The need for a re-evaluation of best supportive care studies reported to date

Earlier multidisciplinary palliative care intervention for people with lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lung cancer is the most common cancer and leading cause of cancer mortality globally. Lung cancer is associated with significant morbidity, with symptoms often being poorly managed, causing significant symptom burden for both patients and their family caregivers. In people with life-limiting illnesses including advanced cancer, palliative care has been effective in improving symptom control, physical and mental wellbeing, quality of life, and survivorship; with benefits extending to caregivers while in the role and subsequently. Earlier integration of palliative care within oncology may be associated with improved patient outcomes, and has been supported by two Lancet commissions and national guidelines. The evidence for its effectiveness, however, has been mixed across the cancer spectrum. The aim of this review was to evaluate the current evidence for the effectiveness of early integrated palliative care in improving outcomes for people with lung cancer and their caregivers. Meta-analyses were performed where studies used the same measure. Otherwise, synthesis used a narrative approach. Similar to other types of advanced cancer, this review reveals mixed evidence for the effectiveness of early referral to palliative care and for the effectiveness of individual palliative interventions for people with lung cancer and their caregivers. Evidence that on-demand palliative care is equally, if not more effective than palliative care that is routinely provided, raises the question whether initiation and provision of palliative care as part of multidisciplinary lung cancer care ought to be guided by an early referral or need-based referral. Better understanding of what constitutes palliative care when delivered to people with lung cancer and their caregivers will help delineate the correlation with reported outcomes for these populations.

Feasibility and Acceptability of a Best Supportive Care Checklist among Clinicians

CONTEXT

Best supportive care (BSC) is often not standardized across sites, consistent with best evidence, or sufficiently described. We developed a consensus-based checklist to document BSC delivery, including symptom management, decision making, and care planning. We hypothesized that BSC can be feasibly documented with this checklist consistent with consolidated standards of reporting trials.

OBJECTIVE

To determine feasibility/acceptability of a BSC checklist among clinicians.

METHODS

To test feasibility of a BSC checklist in standard care, we enrolled a sample of clinicians treating patients with advanced cancer at four centers. Clinicians were asked to complete the checklist at eligible patient encounters. We surveyed enrollees regarding checklist use generating descriptive statistics and frequencies.

RESULTS

We surveyed 15 clinicians and 9 advanced practice providers. Mean age was 41 (SD = 7.9). Mean years since fellowship for physicians was 7.2 (SD = 4.5). Represented specialties are medical oncology (n = 8), gynecologic oncology (n = 4), palliative care (n = 2), and other (n = 1). For "overall impact on your delivery of supportive/palliative care," 40% noted improved impact with using BSC. For "overall impact on your documentation of supportive/palliative care," 46% noted improvement. Impact on "frequency of comprehensive symptom assessment" was noted to be "increased" by 33% of providers. None noted decreased frequency or worsening impact on any measure with use of BSC. Regarding feasibility of integrating the checklist into workflow, 73% agreed/strongly agreed that checklists could be easily integrated, 73% saw value in integration, and 80% found it easy to use.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians viewed the BSC checklist favorably illustrating proof of concept, minor workflow impact, and potential of benefit to patients.

Community-based palliative care: the natural evolution for palliative care delivery in the U.S

Palliative care in the U.S. has evolved from a system primarily reliant on community-based hospices to a combined model that includes inpatient services at most large hospitals. However, these two dominant approaches leave most patients needing palliative care-those at home (including nursing homes) but not yet ready for hospice-unable to access the positive impacts of the palliative care approach. We propose a community-based palliative care (CPC) model that spans the array of inpatient and outpatient settings in which palliative care is provided and links seamlessly to inpatient care; likewise, it would span the full trajectory of advanced illness rather than focusing on the period just before death. Examples of CPC programs are developing organically across the U.S. As our understanding of CPC expands, standardization is needed to ensure replicability, consistency, and the ability to relate intervention models to outcomes. A growing body of literature examining outpatient palliative care supports the role of CPC in improving outcomes, including reduction in symptom burden, improved quality of life, increased survival, better satisfaction with care, and reduced health care resource utilization. Furthermore the examination of how to operationalize CPC is needed before widespread implementation can be realized. This article describes the key characteristics of CPC, highlighting its role in longitudinal care across patient transitions. Distinguishing features include consistent care across the disease trajectory independent of diagnosis and prognosis; inclusion of inpatient, outpatient, long-term care, and at-home care delivery; collaboration with other medical disciplines, nursing, and allied health; and full integration into the health care system (rather than parallel delivery).

Consensus-based standards for best supportive care in clinical trials in advanced cancer

Best supportive care is poorly defined in clinical trials, and a standard framework for delivery of such care is needed, using best available evidence and allowing replication of studies. We convened a panel of 36 experts to develop consensus statements via the Delphi method. The first round included open-ended questions; subsequent rounds sought to develop consensus-based standards. Consensus was assessed by use of a 5-point Likert agreement scale; more than 70% of panellists had to give a score of 5 to meet a-priori levels of consensus. The panel identified four key domains of best supportive care in clinical trials: multidisciplinary care; supportive care documentation; symptom assessment; and symptom management. Consensus was reached on 11 statements within these four domains. For example, 24 (96%) panellists recommended that the intervals between symptom assessments should be identical for control and experimental groups. Availability of resources was cited as a challenge to implementation of best supportive care standards.