A prospective cohort study assessing aggressive interventions at the end-of-life among patients with solid metastatic cancer

Palliative prognostic scores for survival prediction of cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The palliative prognostic score is the most widely validated prognostic tool for cancer survival prediction, with modified versions available. A systematic evaluation of palliative prognostic score tools is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance and prognostic utility of palliative prognostic score, delirium-palliative prognostic score, and palliative prognostic score without clinician prediction in predicting 30-day survival of cancer patients and to compare their performance.

METHODS

Six databases were searched for peer-reviewed studies and grey literature published from inception to June 2, 2023. English studies must assess palliative prognostic score, delirium-palliative prognostic score, or palliative prognostic score without clinician-predicted survival for 30-day survival in adults aged 18 years and older with any stage or type of cancer. Outcomes were pooled using the random effects model or summarized narratively when meta-analysis was not possible.

RESULTS

A total of 39 studies (n = 10 617 patients) were included. Palliative prognostic score is an accurate prognostic tool (pooled area under the curve [AUC] = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.79 to 0.84) and outperforms palliative prognostic score without clinician-predicted survival (pooled AUC = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.71 to 0.78), suggesting that the original palliative prognostic score should be preferred. The meta-analysis found palliative prognostic score and delirium-palliative prognostic score performance to be comparable. Most studies reported survival probabilities corresponding to the palliative prognostic score risk groups, and higher risk groups were statistically significantly associated with shorter survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Palliative prognostic score is a validated prognostic tool for cancer patients that can enhance clinicians' confidence and accuracy in predicting survival. Future studies should investigate if accuracy differs depending on clinician characteristics. Reporting of validation studies must be improved, as most studies were at high risk of bias, primarily because calibration was not assessed.

More competent informal caregivers reduce advanced cancer patients' unplanned healthcare use and costs

BACKGROUND

Patients with metastatic cancer experience high healthcare use and costs, most of which are unplanned. We aimed to assess whether patients with more competent informal caregivers have lower unplanned healthcare use and costs.

METHODS

This study used data from a prospective cohort of patients with solid metastatic cancer. Patients and their informal family caregivers were surveyed every 3 months until patients' death. Patients' unplanned healthcare use/costs were examined through hospital records. Caregivers responded to the 4-item Caregiver Competence Scale. First, in a deceased subsample of patients and their caregivers, we used patients' last 2 years of data (226 dyads) to assess the association between caregivers' competency (independent variable) and patients' unplanned healthcare use/costs (outcomes). Next, in a prospective sample of patient-caregiver dyads (up to 15 surveys), we assessed whether patients' functional well-being and psychological distress moderated the association between caregivers' competency and unplanned healthcare use/costs (311 dyads).

RESULTS

In the deceased subsample, during last 2 years of patients' life, caregivers' higher competency lowered the odds of patients' unplanned healthcare use [OR (CI) = 0.86 (0.75, 0.98), p = 0.03], and was associated with a significant reduction in unplanned healthcare costs [Coeff (CI) = -0.19 (-0.36, -0.01), p = 0.03]. In the prospective sample, patients' functional well-being and psychological distress moderated the association between caregivers' competency and patients' unplanned healthcare use/costs.

CONCLUSION

With deterioration in patients' condition and an increase in caregiving demands, improving caregivers' competency can reduce patients' unplanned healthcare use and costs. This should be further tested in future trials.

Goals of Care Among Patients With Advanced Cancer and Their Family Caregivers in the Last Years of Life

Importance

Understanding goals of care for terminally ill patients at the end of life is crucial to ensure that patients receive care consistent with their preferences.

Objectives

To investigate the patterns of goals of care among patient-caregiver dyads over the last years of the patient's life and the associations of the goals of care with patient-caregiver characteristics.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study of 210 patient-caregiver dyads involved surveys every 3 months from July 8, 2016, until the patient's death or February 28, 2022. Data from the last 2 years of the patients' lives were analyzed. Dyads, which comprised patients with stage IV solid cancer and their caregivers, were recruited from outpatient clinics at 2 major cancer centers in Singapore.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Goals of care were examined via the tradeoffs between life extension and symptom management and between life extension and cost containment. The actor-partner interdependence framework was implemented using mixed-effects linear regressions.

Results

This study included 210 dyads (patients: mean [SD] age, 62.6 [10.5] years; 108 men [51.4%]; caregivers: mean [SD] age, 49.4 [14.6] years; 132 women [62.9%]). On average, 34% of patients (264 of 780 observations; range, 23%-42%) and 29% of caregivers (225 of 780 observations; range, 20%-43%) prioritized symptom management over life extension, whereas 24% of patients (190 of 780 observations; range, 18%-32%) and 19% of caregivers (148 of 780 observations; range, 8%-26%) prioritized life extension. Between cost containment and life extension, on average, 28% of patients (220 of 777 observations; range, 22%-38%) and 17% of caregivers (137 of 780 observations; range, 10%-25%) prioritized cost containment, whereas 26% of patients (199 of 777 observations; range, 18%-34%) and 35% of caregivers (271 of 780 observations; range, 25%-45%) prioritized life extension. Goals of care did not change as patients approached death. Patients prioritized symptom management if they experienced higher symptom burden (average marginal effect [SE], 0.04 [0.01]), worse spiritual well-being (average marginal effect [SE], -0.04 [0.01]), and accurate (vs inaccurate) prognostic awareness (average marginal effect [SE], 0.40 [0.18]) and if their caregivers reported accurate prognostic awareness (average marginal effect [SE], 0.53 [0.18]), lower impact of caregiving on finances (average marginal effect [SE], -0.28 [0.08]), and poorer caregiving self-esteem (average marginal effect [SE], -0.48 [0.16]). Compared with patients, caregivers expressed lower preferences for cost containment (average marginal effect [SE], -0.63 [0.09]). Patients prioritized cost containment if they were older (average marginal effect [SE], 0.03 [0.01]), had higher symptom burden (average marginal effect [SE], 0.04 [0.01]), had poorer spiritual well-being (average marginal effect [SE], -0.04 [0.01]), and their caregivers reported poorer caregiving self-esteem (average marginal effect [SE], -0.51 [0.16]) and more family support (average marginal effect [SE], -0.30 [0.14]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of patient-caregiver dyads, findings suggested the importance of interventions aimed at reducing discordance in goals of care between patients and caregivers and helping them develop realistic expectations to avoid costly, futile treatments.

Barriers to and facilitators of advance care planning implementation for medical staff after the COVID-19 pandemic: an overview of reviews

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the capacity for advance care planning (ACP) among patients, families and healthcare teams. We sought to identify and review the barriers to and facilitators of ACP implementation for medical staff in different settings (eg, hospitals, outpatient palliative care, nursing and care homes) during the pandemic.

DESIGN

This study employed an overview of reviews design. We searched the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science and Embase databases for studies published between 8 December 2019 and 30 July 2023. We used AMSTAR 2 to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

We included seven reviews. Common barriers to ACP implementation included visitation restrictions, limited resources and personnel and a lack of coordination among healthcare professionals. In care and nursing homes, barriers included a dearth of palliative care physicians and the psychological burden on facility staff. Using telemedicine for information sharing was a common facilitator across settings. In hospitals, facilitators included short-term training in palliative care and palliative care physicians joining the acute care team. In care and nursing homes, facilitators included ACP education and emotional support for staff.

CONCLUSIONS

Visitation restrictions and limited resources during the pandemic posed obstacles; however, the implementation of ACP was further hindered by insufficient staff education on ACP in hospitals and facilities, as well as a scarcity of information sharing at the community level. These pre-existing issues were magnified by the pandemic, drawing attention to their significance. Short-term staff training programmes and immediate information sharing could better enable ACP.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022351362.

Relationship Between Religion/Spirituality and the Aggressiveness of Cancer Care: A Scoping Review

CONTEXT

Religiosity/spirituality/religious-spiritual coping (RS) are resources used by cancer patients with cancer to help cope with the disease and may influence the preference and receipt of end-of-life (EOL) treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the relationship between RS and the EOL care preferred or received by cancer patients.

METHODS

This review protocol is registered on (International Prospective Register of Systematic Review, CRD42021251833) and follows the recommendations of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses checklist. Embase, Proquest, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were consulted. Google Scholar was consulted for additional publications and gray literature. Quantitative studies including adults with any cancer type/stage were eligible. The paper selection was performed by two independent reviewers; the methodological quality was measured using the Newcastle Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were included in the review. In general, RS is related to the preference or receipt of aggressive EOL care and with less advance care planning. Spiritual care by the medical team is related to higher referral to hospice and less aggressive care; in contrast, high spiritual support from religious communities is associated with less hospice and more aggressive care. Religious denominations influenced health care preferences, as Catholics were less likely to sign a do-not-resuscitate order and Buddhists or Taoists received more aggressive interventions at the EOL. Most studies (70%) were of high quality according to the Newcastle Ottawa scale.

CONCLUSION

RS is associated with more aggressive EOL treatments, as well as with lower rates of ACP in cancer patients. On the other hand, spiritual care provided by the medical team seems to be associated with less aggressive EOL care.

What is the evidence for efficacy of advance care planning in improving patient outcomes? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Objectives

To conduct an up-to-date systematic review of all randomised controlled trials assessing efficacy of advance care planning (ACP) in improving patient outcomes, healthcare use/costs and documentation.

Design

Narrative synthesis conducted for randomised controlled trials. We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases) for English-language randomised or cluster randomised controlled trials on 11 May 2020 and updated it on 12 May 2021 using the same search strategy. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or a third reviewer.

Results

We reviewed 132 eligible trials published between 1992 and May 2021; 64% were high-quality. We categorised study outcomes as patient (distal and proximal), healthcare use and process outcomes. There was mixed evidence that ACP interventions improved distal patient outcomes including end-of-life care consistent with preferences (25%; 3/12 with improvement), quality of life (0/14 studies), mental health (21%; 4/19) and home deaths (25%; 1/4), or that it reduced healthcare use/costs (18%; 4/22 studies). However, we found more consistent evidence that ACP interventions improve proximal patient outcomes including quality of patient–physician communication (68%; 13/19), preference for comfort care (70%; 16/23), decisional conflict (64%; 9/14) and patient-caregiver congruence in preference (82%; 18/22) and that it improved ACP documentation (a process outcome; 63%; 34/54).

Conclusion

This review provides the most comprehensive evidence to date regarding the efficacy of ACP on key patient outcomes and healthcare use/costs. Findings suggest a need to rethink the main purpose and outcomes of ACP.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42020184080.