Detailed statistical analysis plan for the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT)

Supportive care interventions in metastatic bone disease: scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patients with secondary metastatic involvement of the musculoskeletal system due to primary cancers are a rapidly growing population with significant risks for health-related end-of-life morbidities. In particular, bone metastases or metastatic bone disease (MBD) imparts significant adversity to remaining quality of life. No rigorous review of clinical trials on the use of supportive care interventions for MBD has been conducted. The objective of this review was to examine the characteristics of supportive care interventions for MBD and critically appraise study designs, key findings, and quality of evidence of the research.

METHODS

We searched for published clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in PubMED, CINAHL and Google Scholar for articles published between September 2017 and September 2022. Some examples of Medical Subject Headings terms were: 'secondary neoplasm', 'metastatic bone disease', 'palliative care' and 'supportive care intervention'. Quality of published evidence was evaluated based on treatment types and study design.

RESULTS

After reviewing 572 publications, 13 articles were included in the final review and evaluation including seven clinical trials, two trial protocols and four systematic reviews. Feasible interventions included enhanced palliative care consultation, palliative radiotherapy and alternative medicines. Interventions addressed primary endpoints of fatigue (N=4, 31%), pain (N=3, 23%) or cancer-related symptoms (N=3, 23%) with patient-reported outcome instruments. No interventions reported on fracture complications or endpoints, specifically. The quality of most studies was moderate to strong.

CONCLUSION

Supportive care interventions for MBD are feasible and the impact is measurable via patient-reported outcome measures. While the evidence for interventions was moderate to strong, there are very few specific controlled trials for skeletal-related events and impacts of social determinants of health. Further clinical trials are needed to define supportive care interventions for MBD that demonstrate reduced risk of fracture and that mitigate the reduced quality of life when negative musculoskeletal outcomes arise.

Long-term opioid treatment and endocrine measures in chronic non-cancer pain patients

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) has increased dramatically the past decades, which combined with indiscriminate use of prescribed opioids has become a public health problem. Endocrine dysfunction may be a complication of long-term opioid treatment (L-TOT), but the evidence is limited. This study aimed at investigating the associations between L-TOT and endocrine measures in CNCP patients.

METHODS

Cortisol (spot and after stimulation), thyrotropin (TSH), thyroxin (T4), insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), prolactin (PRL), 17-hydroxyprogesterone, androstenedione, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEAS), sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), total testosterone (TT) and free testosterone (fT) were measured. Group comparisons were done between CNCP patients in L-TOT and controls as well as between patients on high- or low-dose morphine equivalents.

RESULTS

Eighty-two CNCP patients (38 in L-TOT and 44 controls not receiving opioids) were included. Low TT (p = 0.004) and fT concentrations (p < 0.001), high SHBG (p = 0.042), low DEAS (p = 0.017) and low IGF-1 (p = 0.003) in men were found when comparing those in L-TOT to controls and high PRL (p = 0.018), low IGF-1 standard deviation score (SDS) (p = 0.006) along with a lesser, but normal cortisol response to stimulation (p = 0.016; p = 0.012) were found when comparing L-TOT to controls. Finally, a correlation between low IGF-1 levels and high opioid dose was observed (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study not only supports previous findings but even more interestingly disclosed new associations. We recommend future studies to investigate endocrine effects of opioids in larger, longitudinal studies. In the meanwhile, we recommend monitoring endocrine function in CNCP patients when prescribing L-TOT.

SIGNIFICANCE

This clinical study found associations between L-TOT, androgens, growth hormone and prolactin in patients with CNCP compared to controls. The results support previous studies as well as add new knowledge to the field, including an association between high opioid dose and low growth hormone levels. Compared to existing research this study has strict inclusion/exclusion criteria, a fixed time period for blood sample collection, and adjustments for potential confounders, which has not been done before.

Hospital-based specialist palliative care compared with usual care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers: a systematic review

Background

Most deaths still take place in hospital; cost-effective commissioning of end-of-life resources is a priority. This review provides clarity on the effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care.

Objectives

The objectives were to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care.

Population

Adult patients with advanced illnesses and their unpaid caregivers.

Intervention

Hospital-based specialist palliative care.

Comparators

Inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry to the study, or community care or hospice care provided outside the hospital setting (usual care).

Primary outcomes

Patient health-related quality of life and symptom burden.

Data sources

Six databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and CareSearch), clinical trial registers, reference lists and systematic reviews were searched to August 2019.

Review methods

Two independent reviewers screened, data extracted and assessed methodological quality. Meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan (The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark), with separate synthesis of qualitative data.

Results

Forty-two randomised controlled trials involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 unpaid caregivers) were included. Diagnoses of participants were as follows: cancer, 21 studies; non-cancer, 14 studies; and mixed cancer and non-cancer, seven studies. Hospital-based specialist palliative care was offered in the following models: ward based (one study), inpatient consult (10 studies), outpatient (six studies), hospital at home or hospital outreach (five studies) and multiple settings that included hospital (20 studies). Meta-analyses demonstrated significant improvement favouring hospital-based specialist palliative care over usual care in patient health-related quality of life (10 studies, standardised mean difference 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.37; I 2 = 3%) and patient satisfaction with care (two studies, standardised mean difference 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.57; I 2 = 0%), a significant reduction in patient symptom burden (six studies, standardised mean difference –0.26, 95% confidence interval –0.41 to –0.12; I 2 = 0%) and patient depression (eight studies, standardised mean difference –0.22, 95% confidence interval –0.34 to –0.10; I 2 = 0%), and a significant increase in the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by number of patients with home death) (seven studies, odds ratio 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 2.16; I 2 = 0%). There were non-significant improvements in pain (four studies, standardised mean difference –0.16, 95% confidence interval –0.33 to 0.01; I 2 = 0%) and patient anxiety (five studies, mean difference –0.63, 95% confidence interval –2.22 to 0.96; I 2 = 76%). Hospital-based specialist palliative care showed no evidence of causing serious harm. The evidence on mortality/survival and cost-effectiveness was inconclusive. Qualitative studies (10 studies, 322 participants) suggested that hospital-based specialist palliative care was beneficial as it ensured personalised and holistic care for patients and their families, while also fostering open communication, shared decision-making and respectful and compassionate care.

Limitation

In almost half of the included randomised controlled trials, there was palliative care involvement in the control group.

Conclusions

Hospital-based specialist palliative care may offer benefits for person-centred outcomes including health-related quality of life, symptom burden, patient depression and satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death) with little evidence of harm.

Future work

More studies are needed of populations with non-malignant diseases, different models of hospital-based specialist palliative care, and cost-effectiveness.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017083205.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers

BACKGROUND

Serious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital-based specialist palliative care (HSPC) has developed to assist in better meeting the needs of patients and their families and potentially reducing hospital care expenditure. There is a need for clarity on the effectiveness and optimal models of HSPC, given that most people still die in hospital and also to allocate scarce resources judiciously.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care for adults with advanced illness (hereafter patients) and their unpaid caregivers/families.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE and HTA database via the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; CareSearch; National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and two trial registers to August 2019, together with checking of reference lists and relevant systematic reviews, citation searching and contact with experts to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of HSPC on outcomes for patients or their unpaid caregivers/families, or both. HSPC was defined as specialist palliative care delivered by a palliative care team that is based in a hospital providing holistic care, co-ordination by a multidisciplinary team, and collaboration between HSPC providers and generalists. HSPC was provided to patients while they were admitted as inpatients to acute care hospitals, outpatients or patients receiving care from hospital outreach teams at home. The comparator was usual care, defined as inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry into the study, community care or hospice care provided outside of the hospital setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. To account for use of different scales across studies, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We used an inverse variance random-effects model. For binary data, we calculated odds ratio (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. Our primary outcomes were patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden (a collection of two or more symptoms). Key secondary outcomes were pain, depression, satisfaction with care, achieving preferred place of death, mortality/survival, unpaid caregiver burden, and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative data was analysed where available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 RCTs involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 caregivers/family members). Twenty-one studies were with cancer populations, 14 were with non-cancer populations (of which six were with heart failure patients), and seven with mixed cancer and non-cancer populations (mixed diagnoses). HSPC was offered in different ways and included the following models: ward-based, inpatient consult, outpatient, hospital-at-home or hospital outreach, and service provision across multiple settings which included hospital. For our main analyses, we pooled data from studies reporting adjusted endpoint values. Forty studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Compared with usual care, HSPC improved patient HRQoL with a small effect size of 0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; I² = 3%, 10 studies, 1344 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient HRQoL). HSPC also improved other person-centred outcomes. It reduced patient symptom burden with a small effect size of -0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI -0.41 to -0.12; I² = 0%, 6 studies, 761 participants, very low-quality evidence, lower scores indicate lower symptom burden). HSPC improved patient satisfaction with care with a small effect size of 0.36 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.41 to 0.57; I² = 0%, 2 studies, 337 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient satisfaction with care). Using home death as a proxy measure for achieving patient's preferred place of death, patients were more likely to die at home with HSPC compared to usual care (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16; I² = 0%, 7 studies, 861 participants, low-quality evidence). Data on pain (4 studies, 525 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between HSPC and usual care (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.01; I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Eight studies (N = 1252 participants) reported on adverse events and very low-quality evidence did not demonstrate an effect of HSPC on serious harms. Two studies (170 participants) presented data on caregiver burden and both found no evidence of effect of HSPC (very low-quality evidence). We included 13 economic studies (2103 participants). Overall, the evidence on cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care was inconsistent among the four full economic studies. Other studies that used only partial economic analysis and those that presented more limited resource use and cost information also had inconsistent results (very low-quality evidence). Quality of the evidence The quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was very low to low, downgraded due to a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low- to low-quality evidence suggests that when compared to usual care, HSPC may offer small benefits for several person-centred outcomes including patient HRQoL, symptom burden and patient satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death). While we found no evidence that HSPC causes serious harms, the evidence was insufficient to draw strong conclusions. Although these are only small effect sizes, they may be clinically relevant at an advanced stage of disease with limited prognosis, and are person-centred outcomes important to many patients and families. More well conducted studies are needed to study populations with non-malignant diseases and mixed diagnoses, ward-based models of HSPC, 24 hours access (out-of-hours care) as part of HSPC, pain, achieving patient preferred place of care, patient satisfaction with care, caregiver outcomes (satisfaction with care, burden, depression, anxiety, grief, quality of life), and cost-effectiveness of HSPC. In addition, research is needed to provide validated person-centred outcomes to be used across studies and populations.

Early specialised palliative care: interventions, symptoms, problems

BACKGROUND

Few studies have investigated the content of interventions provided in early specialised palliative care (SPC).

OBJECTIVES

To characterise the content of interventions delivered in early SPC in the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT), a multicentre trial with six participating sites.

METHODS

A retrospective qualitative and quantitative study coding all new interventions initiated by the palliative teams and documented in the medical records during the 8-week study period of DanPaCT. Interventions were categorised according to (a) symptom/problem prompting the intervention, (b) type of intervention and (c) professional(s) providing the intervention.

RESULTS

In total, 145 patients were randomised to the SPC teams. According to the medical records, patients received a median of 3.5 (range 0-22) new interventions in the 8-week intervention-period from the palliative teams. For 24 (18%) of the patients there was no documented interventions in the medical records. The most frequent symptom/problems treated were pain, (100 interventions; 20% of interventions given) and impaired physical function (62; 13% of interventions given). The most frequent type of intervention was pharmacological (232; 42% of interventions given).

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the first studies to meticulously investigate the content of interventions documented in the medical records for patients receiving early SPC. Diverse symptoms were treated with many different interventions. However, a relatively low number of interventions were documented. This may explain the lack of effect in DanPaCT but also questions whether all interventions were adequately documented TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01348048.

Exploratory analyses of the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT): a randomized trial of early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus standard care in advanced cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Early and integrated specialized palliative care is often recommended but has still only been investigated in relatively few randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus standard care on the explorative outcomes in the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT).

METHODS

We conducted a randomized multicentre, parallel-group clinical trial. Consecutive patients with metastatic cancer were included if they had symptoms or problems that exceeded a predefined threshold according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Outcomes were estimated as the differences between the intervention and the control groups in the change from baseline to the weighted mean of the 3- and 8-week follow-ups measured as areas under the curve.

RESULTS

In total, 145 patients were randomized to early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus 152 to standard care only. Early specialized palliative care had no significant effect on any of the symptoms or problems. Of the 21 items addressing satisfaction, specialized palliative care improved the item 'overall satisfaction with the help received from the health care system' with 9 points (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 14.2, p = 0.0006) and three other items (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In line with the analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes in DanPaCT, we did not find that specialized palliative care, as provided in DanPaCT, affected symptoms and problems. However, patients in the intervention group seemed more satisfied with the health care received than those in the standard care group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01348048.

Systematic fast-track transition from oncological treatment to dyadic specialized palliative home care: DOMUS - a randomized clinical trial

Background:

The focus of specialized palliative care is to improve quality of life for patients with incurable cancer and their relatives including an increased opportunity to make their own choice of place of care and death.

Aim:

To investigate whether a systematic fast-track transition from oncological treatment to specialized palliative care at home for patients with incurable cancer reinforced with a psychological dyadic intervention could result in more time spent at home and death at home. Secondary aims were to investigate effects on quality of life, symptomatology and survival.

Design:

A prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial ( Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT01885637).

Setting/participants:

In all, 340 patients with incurable cancer and no or limited antineoplastic treatment options.

Results:

No statistically significant difference was found regarding number of deaths (4%, p = 0.460) and time spent at home (3%, p = 0.491). The secondary outcomes indicated that the intervention resulted in improved quality of life (−11.6 ± 25.5, p = 0.005, effect size = −0.44, 95% confidence interval = −0.77; −0.11), social functioning (−15.8 ± 31.4, p = 0.001, effect size = −0.50, 95% confidence interval = −0.84; −0.17) and emotional functioning (−9.1 ± 21.2, p = 0.039, effect size = −0.43, 95% confidence interval = −0.76; −0.10) after 6 months. A linear mixed-effect regression model confirmed a possible effect on emotional and social functioning at 6 months. Regarding survival, no differences were found between groups ( p = 0.605). No adverse effects were seen as consequence of the intervention.

Conclusions:

The main findings indicated that the intervention had no effect on time spent at home or place of death. However, the intervention resulted in a weak improvement of quality of life, social functioning and emotional functioning after 6 months.

Tapering off long-term opioid therapy in chronic non-cancer pain patients: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The indications for initiating long-term opioid treatment (L-TOT) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) are often unclear and associated with problematic use. This study aimed at evaluating the efficacy of stabilizing opioid therapy followed by a sequential opioid tapering off program in CNCP patients.

METHODS

A randomized clinical trial with a medications stabilization period (Phase 1) was followed by an opioid tapering off program (Phase 2). In Phase 2, patients were randomized to Control Group (stable treatment) or Taper off Group (sequential opioid dose reduction) and assessed at baseline, after stabilization and up to 6 months. Primary outcomes: measures of cognitive function; secondary outcomes: pain, sleep, rest, quality of life, depression, anxiety, opioid misuse and opioid withdrawal symptoms.

RESULTS

In all, 274 patients were screened; 75 were included, out of which 40 dropped out before Phase 2. Those who succeeded Phase 1 (n = 35) had weak/moderate improvements of psychomotor function (p = 0.020), sleeping hours (p = 0.031), opioid withdrawal symptoms (p = 0.019), measures of quality of life (p ≤ 0.043) and opioid misuse scores (p = 0.003). In Phase 2, patients in Taper off Group (n = 15) experienced stable pain intensity and felt significantly more rested at third assessment than the Control Group (n = 20).

CONCLUSIONS

The opioid tapering off program was not successful due to the vast number of dropouts. Phase 1 was associated with weak to moderate improvements on psychomotor function, sleeping, opioid withdrawal symptoms, quality of life and reduced risk of opioid misuse. In the intervention group of Phase 2, pain intensity was stable and patients felt more rested.

SIGNIFICANCE

This trial showed that sequential tapering off L-TOT in CNCP patients may be an unfeasible approach. However, improvements after opioid treatment stabilization were achieved and stable pain intensity in those tapered off may encourage the development of more refined programs.

Randomised clinical trial of early specialist palliative care plus standard care versus standard care alone in patients with advanced cancer: The Danish Palliative Care Trial

BACKGROUND

Beneficial effects of early palliative care have been found in advanced cancer, but the evidence is not unequivocal.

AIM

To investigate the effect of early specialist palliative care among advanced cancer patients identified in oncology departments.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

The Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT) (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01348048) is a multicentre randomised clinical trial comparing early referral to a specialist palliative care team plus standard care versus standard care alone. The planned sample size was 300. At five oncology departments, consecutive patients with advanced cancer were screened for palliative needs. Patients with scores exceeding a predefined threshold for problems with physical, emotional or role function, or nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnoea or lack of appetite according to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) were eligible. The primary outcome was the change in each patient's primary need (the most severe of the seven QLQ-C30 scales) at 3- and 8-week follow-up (0-100 scale). Five sensitivity analyses were conducted. Secondary outcomes were change in the seven QLQ-C30 scales and survival.

RESULTS

Totally 145 patients were randomised to early specialist palliative care versus 152 to standard care. Early specialist palliative care showed no effect on the primary outcome of change in primary need (-4.9 points (95% confidence interval -11.3 to +1.5 points); p = 0.14). The sensitivity analyses showed similar results. Analyses of the secondary outcomes, including survival, also showed no differences, maybe with the exception of nausea/vomiting where early specialist palliative care might have had a beneficial effect.

CONCLUSION

We did not observe beneficial or harmful effects of early specialist palliative care, but important beneficial effects cannot be excluded.

A parallel-group randomized clinical trial of individually tailored, multidisciplinary, palliative rehabilitation for patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer: the Pal-Rehab study protocol

BACKGROUND

The effect of early palliative care and rehabilitation on the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer has been only sparsely described and needs further investigation. In the present trial we combine elements of early, specialized palliative care with cancer rehabilitation in a 12-week individually tailored, palliative rehabilitation program initiated shortly after a diagnosis of advanced cancer.

METHODS

This single center, randomized, controlled trial will include 300 patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer recruited from the Department of Oncology, Vejle Hospital. The patients are randomized to a specialized palliative rehabilitation intervention integrated in standard oncology care or to standard oncology care alone. The intervention consists of a multidisciplinary group program, individual consultations, or a combination of both. At baseline and after six and 12 weeks the patients will be asked to fill out questionnaires on symptoms, quality of life, and symptoms of depression and anxiety. Among the symptoms and problems assessed, patients are asked to indicate the problem they need help with to the largest extent. The effect of the intervention on this problem is the primary outcome measure of the study. Secondary outcome measures include survival and economic consequences.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge the Pal-Rehab study is the first randomized, controlled, phase III trial to evaluate individually tailored, palliative rehabilitation in standard oncology care initiated shortly after an advanced cancer diagnosis. The study will contribute with evidence on the effectiveness of implementing early palliative care in standard oncology treatment and hopefully offer new knowledge and future directions as to the content of palliative rehabilitation programs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02332317 , registered retrospectively on December 30, 2014. One study participant had been enrolled at the time.

Early palliative care for adults with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Incurable cancer, which often constitutes an enormous challenge for patients, their families, and medical professionals, profoundly affects the patient's physical and psychosocial well-being. In standard cancer care, palliative measures generally are initiated when it is evident that disease-modifying treatments have been unsuccessful, no treatments can be offered, or death is anticipated. In contrast, early palliative care is initiated much earlier in the disease trajectory and closer to the diagnosis of incurable cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects of early palliative care interventions versus treatment as usual/standard cancer care on health-related quality of life, depression, symptom intensity, and survival among adults with a diagnosis of advanced cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, OpenGrey (a database for grey literature), and three clinical trial registers to October 2016. We checked reference lists, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) on professional palliative care services that provided or co-ordinated comprehensive care for adults at early advanced stages of cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and collected information on adverse events. For quantitative synthesis, we combined respective results on our primary outcomes of health-related quality of life, survival (death hazard ratio), depression, and symptom intensity across studies in meta-analyses using an inverse variance random-effects model. We expressed pooled effects as standardised mean differences (SMDs, or Hedges' adjusted g). We assessed certainty of evidence at the outcome level using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven randomised and cluster-randomised controlled trials that together recruited 1614 participants. Four studies evaluated interventions delivered by specialised palliative care teams, and the remaining studies assessed models of co-ordinated care. Overall, risk of bias at the study level was mostly low, apart from possible selection bias in three studies and attrition bias in one study, along with insufficient information on blinding of participants and outcome assessment in six studies.Compared with usual/standard cancer care alone, early palliative care significantly improved health-related quality of life at a small effect size (SMD 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.38; participants analysed at post treatment = 1028; evidence of low certainty). As re-expressed in natural units (absolute change in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) score), health-related quality of life scores increased on average by 4.59 (95% CI 2.55 to 6.46) points more among participants given early palliative care than among control participants. Data on survival, available from four studies enrolling a total of 800 participants, did not indicate differences in efficacy (death hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28; evidence of very low certainty). Levels of depressive symptoms among those receiving early palliative care did not differ significantly from levels among those receiving usual/standard cancer care (five studies; SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.03; participants analysed at post treatment = 762; evidence of very low certainty). Results from seven studies that analysed 1054 participants post treatment suggest a small effect for significantly lower symptom intensity in early palliative care compared with the control condition (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.10; evidence of low certainty). The type of model used to provide early palliative care did not affect study results. One RCT reported potential adverse events of early palliative care, such as a higher percentage of participants with severe scores for pain and poor appetite; the remaining six studies did not report adverse events in study publications. For these six studies, principal investigators stated upon request that they had not observed any adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review of a small number of trials indicates that early palliative care interventions may have more beneficial effects on quality of life and symptom intensity among patients with advanced cancer than among those given usual/standard cancer care alone. Although we found only small effect sizes, these may be clinically relevant at an advanced disease stage with limited prognosis, at which time further decline in quality of life is very common. At this point, effects on mortality and depression are uncertain. We have to interpret current results with caution owing to very low to low certainty of current evidence and between-study differences regarding participant populations, interventions, and methods. Additional research now under way will present a clearer picture of the effect and specific indication of early palliative care. Upcoming results from several ongoing studies (N = 20) and studies awaiting assessment (N = 10) may increase the certainty of study results and may lead to improved decision making. In perspective, early palliative care is a newly emerging field, and well-conducted studies are needed to explicitly describe the components of early palliative care and control treatments, after blinding of participants and outcome assessors, and to report on possible adverse events.