PALLIA-10, a screening tool to identify patients needing palliative care referral in comprehensive cancer centers: A prospective multicentric study (PREPA-10)

Screening for Palliative Care Need in Oncology: Validation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

CONTEXT

Leading oncology societies recommend monitoring symptoms and support needs through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), but their use for assessing specialist palliative care (SPC) need has not yet been explored. Research on SPC integration has focused on staff-assessed screening tools, which are time-consuming.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the diagnostic validity of the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS) and NCCN Distress Thermometer (NCCN DT) in identifying need for SPC in patients with incurable cancer.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional study, patients with incurable cancer (prognosis <2 years) completed PROMs. In an independent process, the palliative care consultation service (PCCS) assessed the need for SPC in each patient through multiprofessional case review, and this was used as the reference standard. ROC analyses were employed to determine diagnostic validity.

RESULTS

Of the 208 participants, 71 (34.1 %) were classified as having SPC need by the PCCS. Aiming for a minimum sensitivity of 80%, a cut-off of ≥2 items with high/very high burden in the IPOS resulted in a 90.2% sensitivity (specificity = 50; AUC = 0.791; CI 95%= 0.724-0.858). A cut-off of ≥5 resulted in a sensitivity of 80 % for NCCN DT (specificity = 49.5 %; AUC = 0.687; CI 95% = 0.596-0.777).

CONCLUSION

PROMs are useful for identifying SPC need in cancer patients. Their implementation might facilitate timely integration of SPC. Future research should focus on an integrated assessment approach with PROMs that combines the requirements of the different specialties to save patient and staff resources.

Interrater agreement of multi-professional case review as reference standard for specialist palliative care need: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

A wide variety of screening tools for the need for specialist palliative care (SPC) have been proposed for the use in oncology. However, as there is no established reference standard for SPC need to compare their results with, their sensitivity and specificity have not yet been determined. The aim of the study was to explore whether SPC need assessment by means of multi-professional case review has sufficient interrater agreement to be employed as a reference standard.

METHODS

Comprehensive case descriptions were prepared for 20 inpatients with advanced oncologic disease at the University Hospital Freiburg (Germany). All cases were presented to the palliative care teams of three different hospitals in independent, multi-professional case review sessions. The teams assessed whether patients had support needs in nine categories and subsequently concluded SPC need (yes / no). Interrater agreement regarding SPC need was determined by calculating Fleiss' Kappa.

RESULTS

In 17 out of 20 cases the three teams agreed regarding their appraisal of SPC need (substantial interrater agreement: Fleiss' Kappa κ = 0.80 (95% CI: 0.55-1.0; p < 0.001)). The number of support needs was significantly lower for patients who all teams agreed had no SPC need than for those with agreed SPC need.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed expert case review process shows sufficient reliability to be used as a reference standard. Key elements of the case review process (e.g. clear definition of SPC need, standardized review of the patients' support needs) and possible modifications to simplify the process are discussed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00021686, registered 17.12.2020.

Impact of early palliative care on additional line of chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients: results from the randomized study OSS

PURPOSE

The most appropriate criteria and timing for palliative care referral remain a critical issue, especially in patients with metastatic breast cancer for whom long-term chemosensibility and survival are observed. We aimed to compare the impact of early palliative care including formal concertation with oncologists on decision for an additional line of chemotherapy compared with usual oncology care.

METHODS

This randomized prospective study enrolled adult women with metastatic breast cancer and visceral metastases with a 3rd- or 4th-line chemotherapy (CT). Patients received usual oncology care with a palliative care consultation only upon patient or oncologist request (standard group, S) or were referred to systematic palliative care consultation including a regular concertation between palliative care team and oncologists (early palliative care group, EPC). The primary endpoint was the rate of an additional CT (4th or 5th line) decision. Quality of life, symptoms, social support and satisfaction were self-evaluated at 6 and 12 months, at treatment discontinuation or 3 months after discontinuation.

RESULTS

From January 2009 to November 2012, two authorized cancer centers included 98 women (EPC: 50; S: 48). Thirty-seven (77.1%, 95%CI 62.7-88%) patients in the EPC group had a subsequent chemotherapy prescribed and 36 (72.0%, 95%CI 57.5-83.8%) in the S group (p = 0.646). No differences in symptom control and global quality of life were observed, but less deterioration in physical functioning was reported in EPC (EPC: 0 [- 53-40]; S: - 6; 7 [- 60 to - 20]; p = 0.027). Information exchange and communication were significant improved in EPC (exchange, EPC: - 8.3 [- 30 to + 7]; S: 0.0 [- 17 to + 23]; p = 0.024; communication, EPC: 12.5 [- 8 to - 37]; S: 0.0 [- 21 to + 17]; p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

EPC in metastatic breast cancer patients did not impact the prescription rate of additional chemotherapy in patients a 3rd- or 4th-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer; however, EPC may contribute to alleviate deterioration in physical functioning, while facilitating communication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT00905281, May 20, 2009.

Development of the palliative care referral system: proposal of a tool for the referral of cancer patients to specialized palliative care

BACKGROUND

Early palliative care (PC) has shown beneficial effects for advanced cancer patients. However, it is still debated what criteria to use to identify patients for PC referral.

AIM

To document the initial steps of the development of the Palliative Care Referral System (PCRS), a tool to be used by oncologists in clinical practice.

METHODS

A multiprofessional working group developed the PCRS based on the results of a scoping literature review on PC referral criteria. PCRS criteria were evaluated by experts via a nominal group technique (NGT). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize expert scores on relevance, appropriateness and perceived feasibility of the criteria proposed. Quotations of participants during the discussion were also reported.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies, including PC referral criteria/tools, emerged from the scoping review. Severe symptoms, poor performance status, comorbidities and prognosis were the most commonly used criteria. The PCRS included nine major criteria and nine assessment methods; a scoring procedure was also proposed. Answers to the questionnaire during the NGT showed that five criteria reached full agreement on all items, while four did not, and were then discussed within the group. Participants agreed on the relevance of all criteria and on the appropriateness of methods proposed to assess most of them, while issues were raised about potential feasibility of the overall assessment of the PCRS in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

The PCRS has been developed as an help for oncologists to timely identify patients for specialized PC referral. Since feasibility emerged as the main concern, implementation strategies have to be tested in subsequent studies.

Outpatient palliative care referral system (PCRS) for patients with advanced cancer: an impact evaluation protocol

INTRODUCTION

Early palliative care (PC) in the clinical pathway of advanced cancer patients improves symptom control, quality of life and has a positive impact on overall quality of care. At present, standardised criteria for appropriate referral for early PC in oncology care are lacking. The aim of this project is to develop a set of standardised referral criteria and procedures to implement appropriate early PC for advanced cancer patients (the palliative care referral system, PCRS) and test its impact on user perception of quality of care received, on patient quality of life and on the use of healthcare resources.

SETTING

Selected oncology clinics and PC outpatient clinic.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A scoping literature review and an expert consultation through a nominal group technique will be used to revise existing referral tools and to develop a new one, the PCRS. 25 patients will be enrolled in a pilot study to assess feasibility of the implementation of PCRS; 10 interviews with patients and healthcare professionals will be carried out to evaluate applicability.A pretest-post-test quasiexperimental study involving 150 patients before implementation of the PCRS and 150 patients after implementation will be carried out.Patient satisfaction with care received, quality of life and use of resources, and caregiver satisfaction with care will also be assessed to explore the impact of the intervention.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for the study has been granted by the Institutional Review board of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori; approval reference INT201/19.Results will be disseminated through open access publications and through scientific communication presented at national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04936568.

Development of a screening tool for the need of specialist palliative care in oncologic inpatients: study protocol for the ScreeningPALL Study

INTRODUCTION

A range of referral criteria and scores have been developed in recent years to help with screening for the need of specialist palliative care (SPC) in advanced, incurable cancer patients. However, referral criteria have not yet been widely implemented in oncology, as they usually need to be revised by physicians or nurses with limited time resources. To develop an easily applicable screening for the need for SPC in incurable cancer inpatients, we aim to (a) test inter-rater reliability of multiprofessional expert opinion as reference standard for SPC need (phase I) and (b) explore the diagnostic validity of selected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and routine data for the need of SPC (phase II).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Inclusion criteria for patients are metastatic or locally advanced, incurable cancer, ≥18 years of age and informed consent by patient or proxy. (Exclusion criteria: malignant haematological disease as main diagnosis). In phase I, three palliative care consultation teams (PCTs) of three German university hospitals assess the SPC need of 20 patient cases. Fleiss' Kappa will be calculated for inter-rater reliability. In phase II, 208 patients are consecutively recruited in four inpatient oncology wards of Freiburg University Hospital. The PCT will provide assessment of SPC need. As potential referral criteria, patients complete PROMs and a selection of routine data on person, disease and treatment is documented. Logistic regression models and ROC analyses are employed to test their utility in screening for SPC need.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Our findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international scientific meetings and congresses. Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Germany (approval no. 20-1103).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00021686, registered on 17 December 2020.

PALLIA 10 score in phase I cancer studies

OBJECTIVE

Phase I clinical trials usually include patients with advanced disease who have failed standard therapies and should benefit from early palliative care. We try to assess whether PALLIA 10, a score developed in France to help identify patients who might benefit from a palliative care referral, could be used in a phase I department trial.

METHODS

We assessed PALLIA 10 score and other prognostic factors in patients enrolled in phase I trials at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center prospectively during two periods of time (cohort 1 (C1) and 2 (C2)). A double-blind assessment of the PALLIA 10 score was done in C2 by a palliative care specialist and a nurse.

RESULTS

From 1 July 2018 to 1 November 2018 (C1) and from 1 December 2020 to 16 April 2021 (C2), 86 patients were assessed in C1 and 302 in C2. Median PALLIA 10 was very low in both cohorts (median 1, range 1-5 in C1 and 1-8 in C2). On C1 and C2, 12% and 5% of patients had a dedicated palliative consultation. In C2, assessment of PALLIA 10 score was significantly different between palliative care physician (median 5, range 3-8), phase I physician (median 1, range 1-6) and phase I nurse (median 3, range 1-8) (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Median PALLIA 10 score was low when assessed by the phase I physician, which suggests the need for a better tool and appropriate clinician's education to implement early palliative care in clinical practice and trials.

Reasons for acceptance and refusal of early palliative care in patients included in early-phase clinical trials in a regional comprehensive cancer centre in France: protocol for a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

A few studies have highlighted the potential synergy between early palliative care and inclusion in an early-phase clinical trial that may improve quality of life, reduce symptoms of exhaustion related to the side effects of treatment and allow patients to complete their treatment protocol. The primary objective of this qualitative study is to evaluate the reasons for acceptance or refusal of early palliative care in patients included in early-phase clinical trials.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

All patients from the Centre Léon Bérard (Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Lyon, France) who consent to one of the early-phase clinical trials proposed at the centre will be invited to participate in this study. The cohort will consist of a subgroup (n=20) of patients who accept palliative care together with their clinical trial, and a second subgroup (n=20) of patients who decline it. Patients will be interviewed in exploratory interviews conducted by a psychology researcher before the start of their clinical trial. The interviews will be audio-recorded. Patients will also be asked to complete quality of life and anxiety/depression questionnaires both before the beginning of the treatment and at the end of their clinical trial. The content of the interviews will be analysed thematically. Descriptive and comparative statistical analysis of both cohorts will also be conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Personal data will be collected and processed in accordance with the laws and regulations in force. All patients will give informed consent to participate. This study complies with reference methodology MR004 of the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés. The protocol has received the validation of an ethics committee (Groupe de Réflexion Ethique du CLB, number: 2020-006). The results will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04717440.

[Health- and disease-related data of inpatients in palliative care units of the Comprehensive Cancer Centers and other hospitals in comparison-Data from the Hospice and Palliative Care Register]

BACKGROUND

The National Hospice and Palliative Registry is a database for palliative care facilities documenting a core data set for quality assurance and scientific evaluations.

OBJECTIVES

The study aims identifying differences between patients in palliative care units treated in Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) or other hospitals (OH) focussing on sociodemographic and health/disease-related characteristics.

METHODS

Descriptive data analysis using IBM SPSS Statistics 21 included patients treated from 2014 to 2018. Comparisons included sociodemographic data, diagnoses, ECOG status and treatment duration.

RESULTS

12,922 patient data were analyzed (CCC n = 4975/OH = 7947). In CCCs 79.8% had a tumor diagnosis, in other hospitals 85.1%. The proportion of patients with ECOG 4 was higher in CCCs than in other hospitals. The average length of stay in CCCs was 12.6 days, in other hospitals 11.3 days (p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Data show differences between patients in palliative care implicating CCCs treating more complex palliative care patients than other hospitals.

Palliative care referral criteria and outcomes in cancer and heart failure: a systematic review of literature

BACKGROUND

Cardiotoxicity resulting in heart failure (HF) is among the most dreaded complications of cancer therapy and can significantly impact morbidity and mortality. Leading professional societies in cardiology and oncology recommend improved access to hospice and palliative care (PC) for patients with cancer and advanced HF. However, there is a paucity of published literature on the use of PC in cardio-oncology, particularly in patients with HF and a concurrent diagnosis of cancer.

AIMS

To identify existing criteria for referral to and early integration of PC in the management of cases of patients with cancer and patients with HF, and to identify assessments of outcomes of PC intervention that overlap between patients with cancer and patients with HF.

DESIGN

Systematic literature review on PC in patients with HF and in patients with cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Databases including Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 2009 to September 2020.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies of PC in cancer and 14 studies of PC in HF were identified after screening of the 8647 retrieved citations. Cancer and HF share similarities in their patient-reported symptoms, quality of life, symptom burden, social support needs, readmission rates, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

The literature supports the integration of PC into oncology and cardiology practices, which has shown significant benefit to patients, caregivers, and the healthcare system alike. Incorporating PC in cardio-oncology, particularly in the management of HF in patients with cancer, as early as at diagnosis, will enable patients, family members, and healthcare professionals to make informed decisions about various treatments and end-of-life care and provide an opportunity for patients to participate in the decisions about how they will spend their final days.

"I'm Dealing With That": Illness Concerns of African American and White Cancer Patients While Undergoing Active Cancer Treatments

BACKGROUND

National oncology guidelines recommend early integration of palliative care for patients with cancer. However, drivers for this integration remain understudied. Understanding illness concerns at the time of cancer treatment may help facilitate integration earlier in the cancer illness trajectory.

OBJECTIVE

To describe cancer patients' concerns while undergoing cancer treatment, and determine if concerns differ among African Americans and Whites.

METHODS

A 1-time, semi-structured qualitative interview was conducted with a purposive subsample of cancer patients participating in a larger study of illness concerns. Eligible patients were undergoing cancer treatments and had self-reported moderate-to-severe pain in the last week. Analysis encompassed a qualitative descriptive approach with inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants (16 African American, 16 White) had a median age of 53 and were predominantly females (72%) with stage III/IV cancer (53%). Illness concerns were largely consistent across participants and converged on 3 themes: symptom experience (pain, options to manage pain), cancer care delivery (communication, care coordination and care transitions), and practical concerns (access to community and health system resources, financial toxicity).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings extend the scope of factors that could be utilized to integrate palliative care earlier in the cancer illness trajectory, moving beyond the symptoms- and prognosis-based triggers that typify current referrals to also consider diverse logistical concerns. Using this larger set of concerns aids anticipatory risk mitigation and planning (e.g. care transitions, financial toxicity), helps patients receive a larger complement of support services, and builds cancer patients' capacity toward a more patient-centered treatment and care experience.

Spanish and Portuguese Societies of Internal Medicine consensus guideline about best practice in end-of-life care

AIM

To develop consensus recommendations about good clinical practice rules for caring end-of-life patients.

METHODS

A steering committee of 12 Spanish and Portuguese experts proposed 37 recommendations. A two rounds Delphi method was performed, with participation of 105 panelists including internists, other clinicians, nurses, patients, lawyers, bioethicians, health managers, politicians and journalists. We sent a questionnaire with 5 Likert-type answers for each recommendation. Strong consensus was defined when > 95% answers were completely agree or > 90% were agree or completely agree; and weak consensus when > 90% answers were completely agree or > 80% were agree or completely agree.

RESULTS

The panel addressed 7 specific areas for 37 recommendations spanning: identification of patients; knowledge of the disease, values and preferences of the patient; information; patient's needs; support and care; palliative sedation, and after death care.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel formulated and provided the rationale for recommendations on good clinical practice rules for caring end-of-life patients.

Educating Internal Medicine Residents on Palliative Medicine and Hospice Care at a Community Teaching Hospital

BACKGROUND

The Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) currently requires Internal Medicine (IM) GME programs to incorporate educational opportunities for training and structured experiences in Palliative and Hospice Medicine. Miscomprehension of the differences between palliative medicine and hospice care is a barrier for IM residents ordering palliative consults as many residents may underutilize palliative medicine if a patient is not appropriate for hospice.

OBJECTIVE

This educational performance improvement (PI) project assessed 3 domains, including Medical Knowledge (MK) of palliative versus hospice medicine at baseline and following a single didactic session. Additionally, the number of palliative consults ordered was used as a surrogate for interpersonal and communication skills (ICS) and patient care (PC) domains.

METHODS

An 8-question survey and 30-minute didactic session were created based upon experientially-determined issues most confusing to IM residents. Participants included 33 IM residents (PGY-1s-3 s) from July 2018 (first cohort) and 32 (PGY-1 s and any PGY-2s-3 s who did not participate in the first cohort) from July 2019 (second cohort).

RESULTS

65 of a possible 73 residents participated (89% response rate) Pre-test Questions 5, 6, and 8 correct responses were <50% in both cohorts with average scores, respectively, of 43.1%, 35.4%, and 40%. Residents improved on the post-test for Q5, 6, 8 to, respectively, 80%, 86.7%, and 48.3% (t = 7.68, df = 59, p < 001). Correct Q1 responses declined in the first cohort, but clarification for the second cohort improved from pre-test (36.4%) to post-test (65.5%). The total number of palliative consults placed by IM residents increased as well.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline MK of palliative versus hospice medicine was <50% on 4/8 questions. A brief educational session significantly improved residents' short-term comprehension and increased the number of palliative consults.

Spanish and Portuguese Societies of Internal Medicine consensus guideline about best practice in end-of-life care

AIM

To develop consensus recommendations about good clinical practice rules for caring end-of-life patients.

METHODS

A steering committee of 12 Spanish and Portuguese experts proposed 37 recommendations. A two rounds Delphi method was performed, with participation of 105 panelists including internists, other clinicians, nurses, patients, lawyers, bioethicians, health managers, politicians and journalists. We sent a questionnaire with 5 Likert-type answers for each recommendation. Strong consensus was defined when >95% answers were completely agree or >90% were agree or completely agree; and weak consensus when >90% answers were completely agree or >80% were agree or completely agree.

RESULTS

The panel addressed 7 specific areas for 37 recommendations spanning: identification of patients; knowledge of the disease, values and preferences of the patient; information; patient's needs; support and care; palliative sedation, and after death care.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel formulated and provided the rationale for recommendations on good clinical practice rules for caring end-of-life patients.

Level of Palliative Care Complexity in Advanced Cancer Patients: A Multinomial Logistic Analysis

The current treatment approach for patients in palliative care (PC) requires a health model based on shared and individualised care, according to the degree of complexity encountered. The aims of this study were to describe the levels of complexity that may be present, to determine their most prevalent elements and to identify factors that may be related to palliative complexity in advanced-stage cancer patients. An observational retrospective study was performed of patients attended to at the Cudeca Hospice. Socio-demographic and clinical data were compiled, together with information on the patients’ functional and performance status (according to the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS)). The level of complexity was determined by the Diagnostic Instrument of Complexity in Palliative Care (IDC-Pal©) and classified as highly complex, complex or non-complex. The impact of the independent variables on PC complexity was assessed by multinomial logistic regression analysis. Of the 501 patients studied, 44.8% presented a situation classed as highly complex and another 44% were considered complex. The highly complex items most frequently observed were the absence or insufficiency of family support and/or caregivers (24.3%) and the presence of difficult-to-control symptoms (17.3%). The complex item most frequently observed was an abrupt change in the level of functional autonomy (47.6%). The main factor related to the presence of high vs. non-complexity was that of performance status (odds ratio (OR) = 10.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.81–40.52, for PPS values < 40%). However, age was inversely related to high complexity. This study confirms the high level of complexity present in patients referred to a PC centre. Determining the factors related to this complexity could help physicians identify situations calling for timely referral for specialised PC, such as a low PPS score.

The Use of a Palliative Care Screening Tool to Improve Referrals to Palliative Care Services in Community-Based Hospitals: A Quality Improvement Initiative

Despite efforts to improve access to palliative care services, a significant number of patients still have unmet needs throughout their continuum of care. As such, this project was conducted to increase recognition of patients who could benefit from palliative care, increase referrals, and connect regional sites. This study utilized Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles through a quality improvement approach to develop and test the Palliative Care Screening Tool and aimed to screen 100% of patients within 24 hours who were admitted to selected units by February 2017. The intervention was implemented in 3 different units, each within community hospitals. Patients 18 years or older were screened if they were admitted to one of the selected units for the project, regardless of their diagnosis, age, or comorbidities. The percentage of newly admitted patients who were screened and the total number of palliative care consults were assessed as outcome measures. The tool was met with varying compliance among the 3 sites. However, there was an overall increase in consults across all hospital sites, and an increase in the proportion of noncancer patients was demonstrated. Although the aim was not reached, the tool helped to create a shift in the demographic of patients identified as palliative.

PALLIA-10, a screening tool to identify patients needing palliative care referral in comprehensive cancer centers: A prospective multicentric study (PREPA-10)

Purpose

The identification and referral of patients in need of palliative care should be improved. The French society for palliative support and care recommended to use the PALLIA‐10 questionnaire and its score greater than 3 to refer patients to palliative care. We explored the use of the PALLIA‐10 questionnaire and its related score in a population of advanced cancer patients.

Methods

This prospective multicentric study is to be conducted in authorized French comprehensive cancer centers on hospitalized patients on a given day. We aimed to use the PALLIA‐10 score to determine the proportion of palliative patients with a score >3. Main secondary endpoints were to determine the proportion of patients already managed by palliative care teams at the study date or referred to palliative care in six following months, the prevalence of patients with a score greater than 5, and the overall survival using the predefined thresholds of 3 and 5.

Results

In 2015, eighteen French cancer centers enrolled 840 patients, including 687 (82%) palliative patients. 479 (69.5%) patients had a score >3, 230 (33.5%) had a score >5, 216 (31.4%) patients were already followed‐up by a palliative care team, 152 patients were finally referred to PC in the six subsequent months.

The PALLIA‐10 score appeared as a reliable predictive (adjusted OR_Ref≤3: 1.9 [1.17‐3.16] and 3.59 [2.18‐5.91]) and prognostic (adjusted HR_Ref≤3 = 1.58 [95%CI 1.20‐2.08] and 2.18 [95%CI 1.63‐2.92]) factor for patients scored 4‐5 and >5, respectively.

Conclusion

The PALLIA‐10 questionnaire is an easy‐to‐use tool to refer cancer inpatients to palliative care in current practice. However a score greater than 5 using the PALLIA‐10 questionnaire would be more appropriate for advanced cancer patients hospitalized in comprehensive cancer center.