Continuity of care for patients with de novo metastatic cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based observational study.

During the COVID-19 pandemic recommendations were made to adapt cancer care. This population-based study aimed to investigate possible differences between the treatment of patients with metastatic cancer before and during the pandemic by comparing the initial treatments in five COVID-19 periods (weeks 1-12 2020: pre-COVID-19, weeks 12-20 2020: 1st peak, weeks 21-41 2020: recovery, weeks 42-53 2020: 2nd peak, weeks 1-20 2021: prolonged 2nd peak) with reference data from 2017 to 2019. The proportion of patients receiving different treatment modalities (chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, immunotherapy or targeted therapy, radiotherapy primary tumor, resection primary tumor, resection metastases) within 6 weeks of diagnosis and the time between diagnosis and first treatment were compared by period. In total, 74,208 patients were included. Overall, patients were more likely to receive treatments in the COVID-19 periods than in previous years. This mainly holds for hormone therapy, immunotherapy or targeted therapy and resection of metastases. Lower odds were observed for resection of the primary tumor during the recovery period (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77-0.99) and for radiotherapy on the primary tumor during the prolonged 2nd peak (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.72-0.98). The time from diagnosis to the start of first treatment was shorter, mainly during the 1st peak (average 5 days, p < .001). These findings show that during the first 1.5 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were only minor changes in the initial treatment of metastatic cancer. Remarkably, time from diagnosis to first treatment was shorter. Overall, the results suggest continuity of care for patients with metastatic cancer during the pandemic.

Characteristics of timely integration of palliative care into oncology hospital care for patients with incurable cancer: results of a Delphi Study.

PURPOSE: To identify elements of timely integration of palliative care (PC) into hospital oncology care from best practices. Thereafter, to assess the level of consensus among oncology and PC specialists and patient and relative representatives on the characteristics of timely integration of PC. METHODS: A three-round modified Delphi study was conducted. The expert panel consisted of 83 healthcare professionals (HCPs) from 21 Dutch hospitals (43 physicians, 40 nurses), 6 patient and 2 relative representatives. In the first round, four elements of integrated PC were considered: (1) identification of potential PC needs, (2) advance care planning (ACP), (3) routine symptom monitoring and (4) involvement of the specialist palliative care team (SPCT). In subsequent rounds, the panellists assessed which characteristics were triggers for initiating an element. A priori consensus was set at ≥ 70%. RESULTS: A total of 71 (78%) panellists completed the first questionnaire, 65 (71%) the second and 49 (54%) the third. Panellists agreed that all patients with incurable cancer should have their PC needs assessed (97%), symptoms monitored (91%) and ACP initiated (86%). The SPCT should be involved at the patient's request (86%) or when patients suffer from increased symptom burden on multiple dimensions (76%). Patients with a life expectancy of less than 3 months should be offered a consultation (71%). CONCLUSION: The expert panel agreed that timely integration of PC into oncology is important for all patients with incurable cancer, using early identification, ACP and routine symptom monitoring. Involvement of the SPCT is particularly needed in patients with multidimensional symptom burden and in those nearing death.

Reduction in potentially inappropriate end-of-life hospital care for cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted cancer diagnosis and treatment. However, little is known about end-of-life cancer care during the pandemic. AIM: To investigate potentially inappropriate end-of-life hospital care for cancer patients before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Retrospective population-based cohort study using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch National Hospital Care Registration. Potentially inappropriate care in the last month of life (chemotherapy administration, >1 emergency room contact, >1 hospitalization, hospitalization >14 days, intensive care unit admission or hospital death) was compared between four COVID-19 periods and corresponding periods in 2018/2019. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 112,919 cancer patients (⩾18 years) who died between January 2018 and May 2021 were included. RESULTS: Fewer patients received potentially inappropriate end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to previous years, especially during the first COVID-19 peak (22.4% vs 26.0%). Regression analysis showed lower odds of potentially inappropriate end-of-life care during all COVID-19 periods (between OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.74-0.88 and OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.87-0.97) after adjustment for age, sex and cancer type. For the individual indicators, fewer patients experienced multiple or long hospitalizations, intensive care unit admission or hospital death during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patients received less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because several factors may have contributed, it is unclear whether this reflects better quality care. However, these findings raise important questions about what pandemic-induced changes in care practices can help provide appropriate end-of-life care for future patients in the context of increasing patient numbers and limited resources.

Association between Inappropriate End-of-Life Cancer Care and Specialist Palliative Care: A Retrospective Observational Study in Two Acute Care Hospitals.

A substantial number of patients with life-threatening illnesses like cancer receive inappropriate end-of-life care. Improving their quality of end-of-life care is a priority for patients and their families and for public health. To investigate the association between provision, timing, and initial setting of hospital-based specialist palliative care and potentially inappropriate end-of-life care for patients with cancer in two acute care hospitals in the Netherlands, we conducted a retrospective observational study using hospital administrative databases. All adults diagnosed with or treated for cancer in the year preceding their death in 2018 or 2019 were included. The main exposure was hospital-based specialist palliative care initiated >30 days before death. The outcome measures in the last 30 days of life were six quality indicators for inappropriate end-of-life care (≥2 ED-visits, ≥2 hospital admissions, >14 days hospitalization, ICU-admission, chemotherapy, hospital death). We identified 2603 deceased patients, of whom 14% (n = 359) received specialist palliative care >30 days before death (exposure group). Overall, 27% (n = 690) received potentially inappropriate end-of-life care: 19% in the exposure group, versus 28% in the non-exposure group (p < 0.001). The exposure group was 45% less likely to receive potentially inappropriate end-of-life care (AOR 0.55; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.73). Early (>90 days) and late (≤90 and >30 days) initiation of specialist palliative care, as well as outpatient and inpatient initiation, were all associated with less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care (AOR 0.49; 0.62; 0.32; 0.64, respectively). Thus, timely access to hospital-based specialist palliative care is associated with less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care for patients with cancer. The outpatient initiation of specialist palliative care seems to enhance this result.

Stereotactic Body and Conventional Radiotherapy for Painful Bone Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Conventional external beam radiotherapy (cEBRT) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) are commonly used treatment options for relieving metastatic bone pain. The effectiveness of SBRT compared with cEBRT in pain relief has been a subject of debate, and conflicting results have been reported. Objective: To compare the effectiveness associated with SBRT vs cEBRT for relieving metastatic bone pain. Data Sources: A structured search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases on June 5, 2023. Additionally, results were added from a new randomized clinical trial (RCT) and additional unpublished data from an already published RCT. Study Selection: Comparative studies reporting pain response after SBRT vs cEBRT in patients with painful bone metastases. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible studies. Data were extracted for the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations. The study is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall and complete pain response at 1, 3, and 6 months after radiotherapy, according to the study's definition. Relative risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were calculated for each study. A random-effects model using a restricted maximum likelihood estimator was applied for meta-analysis. Results: There were 18 studies with 1685 patients included in the systematic review and 8 RCTs with 1090 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In 7 RCTs, overall pain response was defined according to the International Consensus on Palliative Radiotherapy Endpoints in clinical trials (ICPRE). The complete pain response was reported in 6 RCTs, all defined according to the ICPRE. The ITT meta-analyses showed that the overall pain response rates did not differ between cEBRT and SBRT at 1 (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.30), 3 (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.96-1.47), or 6 (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.96-1.54) months. However, SBRT was associated with a higher complete pain response at 1 (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.02-2.01), 3 (RR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.16-2.78), and 6 (RR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.24-4.91) months after radiotherapy. The PP meta-analyses showed comparable results. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, patients with painful bone metastases experienced similar overall pain response after SBRT compared with cEBRT. More patients had complete pain alleviation after SBRT, suggesting that selected subgroups will benefit from SBRT.

Potentially Inappropriate End of Life Care and Healthcare Costs in the Last 30 Days of Life in Regions Providing Integrated Palliative Care in the Netherlands: A Registration-based Study.

Introduction: This study aimed to assess the effect of integrated palliative care (IPC) on potentially inappropriate end- of-life care and healthcare-costs in the last 30 days of life in the Netherlands. Methods: Nationwide health-insurance claims data were used to assess potentially inappropriate end-of-life care (≥2 emergency room visits; ≥2 hospital admissions; >14 days hospitalization; chemotherapy; ICU admission; hospital death) and healthcare-costs in all deceased adults in IPC regions pre- and post- implementation and in those receiving IPC compared to a 1:2 matched control group. Results: In regions providing IPC deceased adults (n = 37,468) received significantly less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care post-implementation compared to pre-implementation (26.5% vs 27.9%; p < 0.05). Deceased adults who received IPC (n = 210) also received significantly less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care compared to a matched control group (14.8% vs 28.3%; p < 0.05). Mean hospital costs significantly decreased for deceased adults who received IPC (€2,817), while mean costs increased for general practitioner services (€311) and home care (€1,632). Discussion: These results highlight the importance of implementation of integrated palliative care and suitable payment. Further research in a larger sample is needed. Conclusion: This study shows less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care and a shift in healthcare costs from hospital to general practitioner and home care with IPC.