Systematic vs. on-demand early palliative care in gastric cancer patients: a randomized clinical trial assessing patient and healthcare service outcomes.

PURPOSE: Early palliative care (EPC) has shown a positive impact on quality of life (QoL), quality of care, and healthcare costs. We evaluated such effects in patients with advanced gastric cancer. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter study, 186 advanced gastric cancer patients were randomized 1:1 to receive standard cancer care (SCC) plus on-demand EPC (standard arm) or SCC plus systematic EPC (interventional arm). Primary outcome was a change in QoL between randomization (T0) and T1 (12 weeks after T0) in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI) scores evaluated through the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gastric questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were patient mood, overall survival, and family satisfaction with healthcare and care aggressiveness. RESULTS: The mean change in TOI scores from T0 to T1 was - 1.30 (standard deviation (SD) 20.01) for standard arm patients and 1.65 (SD 22.38) for the interventional group, with a difference of 2.95 (95% CI - 4.43 to 10.32) (p = 0.430). The change in mean Gastric Cancer Subscale values for the standard arm was 0.91 (SD 14.14) and 3.19 (SD 15.25) for the interventional group, with a difference of 2.29 (95% CI - 2.80 to 7.38) (p = 0.375). Forty-three percent of patients in the standard arm received EPC. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicated a slight, albeit not significant, benefit from EPC. Findings on EPC studies may be underestimated in the event of suboptimally managed issues: type of intervention, shared decision-making process between oncologists and PC physicians, risk of standard arm contamination, study duration, timeliness of assessment of primary outcomes, timeliness of cohort inception, and recruitment of patients with a significant symptom burden. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01996540).

Systematic versus on-demand early palliative care: A randomised clinical trial assessing quality of care and treatment aggressiveness near the end of life.

AIM: Early palliative care (EPC) in oncology has shown sparse evidence of a positive impact on patient outcomes, quality of care outcomes and costs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data for this secondary analysis were taken from a trial of 207 outpatients with metastatic pancreatic cancer randomly assigned to receive standard cancer care plus on-demand EPC (standard arm) or standard cancer care plus systematic EPC (interventional arm). After 20 months' follow-up, 149 (80%) had died. Outcome measures were frequency, type and timing of chemotherapy administration, use of resources, place of death and overall survival. RESULTS: Some indices of end-of-life (EoL) aggressiveness had a favourable impact from systematic EPC. Interventional arm patients showed higher use of hospice services: a significantly longer median and mean period of hospice care (P = 0.025 for both indexes) and a significantly higher median and mean number of hospice admissions (both P < 0.010). In the experimental arm, chemotherapy was performed in the last 30 days of life in a significantly inferior rate with respect to control arm: 18.7% versus 27.8% (adjusted P = 0.036). Other non-significant differences were seen in favour of experimental arm. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic EPC showed a significant impact on some indicators of EoL treatment aggressiveness. These data, reinforced by multiple non-significant differences in most of the other items, suggest that quality of care is improved by this approach. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01996540).

Systematic versus on-demand early palliative care: results from a multicentre, randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Early palliative care (EPC) in oncology has been shown to have a positive impact on clinical outcome, quality-of-care outcomes, and costs. However, the optimal way for activating EPC has yet to be defined. METHODS: This prospective, multicentre, randomised study was conducted on 207 outpatients with metastatic or locally advanced inoperable pancreatic cancer. Patients were randomised to receive 'standard cancer care plus on-demand EPC' (n = 100) or 'standard cancer care plus systematic EPC' (n = 107). Primary outcome was change in quality of life (QoL) evaluated through the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Hepatobiliary questionnaire between baseline (T0) and after 12 weeks (T1), in particular the integration of physical, functional, and Hepatic Cancer Subscale (HCS) combined in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI). Patient mood, survival, relatives' satisfaction with care, and indicators of aggressiveness of care were also evaluated. FINDINGS: The mean changes in TOI score and HCS score between T0 and T1 were -4.47 and -0.63, with a difference between groups of 3.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10-7.57) (p = 0.041), and -2.23 and 0.28 (difference between groups of 2.51, 95% CI 0.40-4.61, p = 0.013), in favour of interventional group. QoL scores at T1 of TOI scale and HCS were 84.4 versus 78.1 (p = 0.022) and 52.0 versus 48.2 (p = 0.008), respectively, for interventional and standard arm. Until February 2016, 143 (76.9%) of the 186 evaluable patients had died. There was no difference in overall survival between treatment arms. INTERPRETATIONS: Systematic EPC in advanced pancreatic cancer patients significantly improved QoL with respect to on-demand EPC.