Associations between baseline symptom burden as assessed by patient-reported outcomes and overall survival of patients with metastatic cancer

A whole food, plant-based randomized controlled trial in metastatic breast cancer: feasibility, nutrient, and patient-reported outcomes

PURPOSE

Quality of life (QOL) is among the most important outcomes for women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), and it predicts survival. QOL is negatively impacted by cognitive impairment, fatigue, and weight gain. We assessed whether a whole food, plant-based (WFPB) diet-promoting weight loss is feasible and might improve QOL.

METHODS

Women with MBC on stable systemic treatments were randomized 2:1 to 1) WFPB dietary intervention (n = 21) or 2) usual care (n = 11) for 8 weeks. Participants attended weekly education visits and consumed an ad libitum WFPB diet (3 prepared meals/day provided). Patient-reported outcomes and 3-day food records were assessed at baseline and 8 weeks. The effects of WFPB diet on changes in outcomes were assessed by analysis of covariance model controlling for baseline.

RESULTS

20 intervention and 10 control participants completed the trial. Intervention participants were highly adherent to the WFPB diet (94.3 % total calories on-plan). Intervention group nutrient intakes changed significantly including dietary fat (35.8 % to 20.4 % percent calories from fat, p < 0.001) and fiber content (12.7 to 30.8 g fiber/1000 kcal, p < 0.001). Perceived cognitive function (FACT-Cog total + 16.1; 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.8-31.7; p = 0.040) and emotional well-being (FACT-B emotional well-being subscale + 2.3; CI = 0.5-4.1; p = 0.016) improved in the WFPB versus the control group. Fatigue, measured by the BFI, improved within the WFPB group for fatigue severity (M = 4.7 ± 2.5[SD] to 3.7 ± 2.3, p = 0.047) and fatigue at its worst (5.8 ± 2.8 to 4.4 ± 2.4, p = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant dietary changes in this population are feasible and may improve QOL by improving treatment-related symptoms. Additional study is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03045289. Registered 7 February 2017.

The effect of a fatigue self-management program based on individual and family self-management theory in cancer patients: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to investigate the effect of the Fatigue Self-Management Program based on the Individual and Family Self-Management Theory on fatigue, daily living activities, and well-being in cancer patients.

METHODS

This randomized controlled single-blind experimental study was carried out between November 2020 and April 2022. A total of 94 patients with advanced cancer, 47 in each group, were included in the study, and 57 participants completed the study. Data were collected using the Brief Fatigue Inventory, Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living, and Well-Being Questionnaire-22. The Fatigue Self-Management Program based on Individual and Family Self-Management Theory was delivered to the intervention group with two face-to-face and two tele-monitoring sessions. No intervention was applied to the control group, who received only routine care.

RESULTS

The mean score of fatigue in the intervention group compared to the control group decreased, and the difference was statistically significant (p < .05); daily living activities mean scores were higher than the control group, but there was no statistically significant difference (p > .05). The mean scores of depression and anxiety in the intervention group were lower than those in the control group; energy, positive well-being, and general well-being mean scores were found to be higher than those in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The Fatigue Self-Management Program effectively reduces the fatigue experienced by cancer patients and increases their well-being but it does not increase their independence in daily living activities.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY

NCT04822220.

A comparison of the prevalence of dry mouth and other symptoms using two different versions of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System on an inpatient palliative care unit

BACKGROUND

Symptom assessment is key to effective symptom management and palliative care for patients with advanced cancer. Symptom prevalence and severity estimates vary widely, possibly dependent on the assessment tool used. Are symptoms specifically asked about or must the patients add them as additional symptoms? This study compared the prevalence and severity of patient-reported symptoms in two different versions of a multi-symptom assessment tool. In one version, three symptoms dry mouth, constipation, sleep problems were among those systematically assessed, while in the other, these symptoms had to be added as an "Other problem".

METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional study included adult patients with advanced cancer at an inpatient palliative care unit. Data were collected from two versions of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): modified (ESAS-m) listed 11 symptoms and revised (ESAS-r) listed 9 and allowed patients to add one "Other problem". Seven similar symptoms were listed in both versions.

RESULTS

In 2013, 184 patients completed ESAS-m, and in 2017, 156 completed ESAS-r. Prevalence and severity of symptoms listed in both versions did not differ. In ESAS-m, 83% reported dry mouth, 73% constipation, and 71% sleep problems, but on ESAS-r, these symptoms were reported by only 3%, 15% and < 1%, respectively. Although ESAS-r severity scores for these three symptoms were higher than on ESAS-m, differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

We identified significant differences in patient symptom reporting based on whether symptoms like dry mouth, obstipation and sleep problems were specifically assessed or had to be added by patients as an "Other problem".

SMART-ESAS: Smartphone Monitoring and Assessment in Real Time of Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Scores for Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE

Serial patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements in clinical practice are associated with a better quality of life and survival. Recording electronic PROs using smartphones is an efficient way to implement this. We aimed to assess the feasibility of the electronically filled Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (e-ESAS) scale in the lower-middle-income country (LMIC) setting.

METHODS

Baseline clinical features and conventional paper-based ESAS (p-ESAS) were collected in newly diagnosed patients with solid organ tumors. Text message link was sent to these patients for filling e-ESAS. ESAS was categorized into physical, psychological, and total symptom domains. Scores were divided into none to mild (0-3) and moderate to severe (4-10). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to determine the correlation between p-ESAS and e-ESAS. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent factors affecting symptom burden.

RESULTS

Of 1,160 participants who filled out p-ESAS, 595 completed both e-ESAS and p-ESAS questionnaires and were included in the final analysis. Moderate to severe physical, psychological, and total symptom scores were seen in 39.8%, 40%, and 39% of participants. Tiredness and anxiety were the most common physical and psychological symptoms, respectively. ICCs between the p-ESAS and e-ESAS varied between 0.75 and 0.9. Total symptom scores were independently predicted by metastatic disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.26 to 2.67; P = .001) and a higher level of education (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.72; P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Paper-based and electronically filled ESASs have good intraobserver reliability across individual symptoms and domain scores in a representative cohort at a tertiary care institute in the LMIC. This may help us incorporate e-ESAS in routine clinical care in the real-world setting with financial, infrastructural, and manpower limitations.

Testing the feasibility of mobile ecological momentary assessment for symptom burden and management among metastatic cancer patients

Background

Individuals who have metastatic cancer experience substantial physical and psychological distress (e.g., pain, depression, anxiety) from their disease and its treatment compared to patients with less advanced disease. As the burden of symptoms varies over time, ecological momentary assessment (EMA) may be used to better understand patients' symptom trajectories, complimenting traditional longitudinal data collection methods. However, few have used EMA in patients with metastatic disease. The current study adds to the existing literature by exploring interrelated, common cancer-related symptoms of pain, anxiety, and depression and use of cannabis-based products, opioid medications, other (nonopioid) pain medications, and medications for anxiety or depression.

Methods

An eight-day prospective observational feasibility study was conducted among 50 patients with metastatic cancer recruited from seven solid cancer clinics at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. Participants completed a week of interval-contingent mobile EMA, administered daily at 9 a.m., 3 p.m., and 8 p.m., and a comprehensive interviewer-administered questionnaire on Day 8. Participants were queried on their symptom burden and management strategies (i.e., use of medications and cannabis). We considered EMA to be feasible if a priori retention (80%) and adherence goals (75%) were met.

Results

Seventy-nine percent of eligible patients contacted enrolled in the study (n = 50 of 63). Among those enrolled, 92% were retained through Day 8 and 80% completed >90% of EMAs, exceeding a priori objectives. Participants' average pain, anxiety, and depressive symptoms across the week of EMA ranged from 1.7 to 1.8 (1 to 5 scale). Symptoms varied little by day or time of administration. On Day 8, significant proportions of participants reported past-week use of medications and cannabis for symptom management.

Conclusions

Participants exceeded a priori adherence and retention objectives, indicating that mobile EMA is feasible among metastatic cancer patients, addressing a gap in the existing literature and informing future research. Restricting eligibility to participants with a minimum cutoff of symptom burden may be warranted to increase observations of symptom variability and provide opportunities for future health interventions. Future research is needed to test the acceptability and quality of data over a longer study period in this patient population.

A Whole Food, Plant-Based Randomized Controlled Trial in Metastatic Breast Cancer: Feasibility, Nutrient, and Patient-Reported Outcomes

Purpose

Quality of life (QOL) is among the most important outcomes for women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and it predicts survival. QOL is negatively impacted by cognitive impairment, fatigue, and weight gain. We assessed whether a whole food, plant-based (WFPB) diet promoting weight loss is feasible and might improve QOL.

Methods

Women with MBC on stable systemic treatments were randomized 2:1 to 1) WFPB dietary intervention (n = 21) or 2) usual care (n = 11) for 8 weeks. Participants attended weekly education visits and consumed an ad libitum WFPB diet (3 prepared meals/day provided). Patient-reported outcomes and 3-day food records were assessed at baseline and 8 weeks. The effects of WFPB diet on changes in outcomes were assessed by analysis of covariance model controlling for baseline.

Results

20 intervention and 10 control participants completed the trial. Intervention participants were highly adherent to the WFPB diet (94.3% total calories on-plan). Intervention group nutrient intakes changed significantly including dietary fat (35.8-20.4% percent calories from fat, p < 0.001) and fiber content (22.1 to 40.8 grams fiber/1000 kcal, p < 0.001). Perceived cognitive function (FACT-Cog total + 16.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.8-31.7; p = 0.040) and emotional well-being (FACT-B emotional well-being subscale + 2.3; CI = 0.5-4.1; p = 0.016) improved in the WFPB versus the control group. Fatigue, measured by the BFI, improved within the WFPB group for fatigue severity (M = 4.7 ± 2.5[SD] to 3.7 ± 2.3, p = 0.047) and fatigue at its worst (5.8 ± 2.8 to 4.4 ± 2.4, p = 0.011).

Conclusions

Significant dietary changes in this population are feasible and may improve QOL by improving treatment-related symptoms. Additional study is warranted.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03045289. Registered 7 February 2017.

Systematic symptom management in the IMPACT Consortium: rationale and design for 3 effectiveness-implementation trials

Cancer and its treatment produce deleterious symptoms across the phases of care. Poorly controlled symptoms negatively affect quality of life and result in increased health-care needs and hospitalization. The Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium was created to develop 3 large-scale, systematic symptom management systems, deployed through electronic health record platforms, and to test them in pragmatic, randomized, hybrid effectiveness and implementation trials. Here, we describe the IMPACT Consortium's conceptual framework, its organizational components, and plans for evaluation. The study designs and lessons learned are highlighted in the context of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clinical outcomes of ramucirumab plus docetaxel in the treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer after immunotherapy: a systematic literature review

Introduction

In the REVEL trial, ramucirumab plus docetaxel demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR) compared with placebo plus docetaxel for treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that progressed during or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Since the approval of ramucirumab plus docetaxel, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), either as single agents or in combination with chemotherapy, have become the standard of care for first-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC. However, efficacy and safety data for ramucirumab plus docetaxel after prior ICI treatment from randomized controlled clinical studies are lacking.

Methods

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic literature review was performed. Electronic databases and select international oncology conference proceedings were searched. Studies published between 01 January 2014 and 01 July 2022, which evaluated 2 efficacy outcomes (and included at least 1 time-to-event endpoint) or safety outcomes of ramucirumab plus docetaxel in NSCLC that progressed after prior ICI treatment, were identified. Twelve studies were included in the analysis. Two treatment groups were selected: ramucirumab plus docetaxel after prior ICI ± chemotherapy (RAM + DTX ICI pre-treated) and ramucirumab plus docetaxel after prior chemotherapy only (RAM + DTX ICI naïve). OS, PFS, ORR, disease control rate (DCR), and safety data were extracted and descriptively summarized across both treatment groups.

Results

The pooled weighted median PFS and median OS were 5.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.9-6.8) and 11.2 months (95% CI: 7.5-17.5), respectively, in the RAM + DTX ICI pre-treated group and 3.8 months (95% CI: 2.3-4.1) and 13.5 months (95% CI: 8-24.0), respectively, in the RAM + DTX ICI naïve group. The ORR and DCR ranged from 20.9% to 60.0% and from 62.4% to 90.0%, respectively, in the RAM + DTX ICI pre-treated group and from 17.7% to 20.0% and from 57.1% to 75.0%, respectively, in the RAM + DTX ICI naïve group. The safety profile across studies was consistent between both treatment groups, and no new safety signals were reported.

Conclusions

Cumulatively, these results support the combination of ramucirumab plus docetaxel as an effective and safe subsequent therapy for the treatment of patients with metastatic NSCLC with disease progression irrespective of previous ICI treatment.

Survival Prediction of Patients Who Were Terminally Ill Using the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL Scores and Laboratory Test Values

Background

Prognostics for patients with cancer is especially important for the supportive care of those who are terminally ill. We previously found that symptom scores as patient-reported outcomes (PROs)-such as dyspnea and fatigue scores-some biochemical parameters, the palliative performance scale (PPS) scores, and symptom clusters were useful prognostic factors; however, the predictability of a prognosis based on these factors remains unclear.

Objective

To identify appropriate three-week survival predictive factor(s), in terms of performance, in patients who were terminally ill.

Design

We collected symptom scores as PROs using the Japanese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative Care (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL).

Setting/Subjects

We used data from terminally ill patients with cancer who were hospitalized at the palliative care unit of the Higashisumiyoshi-Morimoto Hospital (Osaka, Japan) from June 2018 to December 2019 (n = 130), as well as additional data obtained from the same clinical study from January to March 2020 (n = 31).

Measurements

To evaluate predictive performance, indices such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall accuracy were calculated.

Results

We found that the presence of a symptom cluster showed high sensitivity but low specificity and that a higher PPS value (>30) showed high specificity but low sensitivity, suggesting that these factors could provide relevant information for survival prognosis (less than or equal to three weeks).

Conclusion

Symptom clusters obtained from patients is important for effective supportive care of those who are terminally ill.

Patient Perspectives on Value Dimensions of Lung Cancer Care: Cross-sectional Web-Based Survey

BACKGROUND

While the lung cancer (LC) treatment landscape has rapidly evolved in recent years, easing symptom burden and treatment side effects remain central considerations in disease control.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the relative importance of dimensions of LC care to patients, and to explore the disease burden, including socioeconomic aspects not commonly covered in patient-reported outcomes instruments.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to patients with LC and their caregivers to rate the value of a diverse set of quality of life dimensions in care, to evaluate communication between health care professionals (HCPs) and patients, and to explore the economic impact on respondents. The survey included questions on the dimensions of care covered by patient-reported outcomes instruments for quality-of-life evaluation (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung scale, EQ-5D, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Core Quality of Life questionnaire, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Core Quality of Life in lung cancer 13-item questionnaire), as well as the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) standard set of patient-centered outcomes for LC. The survey respondents were participants on Carenity's patient community platform, living either in France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, or Spain.

RESULTS

The survey included 150 respondents (115 patients and 35 caregivers). "Physical well-being" and "end-of-life care" (median scores of 9.6, IQR 7.7-10, and 9.7, IQR 8.0-10, on a 10-point scale) were rated highest among the different value dimensions assessed. "Physical well-being and functioning" was the dimension most frequently discussed with health care professionals (82/150, 55%), while only (17/100, 17%) reported discussing "end-of-life care." After diagnosis, 43% (49/112) of patients younger than 65 years stopped working. Among respondents who indicated their monthly household income before and after diagnosis, 55% (38/69) reported a loss of income.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed the relevance of a broad range of aspects of care for the quality of life of patients with LC. End-of-life care was the dimension of care rated highest by patients with LC, irrespective of stage at diagnosis; however, this aspect is least frequently discussed with HCPs. The results also highlight the considerable socioeconomic impact of the disease, despite insurance coverage of direct costs.

In the weeds: a retrospective study of patient interest in and experience with cannabis at a cancer center

BACKGROUND

Cannabis products, including the cannabinoids CBD and THC, are rising in popularity and increasingly used for medical purposes. While there is some evidence that cannabinoids improve cancer-associated symptoms, understanding regarding appropriate use remains incomplete.

PURPOSE

To describe patient experiences with medical cannabis with focus on use contexts and patients' reported benefits and harms.

METHODS

A standardized intake form was implemented in a dedicated medical cannabis clinic at an NCI-designated cancer center; data from this form was abstracted for all initial visits from October 2019 to October 2020. We report descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis, and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 163 unique new patients, cannabis therapy was commonly sought for sleep, pain, anxiety, and appetite. Twenty-nine percent expressed interest for cancer treatment; 40% and 46% reported past use of CBD and THC, respectively, for medical purposes. Among past CBD users, the most commonly reported benefits were less pain (21%) or anxiety (17%) and improvement in sleep (15%); 92% reported no side effects. Among those with past THC use, reported benefits included improvement in appetite (40%), sleep (32%), nausea (28%), and pain (17%); side effects included feeling "high." Seeking cannabis for anti-neoplastic effects was associated with receipt of active cancer treatment in both univariate and multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Cancer patients seek medical cannabis to address a wide variety of concerns despite insufficient evidence of benefits and harms. As more states move to legalize medical and recreational cannabis, cancer care providers must remain aware of emerging data and develop knowledge and skills to counsel their patients about its use.

The Acceptability and Feasibility of Routine Use of Validated Cancer Symptom Assessment Instruments Among Patients and Nurses in the Oncology Ward at Princess Marina Hospital, in Gaborone, Botswana

This cross-sectional study evaluated the acceptability and feasibility of oncology nurses using validated cancer symptom assessment instruments to assess symptom burden. A consecutive sample of cancer patients and oncology ward nurses at a hospital in Gaborone, Botswana, was used. Patients' symptom burden was assessed using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale-Short Form and the Visual Analog Scale-Pain, and patient- and nurse-acceptability data were assessed using the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Intervention Rating Profile. Rates of participation, assessment length of time, and rates of completed Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale-Short Form and Visual Analog Scale-Pain determined feasibility. The sample included 124 patients (female, 84) and 20 nurses (female, 14). The mean (SD) Client Satisfaction Questionnaire score was 30.1 (2.8; minimum-maximum, 19-32), and the mean (SD) Intervention Rating Profile score was 86.8 (4.3; minimum-maximum, 74-90). There was a significant difference in the scores of the Intervention Rating Profile between preassessment (mean [SD], 80.1 [6.0]) and postassessment (mean [SD], 86.8 [4.3]; t19 = -4.853, P < .001). All patient participants (100%) completed assessments. The routine nursing assessment was acceptable to and feasible among patients and nurses. Nurses can integrate validated instruments into routine nursing assessment to determine patients' symptom burden for quick referrals to palliative care.

Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System adult profile-57 (PROMIS-57)

Background

The PROMIS-57 is a commonly used self-reported instrument to solve the lack of generalizable and universal measures required to evaluate common symptoms and functions from patients’ perspectives. This study aimed to translate the PROMIS-57 into Chinese and psychometrically test the translated instrument on patients with breast cancer.

Methods

Translation, cross‑cultural adaptation, and psychometric evaluation of the instrument were performed from June 2020 to June 2021. Eligible patients were recruited and completed the PROMIS-57, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), and a sociodemographic questionnaire.

Results

Data from 602 patients with a mean age of 48.83 years were analyzed. Most domains in the PROMIS-57 showed an absence of floor and ceiling effects. Multi-trait scaling analysis demonstrated acceptable convergent and discriminant validity. The correlations between the PROMIS-57 scores and the selected FACT-B scores supported the criterion validity via the Pearson correlation test. Measurement invariance was supported by the absence of differential item functioning for most items. Cronbach’s α of the domains ranged from 0.85–0.95. The unidimensional factor structure of all domains was supported using confirmatory factor analyses. Additionally, most items showed acceptable item information curves and item characteristics curve matrices.

Conclusion

The Chinese version of the PROMIS-57 was found to be a reliable and valid tool for assessing common symptoms and functions among patients with breast cancer.

Assessment of Changes in Symptoms Is Feasible and Prognostic in the Last Weeks of Life: An International Multicenter Cohort Study

Background: Symptoms are not typically part of established various prognostic factors and scoring systems but are among the most frequently assessed issues in patient care. Objectives: To evaluate that, changes in symptoms can provide additional useful prognostic information. Design: A secondary analysis of an international cohort study in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Setting/Subjects: Subjects were adult patients with advanced cancer (n = 2074) who were admitted to 37 palliative care units (PCUs) in 3 countries from January 2017 to September 2018. Measurements: Symptoms (dyspnea, fatigue, dry mouth, and drowsiness) were assessed at admission and one-week later. Dyspnea was assessed by the presence of resting and exertional dyspnea, whereas other symptoms were assessed using the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scales (IPOS) (range 0-4). For analysis, we grouped patients by symptom change, as either Improved, Stable, or Worsened (by having at least a one increment decrease, no change, or at least a one increment increase, respectively). Results: Worsened groups had the shortest survival (median survival 15-21 days) compared with those with Improved (median survival 23-31 days) and Stable symptoms (median survival 27-29 days) across all four symptoms (dyspnea, fatigue, dry mouth, and drowsiness). Survival differences were statistically significantly different across all three groups for all symptoms (all p < 0.001). Interestingly, Improved symptoms were associated with similar survival compared with Stable groups, with no statistical differences. Conclusions: Worsened symptoms at one week after admission were useful predictors of survival for patients with advanced cancer in PCUs during the final weeks of life. Longitudinal assessments are needed to reflect passage of time as well as impact of treatments.

Symptom Burden of Patients with Advanced Pancreas Cancer (APC): A Provincial Cancer Institute Observational Study

Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) experience many disease-related symptoms. ESAS-r measures the severity of 9 symptom domains and has been validated for use in the ambulatory oncology setting. We aimed to describe symptom burden at baseline for patients with APC treated with modern chemotherapy (CT), and to determine whether symptom burden at baseline is prognostic. Patients diagnosed with APC between 2012-2016, treated with ≥1 cycle of CT, who completed ≥1 ESAS-r were identified. Descriptive statistics were used to report symptom burden and common moderate-to-severe symptoms. A joint model was used to describe the trajectory of ESAS-r during follow-up while controlling for death. Multivariable Cox regression was used to identify independent predictors of death. Of 123 patients identified, the median age was 65 and 61% had metastatic disease. The median baseline ESAS-r total symptom distress score (TSDS) was 24. A total of 86% of patients had at least one symptom score of ≥4 at baseline, with the most common being: fatigue, nausea, anxiety, and shortness of breath. Median overall survival was 10.2 months. Baseline TSDS was not predictive for worse survival in the era of modern CT. Patients with APC have a high burden of cancer-associated symptoms and a high prevalence of moderate-to-severe symptoms. Early intervention has the potential to improve quality of life in this group of patients and should be investigated.

Measurement of patients' acceptable symptom levels and priorities for symptom improvement in advanced lung cancer

PURPOSE

Little research has assessed cancer patients' success criteria and priorities for symptom improvement to inform patient-centered care. Thus, we modified and tested a measure of these constructs for advanced lung cancer patients. We compared acceptable severity levels following symptom treatment across eight symptoms and identified patient subgroups based on symptom importance.

METHODS

Advanced lung cancer patients (N=102) completed a one-time survey, including the modified Patient-Centered Outcomes Questionnaire (PCOQ), standard symptom measures, and other clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

The modified PCOQ showed evidence of construct validity through associations with theoretically related constructs. Symptom severity and importance were moderately correlated. Levels of acceptable symptom severity were low and did not differ across the eight symptoms. Four patient subgroups were identified: (1) those who rated all symptoms as low in importance (n=12); (2) those who rated bronchial symptoms and sleep problems as low in importance and all other symptoms as moderately important (n=29); (3) those who rated nausea and emotional distress as low in importance and all other symptoms as moderately important (n=23); and (4) those who rated all symptoms as highly important (n=33). Subgroups were unrelated to clinical characteristics, except for functional status.

CONCLUSION

The modified PCOQ showed evidence of construct validity. Patients considered low symptom severity to be acceptable, irrespective of the symptom. Findings suggest that symptom severity and importance are related yet distinct aspects of the advanced lung cancer symptom experience. Patients have heterogeneous priorities for symptom improvement, which has implications for tailoring treatment.

The role of EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL scores and inflammatory biomarkers in predicting survival in terminally ill patients with cancer

Background

The clinical use of patient-reported outcomes as compared to inflammatory biomarkers for predicting cancer survival remains a challenge in palliative care settings. We evaluated the role of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative scores (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL) and the inflammatory biomarkers C-reactive protein (CRP), albumin (Alb), and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) for survival prediction in patients with advanced cancer.

Methods

This was an observational study in terminally ill patients with cancer hospitalized in a palliative care unit between June 2018 and December 2019. Patients’ data collected at the time of hospitalization were analyzed. Cox regression was performed to examine significant factors influencing survival. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to estimate cut-off values for predicting survival within 3 weeks, and a log-rank test was performed to compare survival curves between groups divided by the cut-off values.

Results

Totally, 130 patients participated in the study. Cox regression suggested that the QLQ-C15-PAL dyspnea and fatigue scores and levels of CRP, Alb, and NLR were significantly associated with survival time, and cut-off values were 66.67, 66.67, 3.0 mg/dL, 2.5 g/dL, and 8.2, respectively. The areas under ROC curves of these variables were 0.6–0.7. There were statistically significant differences in the survival curves between groups categorized using each of these cut-off values (p < .05 for all cases).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the assessment of not only objective indicators for the systemic inflammatory response but also patient-reported outcomes using EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL is beneficial for the prediction of short-term survival in terminally ill patients with cancer.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08049-3.