Standardizing Integrated Oncology and Palliative Care Across Service Levels: Challenges in Demonstrating Effects in a Prospective Controlled Intervention Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with cancer often want to spend their final days at home. In Norway, most patients with cancer die in institutions. We hypothesized that full integration of oncology and palliative care services would result in more time spent at home during end-of-life. METHODS: A prospective non-randomized intervention trial was conducted in two rural regions of Mid-Norway. The hospitals' oncology and palliative care outpatient clinics and surrounding communities participated. An intervention including information, education, and a standardized care pathway was developed and implemented. Adult non-curative patients with cancer were eligible. Proportion of last 90 days of life spent at home was the primary outcome. RESULTS: We included 129 patients in the intervention group (I) and 76 patients in the comparison group (C), of whom 82% of patients in I and 78% of patients in C died during follow-up. The mean proportion of last 90 days of life spent at home was 0.62 in I and 0.72 in C (p = 0.044), with 23% and 36% (p = 0.073), respectively, dying at home. A higher proportion died at home in both groups compared to pre-study level (12%). During the observation period the comparison region developed and implemented an alternative intervention to the study intervention, with the former more focused on end-of-life care. CONCLUSION: A higher proportion of patients with cancer died at home in both groups compared to pre-study level. Patients with cancer in I did not spend more time at home during end-of-life compared to those in C. The study intervention focused on the whole disease trajectory, while the alternative intervention was more directed towards end-of-life care. "Simpler" and more focused interventions on end-of-life care may be relevant for future studies on integration of palliative care into oncology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02170168.

Palliative care is an important part of cancer care to improve patients' quality of life. To be cared for and die in the preferred place are quality markers in palliative care. Patients with cancer often want to spend their final days at home. In Norway, most patients with cancer die in institutions. We hypothesized that full integration of cancer and palliative care would result in more time spent at home during end-of-life. An intervention that included information, education, and a standardized care pathway was developed and implemented in a region of Mid-Norway (the intervention region, I). A similar region served as comparison region (C). Adult patients with cancer treated with non-curative intent were eligible. Altogether, 129 patients in I and 76 patients in C were included in the study, of whom 82% in I and 78% in C died during follow-up. The mean proportion of time spent at home last 90 days of life was 0.62 in I and 0.72 in C (p = 0.044), and 22.6% and 35.6% (p = 0.073) died at home, respectively. A higher proportion died at home in both groups compared to pre-study national levels (12%). During the study period, C developed and implemented an alternative intervention to the study intervention, with the former placing more focus on end-of-life care compared to the she study intervention that focused on the whole disease trajectory. This may explain why the intervention did not result in more time spent at home during end-of-life as compared to C. "Simpler" interventions directed towards the study's primary outcome may be relevant for future studies on integration of palliative care into oncology.

Image guided radiotherapy in curative treatment for prostate cancer. 5-year results from a randomized controlled trial (RIC-trial).

BACKGROUND: Between 2012 and 2015 we conducted a randomized controlled trial in prostate cancer patients comparing weekly 2-D portal imaging versus daily 3-D verification. AIM: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of image guided radiotherapy by presenting rectal and urinary side effects, health related quality of life and progression free survival after 5-years follow up of a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We randomized 260 men with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer to weekly 2-D portal imaging with 15 mm margin from CTV to PTV (Arm A) or daily 3-D cone-beam computer tomography with 7 mm margins (Arm B). Prescribed doses were 78 Gy/39 fractions. All patients received hormonal therapy. Primary end point was patient reported bowel symptoms and secondary outcomes were patient reported urinary symptoms, health- related quality of life and progression free survival. RESULTS: Of the 216 patients available for analyses at 5 years more than 90 % completed patient reported outcome measures. There were no significant differences between study arms for any single items nor scales evaluating bowel symptoms. There were also no differences in self-reported urinary symptoms nor in health-related quality of life. Symptom scores were low in both study arms. Progression free survival was similar in Arm B as compared to arm A (Hazard ratio 1.01; 95 % CI 0.57 to 1.97). CONCLUSIONS: Our results support that both 2-D weekly and 3-D daily image guided radiotherapy are safe and efficient treatments for PC and emphasize the need to evaluate technological progress in clinical trials with long follow-up.

Overall Survival after Radiotherapy for Brain Metastases According to ECOG Status-A Prospective Study of 294 NSCLC Patients.

Up to 40% of non-smallcell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients develop brain metastases (BMs). The potential benefits of radiotherapy (RT) in patients with poor performance status (PS) are questionable, with considerable risk for futile treatment. We analyzed overall survival after initial radiotherapy in NSCLC patients with BMs, focusing on the relationship between PS and survival after RT. This study reports a prospective observational study including consecutive 294 NSCLC patients with first-time BMs. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the start of RT to death or last follow-up (1 June 2023). Overall, in the 294 included patients (median age 69 years), the median OS was 4.6 months; 2.5 months after WBRT (n = 141), and 7.5 months after SRT (n = 153). After WBRT, mOS was equally poor for patients with ECOG 2 (1.9 months) and ECOG 3-4 (1.2 months). After SRT, mOS for patients with ECOG 2 was 4.1 months; for ECOG 3 patients, mOS was 4 1.6 months. For NSCLC patients with ECOG 2 diagnosed with BMs who are not candidates for surgery or SRT, WBRT should be questioned due to short survival.

Quality of life endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic review 3 of the cachexia endpoints series.

The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) of quality of life (QOL) is common in cachexia trials. Patients' self-report on health, functioning, wellbeing, and perceptions of care, represent important measures of efficacy. This review describes the frequency, variety, and reporting of QOL endpoints used in cancer cachexia clinical trials. Electronic literature searches were performed in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane (1990-2023). Seven thousand four hundred thirty-five papers were retained for evaluation. Eligibility criteria included QOL as a study endpoint using validated measures, controlled design, adults (>18 years), ≥40 participants randomized, and intervention exceeding 2 weeks. The Covidence software was used for review procedures and data extractions. Four independent authors screened all records for consensus. Papers were screened by titles and abstracts, prior to full-text reading. PRISMA guidance for systematic reviews was followed. The protocol was prospectively registered via PROSPERO (CRD42022276710). Fifty papers focused on QOL. Twenty-four (48%) were double-blind randomized controlled trials. Sample sizes varied considerably (n = 42 to 469). Thirty-nine trials (78%) included multiple cancer types. Twenty-seven trials (54%) featured multimodal interventions with various drugs and dietary supplements, 11 (22%) used nutritional interventions alone and 12 (24%) used a single pharmacological intervention only. The median duration of the interventions was 12 weeks (4-96). The most frequent QOL measure was the EORTC QLQ-C30 (60%), followed by different FACIT questionnaires (34%). QOL was a primary, secondary, or exploratory endpoint in 15, 31 and 4 trials respectively, being the single primary in six. Statistically significant results on one or more QOL items favouring the intervention group were found in 18 trials. Eleven of these used a complete multidimensional measure. Adjustments for multiple testing when using multicomponent QOL measures were not reported. Nine trials (18%) defined a statistically or clinically significant difference for QOL, five with QOL as a primary outcome, and four with QOL as a secondary outcome. Correlation statistics with other study outcomes were rarely performed. PROMs including QOL are important endpoints in cachexia trials. We recommend using well-validated QOL measures, including cachexia-specific items such as weight history, appetite loss, and nutritional intake. Appropriate statistical methods with definitions of clinical significance, adjustment for multiple testing and few co-primary endpoints are encouraged, as is an understanding of how interventions may relate to changes in QOL endpoints. A strategic and scientific-based approach to PROM research in cachexia trials is warranted, to improve the research base in this field and avoid the use of QOL as supplementary measures.

Appetite and dietary intake endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 2 of the cachexia endpoints series.

There is no consensus on the optimal endpoint(s) in cancer cachexia trials. Endpoint variation is an obstacle when comparing interventions and their clinical value. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and evaluate endpoints used to assess appetite and dietary intake in cancer cachexia clinical trials. A search for studies published from 1 January 1990 until 2 June 2021 was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies examined cancer cachexia treatment versus a comparator in adults with assessments of appetite and/or dietary intake as study endpoints, a sample size ≥40 and an intervention lasting ≥14 days. Reporting was in line with PRISMA guidance, and a protocol was published in PROSPERO (2022 CRD42022276710). This review is part of a series of systematic reviews examining cachexia endpoints. Of the 5975 articles identified, 116 were eligible for the wider review series and 80 specifically examined endpoints of appetite (65 studies) and/or dietary intake (21 studies). Six trials assessed both appetite and dietary intake. Appetite was the primary outcome in 15 trials and dietary intake in 7 trials. Median sample size was 101 patients (range 40-628). Forty-nine studies included multiple primary tumour sites, while 31 studies involved single primary tumour sites (15 gastrointestinal, 7 lung, 7 head and neck and 2 female reproductive organs). The most frequently reported appetite endpoints were visual analogue scale (VAS) and numerical rating scale (NRS) (40%). The appetite item from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ) C30/C15 PAL (38%) and the appetite question from North Central Cancer Treatment Group anorexia questionnaire (17%) were also frequently applied. Of the studies that assessed dietary intake, 13 (62%) used food records (prospective registrations) and 10 (48%) used retrospective methods (24-h recall or dietary history). For VAS/NRS, a mean change of 1.3 corresponded to Hedge's g of 0.5 and can be considered a moderate change. For food records, a mean change of 231 kcal/day or 11 g of protein/day corresponded to a moderate change. Choice of endpoint in cachexia trials will depend on factors pertinent to the trial to be conducted. Nevertheless, from trials assessed and available literature, NRS or EORTC QLQ C30/C15 PAL seems suitable for appetite assessments. Appetite and dietary intake endpoints are rarely used as primary outcomes in cancer cachexia. Dietary intake assessments were used mainly to monitor compliance and are not validated in cachexia populations. Given the importance to cachexia studies, dietary intake endpoints must be validated before they are used as endpoints in clinical trials.

Application and accuracy of the EAPC/IASP diagnostic algorithm for neuropathic cancer pain and quantitative sensory testing profile in patients with pain due to cancer.

Introduction: Better diagnosis and treatment of neuropathic cancer pain (NcP) remains an unmet clinical need. The EAPC/IASP algorithm was specifically designed for NcP diagnosis; yet, to date, there is no information on its application and accuracy. Objectives: Our aim was to determine the accuracy of the EAPC/IASP algorithm compared with the Neuropathic Special Interest Group grading system (gold standard) and to describe patients' sensory profile with quantitative sensory testing (QST). Methods: This is a cross-sectional observational study conducted in a palliative care and pain outpatient clinic. Patients with cancer pain intensity ≥3 (numerical rating scale 0-10) were eligible. The palliative care physician applied the EAPC/IASP algorithm as a grading system to diagnose probable or definite NcP, and an independent investigator applied the gold standard and performed the QST. Sensitivity and specificity of the EAPC/IASP algorithm were measured in comparison with the gold standard results. Kruskal-Wallis and unequal variance independent-samples t tests were used to compare the QST parameters in patients with and without NcP. Results: Ninety-eight patients were enrolled from August 2020 to March 2023. Sensitivity and specificity for the EAPC/IASP algorithm were 85% (95% CI 70.2-94.3) and 98.3% (95% CI 90.8-100), respectively. Patients with NcP in contrast to patients without NcP showed cold hypoesthesia (P = 0.0032), warm hypoesthesia (P = 0.0018), pressure hyperalgesia (P = 0.02), and the presence of allodynia (P = 0.0001). Conclusion: The results indicate a good performance of the EAPC/IASP algorithm in diagnosing NcP and the QST discriminated well between patients with and without NcP.

PALLiative care in ONcology (PALLiON): A cluster-randomised trial investigating the effect of palliative care on the use of anticancer treatment at the end of life.

BACKGROUND: Effects on anticancer therapy following the integration of palliative care and oncology are rarely investigated. Thus, its potential effect is unknown. AIM: To investigate the effects of the complex intervention PALLiON versus usual care on end-of-life anticancer therapy. DESIGN: Cluster-randomised controlled trial (RCT), registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (No. NCT01362816). The complex intervention consisted of a physician education program enhancing theoretical, clinical and communication skills, a patient-centred care pathway and patient symptom reporting prior to all consultations. Primary outcome was overall use, start and cessation of anticancer therapy in the last 3 months before death. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported outcomes. Mixed effects logistic regression models and Cox proportional hazard were used. SETTING: A total of 12 Norwegian hospitals (03/2017-02/2021). PARTICIPANTS: Patients ⩾18 years, advanced stage solid tumour, starting last line of anticancer therapy, estimated life expectancy ⩽12 months. RESULTS: A total of 616 (93%) patients were included (intervention: 309/control:307); 63% males, median age 69, 77% had gastrointestinal cancers. Median survival time from inclusion was 8 (IQR 3-14) and 7 months (IQR 3-12), and days between anticancer therapy start and death were 204 (90-378) and 168 (69-351) (intervention/control). Overall, 78 patients (13%) received anticancer therapy in the last month (intervention: 33 [11%]/control: 45 [15%]). No differences were found in patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: We found no significant differences in the probability of receiving end-of-life anticancer therapy. The intervention did not have the desired effect. It was probably too general and too focussed on communication skills to exert a substantial influence on conventional clinical practice.

Cancer pain assessment and management: does an institutional approach individualise and reduce cost of care?

OBJECTIVES: To understand individual prescribing and associated costs in patients managed with the Edinburgh Pain Assessment and management Tool (EPAT). METHODS: The EPAT study was a two-arm parallel group cluster randomised (1:1) trial, including 19 UK cancer centres. Study outcome assessments, including pain levels, analgesia and non-pharmacological and anaesthetic interventions, collected at baseline, 3-5 days and, if applicable, 7-10 days after admission. Costs calculated for inpatient length of stay (LoS), medications and complex pain interventions. Analysis accounted for the clustered nature of the trial design. In this post-hoc analysis, healthcare utilisation and costs are presented descriptively. PARTICIPANTS: 10 centres randomised to EPAT (487 patients) and 9 (449 patients) to usual care (UC). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pharmacological and non-pharmacological management, complex pain interventions, length of hospital stay and costs related to these outcomes. RESULTS: The mean per patient hospital cost was £3866 with EPAT and £4194 with UC, reflecting a mean LoS of 2.9 days and 3.1 days, respectively. Costs were lower for non-opioids, Non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) and opioids but slightly higher for adjuvants with EPAT than with UC. The mean per-patient opioid costs were £17.90 (EPAT) and £25.80 (UC). Mean per patient costs of all medication were £36 (EPAT) and £40 (UC).Complex pain intervention costs were £117 with EPAT per patient and £90 with UC. Overall mean cost per patient was £4018.3 (95% CI 3698.9 to 4337.8) with EPAT and £4323.8 (95% CI 4060.0 to 4587.7) with UC. CONCLUSIONS: EPAT facilitated personalised medicine and may result in less opioids, more specific treatments, improved pain outcomes and cost savings.

High Protein Oral Nutritional Supplements Enable the Majority of Cancer Patients to Meet Protein Intake Recommendations during Systemic Anti-Cancer Treatment: A Randomised Controlled Parallel-Group Study.

ESPEN guidelines recommend a minimum protein intake of 1.0 g/kg body weight (BW) per day to maintain or restore lean body mass in patients with cancer. During anti-cancer treatment, optimal protein intake is difficult to achieve. We investigated whether a high-protein, low-volume oral nutritional supplement (ONS) supports patients in meeting recommendations. A multi-centre, randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group study was carried out in nine hospitals (five countries) between January 2019 and July 2021 in colorectal and lung cancer patients undergoing first-line systemic treatment with chemo(radio-) or immunotherapy. Subjects were randomised (2:1) to receive Fortimel Compact Protein® or standard care. Protein intake was assessed with a 3-day food diary (primary outcome). BW was a secondary outcome. Due to challenges in recruitment, the study was terminated prematurely with 42 patients randomised (intervention group (IG) 28; control group (CG) 14). At T1 and T2, protein intake was statistically significantly higher in the IG compared to the CG (1.40 vs. 1.07 g/kg/day at T1, p = 0.008; 1.32 vs. 0.94 g/kg/day at T2, p = 0.002). At baseline, only 65% (IG) and 45% (CG) of patients met ESPEN minimum protein intake recommendations. However, at T1 and T2 in the IG, a higher proportion of patients met recommendations than in the CG (88% vs. 55% and 40%). No statistically significant difference between study groups was observed for BW. Mean compliance to the ONS was 73.4%. A high-protein, low-volume ONS consumed twice daily enables the majority of patients to reach minimal ESPEN protein recommendations.

Physical function endpoints in cancer cachexia clinical trials: Systematic Review 1 of the cachexia endpoints series.

In cancer cachexia trials, measures of physical function are commonly used as endpoints. For drug trials to obtain regulatory approval, efficacy in physical function endpoints may be needed alongside other measures. However, it is not clear which physical function endpoints should be used. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the frequency and diversity of physical function endpoints in cancer cachexia trials. Following a comprehensive electronic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane (1990-2021), records were retrieved. Eligible trials met the following criteria: adults (≥18 years), controlled design, more than 40 participants, use of a cachexia intervention for more than 14 days and use of a physical function endpoint. Physical function measures were classified as an objective measure (hand grip strength [HGS], stair climb power [SCP], timed up and go [TUG] test, 6-min walking test [6MWT] and short physical performance battery [SPPB]), clinician assessment of function (Karnofsky Performance Status [KPS] or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status [ECOG-PS]) or patient-reported outcomes (physical function subscale of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires [EORTC QLQ-C30 or C15]). Data extraction was performed using Covidence and followed PRISMA guidance (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022276710). A total of 5975 potential studies were examined and 71 were eligible. Pharmacological interventions were assessed in 38 trials (54%). Of these, 11 (29%, n = 1184) examined megestrol and 5 (13%, n = 1928) examined anamorelin; nutritional interventions were assessed in 21 trials (30%); and exercise-based interventions were assessed in 6 trials (8%). The remaining six trials (8%) assessed multimodal interventions. Among the objective measures of physical function (assessed as primary or secondary endpoints), HGS was most commonly examined (33 trials, n = 5081) and demonstrated a statistically significant finding in 12 (36%) trials (n = 2091). The 6MWT was assessed in 12 trials (n = 1074) and was statistically significant in 4 (33%) trials (n = 403), whereas SCP, TUG and SPPB were each assessed in 3 trials. KPS was more commonly assessed than the newer ECOG-PS (16 vs. 9 trials), and patient-reported EORTC QLQ-C30 physical function was reported in 25 trials. HGS is the most commonly used physical function endpoint in cancer cachexia clinical trials. However, heterogeneity in study design, populations, intervention and endpoint selection make it difficult to comment on the optimal endpoint and how to measure this. We offer several recommendations/considerations to improve the design of future clinical trials in cancer cachexia.

Do cancer centres and palliative care wards routinely measure patients' quality of life? An international cross-sectional survey study.

PURPOSE: Routinely assessing quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer is crucial for improving patient-centred cancer care. However, little is known about whether or how cancer centres assess QoL for clinical practice or for research purposes. Therefore, our study aimed to investigate if QoL data is collected and if so, how and for what purposes. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional survey study among 32 cancer centres in Europe and Canada. Centre representatives identified persons who they judged to have sufficient insight into QoL data collections in their wards to complete the survey. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the information on QoL assessment and documentation. RESULTS: There were 20 (62.5%) responding cancer centres. In total, 30 questionnaires were completed, of which 13 were completed for cancer wards and 17 for palliative care wards. We found that 23.1% and 38.5% of the cancer wards routinely assessed QoL among inpatients and outpatients with cancer, respectively, whereas, in palliative care wards, 52.9% assessed QoL for outpatients with cancer and 70.6% for the inpatients. Wide variabilities were observed between the cancer centres in how, how often, when and which instruments they used to assess QoL. CONCLUSION: A sizable proportion of the cancer wards, especially, and palliative care wards apparently does not routinely assess patients' QoL, and we found wide variabilities between the cancer centres in how they do it. To promote routine assessment of patients' QoL, we proposed several actions, such as addressing barriers to implementing patient-reported outcome measures through innovative e-health platforms.

Preoperative Prognostic Index for Patients with Brain Metastases-A Population-Based Multi-Centre Study.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases (BM) are common in cancer patients and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Surgery is an option, but the optimal selection of patients for surgery is challenging and controversial. Current prognostication tools are not ideal for preoperative prognostication. By using a reference population (derivation data set) and two external populations (validation data set) of patients who underwent surgery for BM, we aimed to create and validate a preoperative prognostic index. METHODS: The derivation data set consists of 590 patients who underwent surgery for BM (2011-2018) at Oslo University Hospital. We identified variables associated with survival and created a preoperative prognostic index with four prognostic groups, which was validated on patients who underwent surgery for BM at Karolinska University Hospital and St. Olavs University Hospital during the same time period. To reduce over-fitting, we adjusted the index in accordance with our findings. RESULTS: 438 patients were included in the validation data set. The preoperative prognostic index correctly divided patients into four true prognostic groups. The two prognostic groups with the poorest survival outcomes overlapped, and these were merged to create the adjusted preoperative prognostic index. CONCLUSION: We created a prognostic index for patients with BM that predicts overall survival preoperatively. This index might be valuable in supporting informed choice when considering surgery for BM.

A complex communication skills training program for physicians providing advanced cancer care - content development and barriers and solutions for implementation.

Background: Early integration of oncology and patient-centered palliative care is the recommended clinical practice model for patients with advanced cancer. General and specific communication skills are necessary to achieve integrated patient-centered care, but require organized training to be adequately mastered. Challenges and barriers on several levels, i.e. organizational, professional and individual may, however, hamper implementation. The development, implementation, and evaluation of such an educational program focusing on communication skills contain many steps, considerations and lessons learned, which are described in this article.Methods: A multi-professional faculty developed, implemented, and evaluated an educational program through a 5-step approach. The program was part of a Norwegian cluster-randomized controlled trial aiming to test the effect of early integration of oncology and palliative care for patients with advanced cancer.Results: The result is the PALLiON educational program; a multi-faceted, evidence-based, and learner-centered program with a specific focus on physicians' communication skills. Four modules were developed: lectures, discussion groups, skills training, and coaching. These were implemented at the six intervention hospitals using different teaching strategies. Evaluation in a subgroup of participants showed a positive appraisal of the group discussions and skills training.Conclusion:We present our experiences and reflections regarding implementation and lessons learned, which should be considered in future developments and implementations; (1) Include experienced faculty with various backgrounds, (2) Be both evidence-based and learner-centered, (3) Choose teaching strategies wisely, (4) Expect resistance and skepticism, (5) Team up with management and gatekeepers, (6) Expect time to fly, and (7) Plan thorough assessment of the evaluation and effect.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03088202.

Barriers and Facilitators When Implementing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures at a Municipal Cancer Care Unit: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Few qualitative studies of barriers and facilitators when implementing electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) in municipal cancer care exist within the large body of symptom assessment research. Such data, gathered from healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perspective, are central to the development and design of sustainable interventions aiming for a systematic and patient-centered symptom assessment to patients with cancer. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify and explore barriers and facilitators, as described by HCPs, in the implementation of the ePROM application "Eir" at a municipal cancer care unit in Norway. METHODS: The study applies a qualitative method, conducting an inductive data inquiry of semistructured individual interviews and focus groups with 14 Norwegian HCPs. Analysis was inspired by thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke. RESULTS: The analysis revealed 3 main themes affecting the implementation of ePROM in municipal cancer care: "achieving patient-centered care," "crucial management and training," and "technological barriers." CONCLUSION: The results from this study suggest that HCPs' motivation plays a significant role when implementing ePROM. Motivation of HCPs was strongly influenced by whether the application added value to previously used symptom assessment. Hands-on management and a multiprofessional approach enabled the implementation by facilitating adaptations, training, and resources. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The findings show that adapting the implementation of ePROMs to patient population could be of major importance. Early integration of ePROMs in cancer care could facilitate use throughout the disease trajectory.

Zopiclone versus placebo for short-term treatment of insomnia in patients with advanced cancer-a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled clinical multicenter phase IV trial.

PURPOSE: Insomnia is frequent in patients with advanced cancer, and a variety of pharmacological agents is used to treat this condition. Still, few clinical trials have investigated the effectiveness of pharmacological sleep therapies in this patient group. We aimed to study the short-term effectiveness of zopiclone on sleep quality in patients with advanced cancer who report insomnia. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, phase IV clinical trial in adult patients with metastatic malignant disease and insomnia. Patients were treated with zopiclone or placebo for six subsequent nights. Primary end point was patient-reported sleep quality during the final study night (NRS 0-10). Secondary end points were patient-reported sleep onset latency (SOL) and total sleep time (TST). RESULTS: Forty-one patients were randomized, with 18 being analyzed in the zopiclone group and 21 in the placebo group. Median age was 66, median Karnofsky performance score was 80, and 56% were male. Mean sleep quality at end of study was 2.9 (CI 2.3 to 3.8) in the zopiclone group and 4.5 (CI 3.6 to 5.4) in the placebo group (p = 0.021). At end of study, SOL was significantly different between the treatment groups: zopiclone 29 min (CI 13 to 51) and placebo 62 min (CI 40 to 87) (p = 0.045). TST was not significantly different across groups: zopiclone 449 min (403 to 496) and placebo 411 min (CI 380 to 440) (p = 0.167). CONCLUSION: Zopiclone improved short-term patient-reported sleep quality in this cohort of patients with advanced cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02807922.

Trajectory of health-related quality of life during the last year of life in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to assess the trajectory of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) during the last year of life in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to explore when and to what degree deterioration of symptoms and physical functioning accelerate towards the end of life. METHODS: Data from two RCTs of first-line chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC was analyzed. HRQOL was assessed repeatedly using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC13. Changes in HRQOL scores were investigated relative to the time of death. RESULTS: The study sample included 730 patients, with a median of four HRQOL assessments per patient (range 1-9). Fatigue, dyspnea, appetite loss, and cough were the most pronounced symptoms in all phases of the disease trajectory. The deterioration rates of global quality of life, physical function, and key symptoms were relatively slow until 4 months before death. Then, the decline accelerated, and for physical function, fatigue, and dyspnea, there was a very rapid decline in the last 2 months. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced NSCLC experience a high symptom burden that worsens over time, especially in the last 4 months. Regular symptom monitoring may help identify where patients are in the disease trajectory, serve as a trigger for changes in anticancer and symptomatic treatment, and facilitate discussions about end-of-life care.

Cancer pain: Results of a prospective study on prognostic indicators of pain intensity including pain syndromes assessment.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a prevalent symptom in patients with advanced cancer. Recognition of prognostic factors associated with pain intensity, could help provide better assessment, leading to better pain management. AIM: identifying prognostic factors which could guide improvements on cancer pain classification. DESIGN: a prospective observational study on chronic cancer pain, exploring the association between average mean pain intensity during a 28 days study follow-up and patients' clinical and pain-related characteristics, including pain syndromes. To evaluate these associations, a mixed model was built. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients attending a Palliative Care and Pain Outpatient Clinic from May 2015 to June 2019 were screened. Patients with moderate to severe cancer pain who were already receiving or needed treatment with third step WHO ladder opioids were enrolled in the study. Data from 342 patients with at least one follow-up visit were analyzed. RESULTS: Pain intensity decreased significantly for all patients during time (p < 0.001). Age, sex, emotional distress, pain duration and neuropathic pain presence evaluated by the Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) questionnaire were not significantly associated to pain intensity. Breakthrough/episodic pain was associated with higher pain intensity during follow-up (p < 0.001). The diagnosis of pain syndrome was overall significantly associated with mean pain intensity during follow-up (p = 0.016). Particularly, the concurrent presence of visceral and soft (p = 0.026) or soft and nervous tissue pain (p = 0.043) were significantly related to worse outcome, whereas pain due to only soft tissue damage with better outcome (p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: The recognition of specific pain syndromes may help to better classify cancer pain.