROPP; P < .001). Patients in the post-ROPP cohort requested fewer refills (367 of 2051 [17.9%] vs 422 of 2017 [20.9%] in the pre-ROPP cohort; P = .02). There was no statistically significant difference in surgical complications. The conversion rate to chronic opioid use decreased following ROPP implementation among both opioid-naive patients with cancer (11.3% [143 of 1267] to 4.5% [118 of 2645]; P < .001) and those without cancer (6.1% [19 of 310] to 2.7% [16 of 600]; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, prescribing an opioid supply of 3 or fewer days to surgical patients after hospital discharge was feasible for most patients, led to a significant decrease in the number of opioids prescribed after surgery, and was associated with a significantly decreased conversion to long-term opioid use without concomitant increases in refill requests or significant compromises in surgical recovery.

Do We Have Structure, Process and Outcomes to Support Cannabis as Supportive Therapy in Cancer?

Cannabis is becoming more popular and more available in the United States. It has been approved for use by multiple states for various conditions and several states now allow recreational cannabis. We explore the structure of cannabis distribution, the process of acquisition, outcomes, and the safety of cannabis in the United States.

Assessing Efficacy and Use Patterns of Medical Cannabis for Symptom Management in Elderly Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Our study sought to further characterize patterns of medical cannabis use in elderly cancer patients. Furthermore, we sought to assess efficacy of medical cannabis for the treatment of pain, nausea, anorexia, insomnia and anxiety in elderly cancer patients. BACKGROUND: Medical cannabis use is growing for symptom management in cancer patients, but limited data exists on the safety or efficacy of use in elderly patients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review assessing changes in numerical symptom scores reported at clinic visits before and after medical cannabis initiation. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in pain, nausea, appetite, insomnia or anxiety scores reported before and after initiation of medical cannabis. Oil was the most common form used, followed by vape, and the most common ratios used were high tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to cannabidiol (CBD) and equal parts THC/CBD products. CONCLUSION: This study did not find a statistically significant change in symptom scores with medical cannabis use, although further study is warranted given the limitations of the present study. Elderly patients most commonly are using equal parts THC/CBD or high THC ratio products initially.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) expert opinion/consensus guidance on the use of cannabinoids for gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal symptoms are common in patients with cancer, whether related to treatment or a direct effect of the disease itself. Patients may choose to access cannabinoids outside of their formal medical prescriptions to palliate such symptoms. However, clinical guidelines are lacking in relation to the use of such medicines for gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the evidence for the use of cannabinoids for symptom control in patients with cancer was undertaken. Search strategies were developed for Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, including all publications from 1975 up to 12 November 2021. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids compared with placebo or active comparator in adult patients with cancer, regardless of type, stage, or treatment status. Articles for inclusion were agreed by all authors, and data extracted and summarized by two authors. Each study was scored according to the Jadad scale. This review was specifically for the purpose of developing guidelines for the use of cannabis for gastrointestinal symptoms, including chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), chronic nausea, anorexia-cachexia syndrome, and taste disturbance. RESULTS: Thirty-six randomized controlled trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria for this review of gastrointestinal symptoms: 31 relating to CINV, one to radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and the remaining four to anorexia-cachexia and altered chemosensory disturbance. The populations for the randomized controlled trials were heterogeneous, and many studies were of poor quality, lacking clarity regarding method of randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment. For CINV, eleven RCTs showed improvement with cannabis compared to placebo, but out of 21 trials where cannabis was compared to other antiemetics for CINV, only 11 favoured cannabis. CONCLUSION: Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and nabilone were more effective in preventing CINV when compared to placebo but are not more effective than other antiemetics. For refractory CINV, one study of THC:CBD demonstrated reduced nausea as an add-on treatment to guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy without olanzapine. The MASCC Guideline Committee found insufficient evidence to recommend cannabinoids for the management of CINV, nausea from advanced cancer, cancer-associated anorexia-cachexia, and taste disturbance. High-quality studies are needed to inform practice.

Smartphone-Guided Self-prone Positioning vs Usual Care in Nonintubated Hospital Ward Patients With COVID-19: A Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Safe, effective, and easily implementable treatments that reduce the progression of respiratory failure in COVID-19 are urgently needed. Despite the increased adoption of prone positioning during the pandemic, the effectiveness of this technique on progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients is unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions compared with usual care in reducing progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Awake Prone Position for Early Hypoxemia in COVID-19 (APPEX-19) is a multicenter randomized clinical trial that randomized nonintubated adults with COVID-19 on < 6 L/min of supplemental oxygen to receive a smartphone-guided self-prone positioning intervention or usual care. The primary outcome was the composite of respiratory deterioration (an increase in supplemental oxygen requirement) or ICU transfer. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, the posterior probability of superiority within each treatment arm (superiority threshold 95%) was calculated. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early for slow enrollment. A total of 293 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (159 self-prone positioning intervention and 134 usual care). Among participants who self-reported body positioning (n = 139 [70 intervention, 69 usual care]), 71.4% in the intervention arm and 59.4% in the usual care arm attempted prone positioning. Thirty-one participants (posterior mean, 24.7%; 95% credible interval, 18.6-31.4) receiving usual care and 32 participants (posterior mean, 22.1%; 95% credible interval, 16.6-28.1) receiving the self-prone positioning intervention experienced the primary outcome; the posterior probability of superiority for the self-prone positioning intervention was 72.1%, less than the 95% threshold for superiority. Adverse events occurred in 26.9% of participants in the usual care arm and in 11.9% of participants in the intervention arm. INTERPRETATION: Among nonintubated patients with COVID-19, smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions did not promote strong adherence to prone positioning. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04344587; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Advance care planning imperative: High-quality patient-centred goals of care.

Advance care planning (ACP) discussions aim to ensure goal-concordant care for patients with serious illness, throughout treatment and especially at the end of life. But recent literature has forced the field of palliative care to wrestle with the definition and impact of ACP. Are ACP discussions worthwhile? Is there a difference between ACP discussions early in a patient's illness versus discussions occurring later when a concrete medical care decision must be made? Here, we identify elements needed to answer these questions and describe how a multisite initiative will elucidate the value of discussing and documenting what matters most to patients.