Assessment and treatment of symptoms among Italian medical oncologists

The PERSONS score: A new tool for cancer patients' symptom assessment in simultaneous care and home care settings

BACKGROUND

Scientific societies recommend early interaction between oncologic and supportive care, but there is still a lack of systematic evaluations regarding symptoms from the perspective of oncologists.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the PERSONS score, in both "simultaneous care" and "supportive care" settings using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) as a comparator.

RESULTS

From November 2017 to April 2018, 67 and 110 consecutive patients were enrolled in outpatient and home care cohorts, respectively. The final study population comprised 163 patients. There were no significant changes over time in the total PERSONS scores and total ESAS scale. The intra-interviewer reliability (ICC2,1) and inter-interviewer reliability (ICC2,k) showed good reproducibility (test-retest) in each group of patients: 0.60 (0.49-0.70) and 0.82 (0.75-0.87), respectively, for the home care patients and 0.73 (0.62-0.81) and 0.89 (0.83-0.93), respectively, for the outpatient cohort. There were high correlations between PERSONS and ESAS, both at the baseline and final assessments. The mean PERSONS and ESAS scores between the home care patients and outpatients were not different at the baseline and final assessments. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve for the PERSONS total score revealed good diagnostic ability. Area under the curve (AUC) was 0.825 and 0.805 for improvement and deterioration, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The PERSONS score is an easy to apply tool for symptom assessment. Importantly, the PERSONS score showed high concordance with the established ESAS scale and, therefore, provides an alternative for everyday use in supportive care assessment.

The PERSONS score for symptoms assessment in simultaneous care setting: A pilot study

One of the first steps to early integrate palliative care into oncology practice is a timely and efficient evaluation of symptoms (Bakitas et al., 2015; Davis et al., 2015; Temel et al., 2010). In a recent position paper, the Italian Association of Medical Oncology tells oncologists that they "must be able to prevent, recognize, measure, and treat all cancer-related symptoms" (Zagonel et al., 2017). Major international scientific societies such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society of Medical Oncology have often defined the key role of symptoms evaluation and management to force the integration of palliative care into oncology (Davis et al., 2015; Ferrel et al., 2017). Nevertheless, a recent survey conducted by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology shows that only 20% of oncologists regularly uses valid tools to evaluate symptoms, 45% exclusively use them in the context of clinical trials, 30% use them only occasionally, and 5% never use them (Zagonel et al., 2016).

Treatment-related side effects and quality of life in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Cancer leads to a complicated pattern of change in quality of life (QoL).

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to assess the impact of treatment-related side effects on QoL in cancer patients and to explore which other factors, and to what extent, contribute to explain low QoL scores.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-three cancer patients receiving chemotherapy completed the self-administered questionnaires (Medical Outcomes Short-Form-36 (SF-36) and 12-item General Health Questionnaire). Multiple regression analyses were conducted with the SF-36 physical component summary (PCS) and SF-36 mental component summary (MCS) scores as the dependent variables and demographic and clinical factors as independent variables.

RESULTS

Seventy-two percent of patients experienced treatment-related side effects, and 32% resulted positive for psychiatric diseases. Two multivariate analyses showed that worse PCS scores, like worse MCS scores, were significantly and independently predicted by treatment-related side effects (odds ratio (OR) = 5.00, 95%CI 1.29-19.45; OR = 8.08, 95%CI 2.03-32.22, respectively) and changes in health over the last 12 months (OR =2.34, 95%CI 1.47-3.76; OR = 3.21, 95%CI 1.90-5.41, respectively), after adjustment for age, gender, years of school, time from cancer diagnosis, and psychiatric disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the new emphasis on QoL, we suggest that physicians have a responsibility to openly discuss therapy efficacy, prognosis as well as the potential for adverse events with their patients. Changes in health, as perceived by patient, should also be monitored at follow-up.