The Impact of International Research Collaborations on the Citation Metrics and the Scientific Potential of South American Palliative Care Research: Bibliometric Analysis.

Background: Progress in palliative care (PC) requires scientific advances which could potentially be catalyzed by international research collaboration (IRC). It is currently not known how often IRC occurs with PC investigators in South America. Objectives: To evaluate the percentage of South America journal articles on PC involving IRCs and the impact of these collaborations on the scientific potential the studies and on their citations. Methods: This was a bibliometric analysis of studies published between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2017. A search of Pubmed, Embase, Lilacs, and Web of Science (WOS) was performed using the terms "palliative care," "hospice care," "hospices" and "terminal care," combined with the name of South America countries. The scientific potential was assessed by analyzing study design, characteristics of the journal and funding. IRCs were further subdivided in internal (within South America countries) and external (with countries outside South America). Findings: Of the 641 articles, 117 (18.2%) involved IRCs (internal: 18, 2.8%; external: 110, 17.2%). Articles with IRCs had higher median two-year citations in WOS (2 vs. 1, p < 0.001), Scopus (3 vs. 1, p < 0.001) and Google Scholar (4.5 vs. 2, p < 0.001) compared to articles without IRC. Moreover, they were more often funded (40.7% vs. 9.7%, p < 0.001), published in Pubmed-indexed (76.1% vs. 41.6%; p < 0.001) and in WOS-indexed (70.1% vs. 29.6%; p < 0.001) journals, and with study designs most often classified as clinical trial (5.1% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.002) and cohort (10.3% vs. 2.9%; p < 0.001) compared to articles without IRC. Conclusions: Studies with international research collaborations, both internal and external to South America, are more frequently cited and have characteristics with greater scientific potential than do studies without international collaborations.

Meaning in life in patients with advanced cancer: a multinational study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined meaning in life, a novel existential outcome, in patients with advanced cancer across countries. OBJECTIVES: We examined differences in meaning in life across 5 countries and identified factors associated with meaning in life. METHODS: This is a pre-planned secondary analysis of a prospective longitudinal multicenter observational study of patients with advanced cancer. Meaning in life was assessed using a validated scale which examined four domains of meaning: values, purpose, goals, and reflection. The total score ranged from 8 to 32, with a higher score indicating greater meaning in life. RESULTS: Among 728 patients, the median meaning in life score was 25/32 (interquartile range 23, 28). There was no significant difference in the total meaning in life score among 5 countries (P = 0.11), though there were differences in domain sub-scores. In the univariate analysis, patients with higher intensity of physical symptoms by ESAS score (pain, fatigue, drowsiness, dyspnea, insomnia), depression, anxiety, spiritual pain, and financial distress had significantly lower meaning in life. However, patients with higher levels of education, who were married, and who had higher optimism had significantly higher meaning in life. In the multivariate analysis, higher total meaning in life scores were significantly associated with greater optimism (multivariate estimate = 0.33, p < 0.001), lower depression (- 0.26, < 0.001), spiritual pain (- 0.19, < 0.001), and financial distress (- 0.16, < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Country of origin was not a determinant of meaning in life. However, meaning in life was significantly associated with optimism, depression, spiritual pain, and financial distress, underscoring the multidimensional nature of this construct and potential opportunities for improvement in addressing meaning in life of patients with advanced cancer.

Decisional control preferences among patients with advanced cancer: An international multicenter cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patients' decision control preferences is important in providing quality cancer care. Patients' decisional control preference can be either active (patients prefer to make decisions themselves), shared (collaborative between patient, their physician, and/or family), or passive (patients prefer that the decisions are made by either the physician and/or their family). AIM: To determine the frequency and predictors of passive decision control preferences among advanced cancer patients. We also determined the concordance between actual decision-making and decision control preferences and its association with patient satisfaction. DESIGN: In this cross-sectional survey of advanced cancer patients referred to palliative care across 11 countries, we evaluated sociodemographic variables, Control Preference Scale, and satisfaction with the decisions and care. RESULTS: A total of 1490 participants were evaluable. Shared, active, and passive decision control preferences were 33%, 44%, and 23%, respectively. Passive decision control preferences (odds ratio, p value) was more frequent in India (4.34, <0.001), Jordan (3.41, <0.001), and France (3.27, <0.001). Concordance between the actual decision-making and decision control preferences was highest in the United States ( k = 0.74) and lowest in Brazil (0.34). Passive decision control preference was significantly associated with (odds ratio per point, p value) better performance status (0.99/point, 0.017), higher education (0.64, 0.001), and country of origin (Brazil (0.26, <0.0001), Singapore (0.25, 0.0003), South Africa (0.32, 0.0002), and Jordan (2.33, 0.0037)). CONCLUSION: Passive decision control preferences were less common (23%) than shared and active decision control preference even among developing countries. Significant predictors of passive decision control preferences were performance status, education, and country of origin.

Perception of Curability Among Advanced Cancer Patients: An International Collaborative Study.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on illness understanding and perception of cure among advanced cancer patients around the world. The aim of the study was to determine the frequency and factors associated with inaccurate perception of curability among advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care across the globe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Secondary analysis of a study to understand the core concepts in end-of-life care among advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care from 11 countries across the world. Advanced cancer patients were surveyed using a Patient Illness Understanding survey and Control Preference Scale. Descriptive statistics and multicovariate logistic regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent (763/1,390) of patients receiving palliative care inaccurately reported that their cancer is curable. The median age was 58, 55% were female, 59% were married or had a partner, 48% were Catholic, and 35% were college educated. Sixty-eight percent perceived that the goal of therapy was "to get rid of their cancer," and 47% perceived themselves as "seriously ill." Multicovariate logistic regression analysis shows that accurate perception of curability was associated with female gender (odds ratio [OR] 0.73, p = .027), higher education (OR 0.37, p < .0001), unemployment status (OR 0.69, p = .02), and being from France (OR 0.26, p < .0001) and South Africa (OR 0.52, p = .034); inaccurate perception of curability was associated with better Karnofsky performance status (OR 1.02 per point, p = .0005), and being from Philippines (OR 15.49, p < .0001), Jordan (OR 8.43, p < .0001), Brazil (OR 2.17, p = .0037), and India (OR 2.47, p = .039). CONCLUSION: Inaccurate perception of curability in advanced cancer patients is 55% and significantly differs by gender, education, performance status, employment status, and country of origin. Further studies are needed to develop strategies to reduce this misperception of curability in advanced cancer patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The findings of this study indicate that inaccurate perception of curability among advanced cancer patients is 55%. Inaccurate perception of curability significantly differs by gender, education, performance status, employment status, and country of origin. There is great need to facilitate improved patient-physician communication so as to improve health care outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Personalized symptom goals and response in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Improving symptoms is a major goal of cancer medicine; however, symptom response is often based on group differences and not individualized. In the current study, the authors examined the personalized symptom goal (PSG) for 10 common symptoms in patients with advanced cancer, and identified the factors associated with PSG response. METHODS: In this prospective, longitudinal, multicenter study, patients from 5 tertiary care hospitals rated the intensity of 10 symptoms using a numeric rating scale of 0 to 10 at the time of their first clinic visit and then at a second visit 14 to 34 days later. The PSG was determined for each symptom by asking patients: "At what level would you feel comfortable with this symptom?" using the same scale of 0 to 10 for symptom intensity. PSG response was defined as symptom intensity at the time of the second visit that was less than or equal to the PSG. RESULTS: Among 728 patients, the median PSG was 1 for nausea; 2 for depression, anxiety, drowsiness, well-being, dyspnea, and sleep; and 3 for pain, fatigue, and appetite. A greater percentage of patients achieved a PSG response at their second visit compared with their first visit (P<.05 except for drowsiness). Symptom response was associated with lower baseline symptom intensity based on PSG criterion but higher baseline symptom intensity based on the traditional minimal clinically important difference definition (P<.001 for all symptoms). In multivariable analysis, higher PSG and nationality were associated with greater PSG response. CONCLUSIONS: The PSG was ≤3 for a majority of patients. PSG response allows clinicians to tailor treatment goals while adjusting for individual differences in scale interpretation and factors associated with symptom response. Cancer 2016;122:1774-81. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference in the Physical, Emotional, and Total Symptom Distress Scores of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System.

CONTEXT: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) is one of the most commonly used symptom batteries in clinical practice and research. OBJECTIVES: We used the anchor-based approach to identify the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for improvement and deterioration for ESAS physical, emotional, and total symptom distress scores. METHODS: In this multicenter prospective study, we asked patients with advanced cancer to complete their ESAS at the first clinic visit and at a second visit three weeks later. The anchor for MCID determination was Patient's Global Impression regarding their physical, emotional, and overall symptom burden ("better," "about the same," or "worse"). We identified the optimal sensitivity/specificity cutoffs for both improvement and deterioration for the three ESAS scores and also determined the within-patient changes. RESULTS: A total of 796 patients were enrolled from six centers. The ESAS scores had moderate responsiveness, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve between 0.69 and 0.76. Using the sensitivity-specificity approach, the optimal cutoffs for ESAS physical, emotional, and total symptom distress scores were ≥3/60, ≥2/20, and ≥3/90 for improvement, and ≤-4/60, ≤-1/20, and ≤-4/90 for deterioration, respectively. These cutoffs had moderate sensitivities (59%-68%) and specificities (62%-80%). The within-patient change approach revealed the MCID cutoffs for improvement/deterioration to be 3/-4.3 for the physical score, 2.4/-1.8 for the emotional score, and 5.7/-2.9 for the total symptom distress score. CONCLUSION: We identified the MCIDs for physical, emotional, and total symptom distress scores, which have implications for interpretation of symptom response in clinical trials.

Minimal clinically important differences in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale in cancer patients: A prospective, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) is widely used for symptom assessment in clinical and research settings. A sensitivity-specificity approach was used to identify the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for improvement and deterioration for each of the 10 ESAS symptoms. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study enrolled patients with advanced cancer. ESAS was measured at the first clinic visit and at a second visit 3 weeks later. For each symptom, the Patient's Global Impression ("better," "about the same," or "worse") was assessed at the second visit as the external criterion, and the MCID was determined on the basis of the optimal cutoff in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. A sensitivity analysis was conducted through the estimation of MCIDs with other approaches. RESULTS: For the 796 participants, the median duration between the 2 study visits was 21 days (interquartile range, 18-28 days). The area under the ROC curve varied from 0.70 to 0.87, and this suggested good responsiveness. For all 10 symptoms, the optimal cutoff was ≥1 point for improvement and ≤-1 point for deterioration, with sensitivities of 59% to 85% and specificities of 69% to 85%. With other approaches, the MCIDs varied from 0.8 to 2.2 for improvement and from -0.8 to -2.3 for deterioration in the within-patient analysis, from 1.2 to 1.6 with the one-half standard deviation approach, and from 1.3 to 1.7 with the standard error of measurement approach. CONCLUSIONS: ESAS was responsive to change. The optimal cutoffs were ≥1 point for improvement and ≤-1 point for deterioration for each of the 10 symptoms. Our findings have implications for sample size calculations and response determination.

Clinical signs of impending death in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The physical signs of impending death have not been well characterized in cancer patients. A better understanding of these signs may improve the ability of clinicians to diagnose impending death. We examined the frequency and onset of 10 bedside physical signs and their diagnostic performance for impending death. METHODS: We systematically documented 10 physical signs every 12 hours from admission to death or discharge in 357 consecutive patients with advanced cancer admitted to two acute palliative care units. We examined the frequency and median onset of each sign from death backward and calculated their likelihood ratios (LRs) associated with death within 3 days. RESULTS: In total, 203 of 357 patients (52 of 151 in the U.S., 151 of 206 in Brazil) died. Decreased level of consciousness, Palliative Performance Scale ≤20%, and dysphagia of liquids appeared at high frequency and >3 days before death and had low specificity (<90%) and positive LR (<5) for impending death. In contrast, apnea periods, Cheyne-Stokes breathing, death rattle, peripheral cyanosis, pulselessness of radial artery, respiration with mandibular movement, and decreased urine output occurred mostly in the last 3 days of life and at lower frequency. Five of these signs had high specificity (>95%) and positive LRs for death within 3 days, including pulselessness of radial artery (positive LR: 15.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.7-17.4), respiration with mandibular movement (positive LR: 10; 95% CI: 9.1-10.9), decreased urine output (positive LR: 15.2; 95% CI: 13.4-17.1), Cheyne-Stokes breathing (positive LR: 12.4; 95% CI: 10.8-13.9), and death rattle (positive LR: 9; 95% CI: 8.1-9.8). CONCLUSION: We identified highly specific physical signs associated with death within 3 days among cancer patients.