Pain and its treatment in outpatients with metastatic cancer

BACKGROUND AND METHODS

Pain is often inadequately treated in patients with cancer. A total of 1308 outpatients with metastatic cancer from 54 treatment locations affiliated with the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group rated the severity of their pain during the preceding week, as well as the degree of pain-related functional impairment and the degree of relief provided by analgesic drugs. Their physicians attributed the pain to various factors, described its treatment, and estimated the impact of pain on the patients' ability to function. We assessed the adequacy of prescribed analgesic drugs using guidelines developed by the World Health Organization, studied the factors that influenced whether analgesia was adequate, and determined the effects of inadequate analgesia on the patients' perception of pain relief and functional status.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven percent of the patients (871 of 1308) reported that they had had pain or had taken analgesic drugs daily during the week preceding the study, and 36 percent (475 of 1308) had pain severe enough to impair their ability to function. Forty-two percent of those with pain (250 of the 597 patients for whom we had complete information) were not given adequate analgesic therapy. Patients seen at centers that treated predominantly minorities were three times more likely than those treated elsewhere to have inadequate pain management. A discrepancy between patient and physician in judging the severity of the patient's pain was predictive of inadequate pain management (odds ratio, 2.3). Other factors that predicted inadequate pain management included pain that physicians did not attribute to cancer (odds ratio, 1.9), better performance status (odds ratio, 1.8), age of 70 years or older (odds ratio, 2.4), and female sex (odds ratio, 1.5). Patients with less adequate analgesia reported less pain relief and greater pain-related impairment of function.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite published guidelines for pain management, many patients with cancer have considerable pain and receive inadequate analgesia.

Clinical practice guidelines for support of the family in the patient-centered intensive care unit: American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force 2004–2005

OBJECTIVE

To develop clinical practice guidelines for the support of the patient and family in the adult, pediatric, or neonatal patient-centered ICU.

PARTICIPANTS

A multidisciplinary task force of experts in critical care practice was convened from the membership of the American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to include representation from adult, pediatric, and neonatal intensive care units.

EVIDENCE

The task force members reviewed the published literature. The Cochrane library, Cinahl, and MedLine were queried for articles published between 1980 and 2003. Studies were scored according to Cochrane methodology. Where evidence did not exist or was of a low level, consensus was derived from expert opinion.

CONSENSUS PROCESS

The topic was divided into subheadings: decision making, family coping, staff stress related to family interactions, cultural support, spiritual/religious support, family visitation, family presence on rounds, family presence at resuscitation, family environment of care, and palliative care. Each section was led by one task force member. Each section draft was reviewed by the group and debated until consensus was achieved. The draft document was reviewed by a committee of the Board of Regents of the ACCM. After steering committee approval, the draft was approved by the SCCM Council and was again subjected to peer review by this journal.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 300 related studies were reviewed. However, the level of evidence in most cases is at Cochrane level 4 or 5, indicating the need for further research. Forty-three recommendations are presented that include, but are not limited to, endorsement of a shared decision-making model, early and repeated care conferencing to reduce family stress and improve consistency in communication, honoring culturally appropriate requests for truth-telling and informed refusal, spiritual support, staff education and debriefing to minimize the impact of family interactions on staff health, family presence at both rounds and resuscitation, open flexible visitation, way-finding and family-friendly signage, and family support before, during, and after a death.

Management of pain in elderly patients with cancer. SAGE Study Group. Systematic Assessment of Geriatric Drug Use via Epidemiology

CONTEXT

Cancer pain can be relieved with pharmacological agents as indicated by the World Health Organization (WHO). All too frequently pain management is reported to be poor.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the adequacy of pain management in elderly and minority cancer patients admitted to nursing homes.

DESIGN

Retrospective, cross-sectional study.

SETTING

A total of 1492 Medicare-certified and/or Medicaid-certified nursing homes in 5 states participating in the Health Care Financing Administration's demonstration project, which evaluated the implementation of the Resident Assessment Instrument and its Minimum Data Set.

STUDY POPULATION

A group of 13 625 cancer patients aged 65 years and older discharged from the hospital to any of the facilities from 1992 to 1995. Data were from the multilinked Systematic Assessment of Geriatric Drug Use via Epidemiology (SAGE) database.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prevalence and predictors of daily pain and of analgesic treatment. Pain assessment was based on patients' report and was completed by a multidisciplinary team of nursing home personnel that observed, over a 7-day period, whether each resident complained or showed evidence of pain daily.

RESULTS

A total of 4003 patients (24%, 29%, and 38% of those aged > or =85 years, 75 to 84 years, and 65 to 74 years, respectively) reported daily pain. Age, gender, race, marital status, physical function, depression, and cognitive status were all independently associated with the presence of pain. Of patients with daily pain, 16% received a WHO level 1 drug, 32% a WHO level 2 drug, and only 26% received morphine. Patients aged 85 years and older were less likely to receive morphine or other strong opiates [corrected] than those aged 65 to 74 years (13% vs 38%, respectively). More than a quarter of patients (26%) in daily pain did not receive any analgesic agent. Patients older than 85 years in daily pain were also more likely to receive no analgesia (odds ratio [OR], 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.73). Other independent predictors of failing to receive any analgesic agent were minority race (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.18-2.26 for African Americans), low cognitive performance (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.44), and the number of other medications received (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.5-0.84 for 11 or more medications).

CONCLUSIONS

Daily pain is prevalent among nursing home residents with cancer and is often untreated, particularly among older and minority patients.

Symptoms and suffering at the end of life in children with cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in children, after accidents. Little is known, however, about the symptoms and suffering at the end of life in children with cancer.

METHODS

In 1997 and 1998, we interviewed the parents of children who had died of cancer between 1990 and 1997 and who were cared for at Children's Hospital, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, or both. Additional data were obtained by reviewing medical records.

RESULTS

Of 165 eligible parents, we interviewed 103 (62 percent), 98 by telephone and 5 in person. The interviews were conducted a mean (+/-SD) of 3.1+/-1.6 years after the death of the child. Almost 80 percent died of progressive disease, and the rest died of treatment-related complications. Forty-nine percent of the children died in the hospital; nearly half of these deaths occurred in the intensive care unit. According to the parents, 89 percent of the children suffered "a lot" or "a great deal" from at least one symptom in their last month of life, most commonly pain, fatigue, or dyspnea. Of the children who were treated for specific symptoms, treatment was successful in 27 percent of those with pain and 16 percent of those with dyspnea. On the basis of a review of the medical records, parents were significantly more likely than physicians to report that their child had fatigue, poor appetite, constipation, and diarrhea. Suffering from pain was more likely in children whose parents reported that the physician was not actively involved in providing end-of-life care (odds ratio, 2.6; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.0 to 6.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Children who die of cancer receive aggressive treatment at the end of life. Many have substantial suffering in the last month of life, and attempts to control their symptoms are often unsuccessful. Greater attention must be paid to palliative care for children who are dying of cancer.

Efficacy of communication skills training for giving bad news and discussing transitions to palliative care

BACKGROUND

Few studies have assessed the efficacy of communication skills training for postgraduate physician trainees at the level of behaviors. We designed a residential communication skills workshop (Oncotalk) for medical oncology fellows. The intervention design built on existing successful models by teaching specific communication tasks linked to the patient's trajectory of illness. This study evaluated the efficacy of Oncotalk in changing observable communication behaviors.

METHODS

Oncotalk was a 4-day residential workshop emphasizing skills practice in small groups. This preintervention and postintervention cohort study involved 115 medical oncology fellows from 62 different institutions during a 3-year study. The primary outcomes were observable participant communication skills measured during standardized patient encounters before and after the workshop in giving bad news and discussing transitions to palliative care. The standardized patient encounters were audiorecorded and assessed by blinded coders using a validated coding system. Before-after comparisons were made using each participant as his or her own control.

RESULTS

Compared with preworkshop standardized patient encounters, postworkshop encounters showed that participants acquired a mean of 5.4 bad news skills (P<.001) and a mean of 4.4 transitions skills (P<.001). Most changes in individual skills were substantial; for example, in the bad news encounter, 16% of participants used the word "cancer" when giving bad news before the workshop, and 54% used it after the workshop (P<.001). Also in the bad news encounter, blinded coders were able to identify whether a standardized patient encounter occurred before or after the workshop in 91% of the audiorecordings.

CONCLUSION

Oncotalk represents a successful teaching model for improving communication skills for postgraduate medical trainees.

Morphine and alternative opioids in cancer pain: the EAPC recommendations

An expert working group of the European Association for Palliative Care has revised and updated its guidelines on the use of morphine in the management of cancer pain. The revised recommendations presented here give guidance on the use of morphine and the alternative strong opioid analgesics which have been introduced in many parts of the world in recent years. Practical strategies for dealing with difficult situations are described presenting a consensus view where supporting evidence is lacking. The strength of the evidence on which each recommendation is based is indicated.

Palliative Care for the Seriously Ill

Palliative care is the interdisciplinary specialty focused on improving quality of life for persons with serious illness and their families. Over the past decade,1 the field has undergone substantial growth and change, including an expanded evidence base, new care-delivery models, innovative payment mechanisms, and increasing public and professional awareness.

The development of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL: a shortened questionnaire for cancer patients in palliative care

This study aimed at developing a shortened version of the EORTC QLQ-C30, one of the most widely used health-related quality of life questionnaires in oncology, for palliative care research. The study included interviews with 41 patients and 66 health care professionals in palliative care to determine the appropriateness, relevance and importance of the various domains of the QLQ-C30. Item response theory methods were used to shorten scales. Patients and health care professionals rated pain, physical function, emotional function, fatigue, global health status/quality of life, nausea/vomiting, appetite, dyspnoea, constipation, and sleep as most important. Therefore, these scales/items were retained in the questionnaire. Four scales were shortened without reducing measurement precision. Important dimensions not covered by the questionnaire were identified. The resulting 15-item EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL is a 'core questionnaire' for palliative care. Depending on the research questions, it may be supplemented by additional items, modules or questionnaires.

Development and validation of a core outcome measure for palliative care: the palliative care outcome scale. Palliative Care Core Audit Project Advisory Group

OBJECTIVES

To develop an outcome measure for patients with advanced cancer and their families which would cover more than either physical symptoms or quality of life related questions. To validate the measure in various specialist and non-specialist palliative care settings throughout the UK.

DESIGN

A systematic literature review of measures appropriate for use in palliative care settings was conducted. In conjunction with a multidisciplinary project advisory group, questions were chosen for inclusion into the scale based on whether they measured aspects of physical, psychological, or spiritual domains pertinent to palliative care, and whether similar items had shown to be valid as part of another measure. A staff completed version was developed to facilitate data collection on all patients throughout their care, and a patient completed version was designed to enable the patient to contribute to the assessment of their outcomes when possible. A full validation study was conducted to evaluate construct validity, internal consistency, responsiveness to change over time, and test-retest reliability. Assessments were timed.

SETTING

Eight centres in England and Scotland providing palliative care, including inpatient care, outpatient care, day care, home care, and primary care.

PATIENTS

A total of 450 patients entered care during the study period. Staff collected data routinely on patients in care long enough to be assessed (n = 337). Of these, 262 were eligible for patient participation; 148 (33%) went on to complete a questionnaire.

MAIN MEASURES

The Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS), the European Organisation for Research on Cancer Treatment, and the Support Team Assessment Schedule.

RESULTS

The POS consists of two almost identical measures, one of which is completed by staff, the other by patients. Agreement between staff and patient ratings was found to be acceptable for eight out of 10 items at the first assessment. The measure demonstrated construct validity (Spearman rho = 0.43 to 0.80). Test/re-test reliability was acceptable for seven items. Internal consistency was good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.65 (patients), 0.70 (staff)). Change over time was shown, but did not reach statistical significance. The questionnaire did not take more than 10 minutes to complete by staff or patients.

CONCLUSION

The POS has acceptable validity and reliability. It can be used to assess prospectively palliative care for patients with advanced cancer.

How well do we care for patients with end stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)? A comparison of palliative care and quality of life in COPD and lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have a poor quality of life and limited life expectancy. This study examined whether these patients were relatively disadvantaged in terms of medical and social care compared with a group with inoperable lung cancer.

METHODS

An open two group comparison was made of 50 patients with severe COPD (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) <0.75 l and at least one admission for hypercapnic respiratory failure) and 50 patients with unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A multi-method design was used involving standardised quality of life tools, semi-structured interviews, and review of documentation.

RESULTS

The patients with COPD had significantly worse activities of daily living and physical, social, and emotional functioning than the patients with NSCLC (p<0.05). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores suggested that 90% of patients with COPD suffered clinically relevant anxiety or depression compared with 52% of patients with NSCLC. Patients were generally satisfied with the medical care received, but only 4% in each group were formally assessed or treated for mental health problems. With regard to social support, the main difference between the groups was that, while 30% of patients with NSCLC received help from specialist palliative care services, none of the patients with COPD had access to a similar system of specialist care. Finally, patients in both groups reported a lack of information from professionals regarding diagnosis, prognosis and social support, although patients' information needs were disparate and often conflicting.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that patients with end stage COPD have significantly impaired quality of life and emotional well being which may not be as well met as those of patients with lung cancer, nor do they receive holistic care appropriate to their needs.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for patients with chronic pain

OBJECTIVE

Chronic pain is a prevalent and costly problem. This review addresses the question of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the most common treatments for patients with chronic pain.

DATA SOURCES

Representative published studies that evaluate the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological treatments, conservative (standard) care, surgery, spinal cord stimulators, implantable drug delivery systems (IDDSs), and pain rehabilitation programs (PRPs) are examined and compared. The cost-effectiveness of these treatment approaches is also considered.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Outcome criteria including pain reduction, medication use, health care consumption, functional activities, and closure of disability compensation cases are examined. In addition to clinical effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness of PRPs, conservative care, surgery, spinal cord stimulators, and IDDSs are compared using costs to return a treated patient to work to illustrate the relative expenses for each of these treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

There are limitations to the success of all the available treatments. The author urges caution in interpreting the results, particularly in comparisons between treatments and across studies, because there are broad differences in the pain syndromes and inclusion criteria used, the drug dosages, comparability of treatments, the definition of "chronic" used, the outcome criteria selected to determine success, and societal differences. None of the currently available treatments eliminates pain for the majority of patients. Pain rehabilitation programs provide comparable reduction in pain to alternative pain treatment modalities, but with significantly better outcomes for medication use, health care utilization, functional activities, return to work, closure of disability claims, and with substantially fewer iatrogenic consequences and adverse events. Surgery, spinal cord stimulators, and IDDSs appear to have substantial benefits on some outcome criteria for carefully selected patients. These modalities are, however, expensive. Pain rehabilitation programs are significantly more cost effective than implantation of spinal cord stimulators, IDDSs, conservative care, and surgery, even for selected patients. Research is needed to identify which patients are most likely to benefit from the available treatments and to study combinations of the available treatments since none of them appear capable of eliminating pain or significantly improving functional outcomes for all treated.

Is there evidence that palliative care teams alter end-of-life experiences of patients and their caregivers?

Palliative care provision varies widely, and the effectiveness of palliative and hospice care teams (PCHCT) is unproven. To determine the effect of PCHCT, 10 electronic databases (to 2000), 4 relevant journals, associated reference lists, and the grey literature were searched. All PCHCT evaluations were included. Anecdotal and case reports were excluded. Forty-four studies evaluated PCHCT provision. Teams were home care (22), hospital-based (9), combined home/hospital care (4), inpatient units (3), and integrated teams (6). Studies were mostly Grade II or III quality. Funnel plots indicated slight publication bias. Meta-regression (26 studies) found slight positive effect, of approximately 0.1, of PCHCTs on patient outcomes, independent of team make-up, patient diagnosis, country, or study design. Meta-analysis (19 studies) demonstrated small benefit on patients' pain (odds ratio [OR]: 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.64), other symptoms (OR: 0.51, CI: 0.30-0.88), and a non-significant trend towards benefits for satisfaction, and therapeutic interventions. Data regarding home deaths were equivocal. Meta-synthesis (all studies) found wide variations in the type of service delivered by each team; there was no discernible difference in outcomes between city, urban, and rural areas. Evidence of benefit was strongest for home care. Only one study provided full economic cost-benefit evaluation. This is the first study to quantitatively demonstrate benefit from PCHCTs. Such comparisons were limited by the quality of the research.

Development of the Serious Illness Care Program: a randomised controlled trial of a palliative care communication intervention

INTRODUCTION

Ensuring that patients receive care that is consistent with their goals and values is a critical component of high-quality care. This article describes the protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent, structured communication intervention.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Patients with advanced, incurable cancer and life expectancy of <12 months will participate together with their surrogate. Clinicians are enrolled and randomised either to usual care or the intervention. The Serious Illness Care Program is a multicomponent, structured communication intervention designed to identify patients, train clinicians to use a structured guide for advanced care planning discussion with patients, 'trigger' clinicians to have conversations, prepare patients and families for the conversation, and document outcomes of the discussion in a structured format in the electronic medical record. Clinician satisfaction with the intervention, confidence and attitudes will be assessed before and after the intervention. Self-report data will be collected from patients and surrogates approximately every 2 months up to 2 years or until the patient's death; patient medical records will be examined at the close of the study. Analyses will examine the impact of the intervention on the patient receipt of goal-concordant care, and peacefulness at the end of life. Secondary outcomes include patient anxiety, depression, quality of life, therapeutic alliance, quality of communication, and quality of dying and death. Key process measures include frequency, timing and quality of documented conversations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Institutional Review Board. Results will be reported in peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Protocol identifier NCT01786811; Pre-results.

A new palliative prognostic score: a first step for the staging of terminally ill cancer patients. Italian Multicenter and Study Group on Palliative Care

In recent years, extensive research has been performed to identify prognostic factors that predict survival in terminally ill cancer patients. This study describes the construction of a simple prognostic score based on factors identified in a prospective multicenter study of 519 patients with a median survival of 32 days. An exponential multiple regression model was adopted to evaluate the joint effect of some clinico-biological variables on survival. From an initial model containing 36 variables, a final parsimonious model was obtained by means of a backward selection procedure. The Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP Score) is based on the final model and includes the following variables: Clinical Prediction of Survival (CPS), Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), anorexia, dyspnea, total white blood count (WBC) and lymphocyte percentage. A numerical score was given to each variable, based on the relative weight of the independent prognostic significance shown by each single category in the multivariate analysis. The sum of the single scores gives the overall PaP Score for each patient and was used to subdivide the study population into three groups, each with a different probability of survival at 30 days: (1) group A: probability of survival at 30 days > 70%, with patient score < or = 5.5; (2) group B: probability of survival at 30 days 30-70%, with patient score 5.6-11.0; and (3) group C: probability of survival at 30 days < 30%, with patient score > 11.0. Using this method, 178/519 (34.3%) patients were classified in risk group A, 205 (39.5%) patients were in risk group B, and 136 (26.2%) patients were in risk group C. The patients classified in the three risk groups had a very different survival experience (logrank = 294.8, P < 0.001), with a median survival of 64 days for group A, 32 days for group B, and 11 days for group C. The PaP Score based on simple clinical and biohumoral variables proved to be statistically significant in a multivariate analysis. The score is valid in this population (training set). An independent validation on another patient series (testing set) is required and is the object of a companion paper.

Family perspectives on the quality of pediatric palliative care

BACKGROUND

As a prelude to establishing a Pediatric Palliative Care Program, we solicited information from families about their experiences and their suggestions for improving the quality of end-of-life care. Participants were English- and Spanish-speaking family members of deceased pediatric patients who received care at Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif.

METHODS

Sixty-eight family members of 44 deceased children were interviewed regarding treatment, transition to palliative care, and bereavement follow-up. Four clinical social workers and one clinical psychologist reviewed the participants' responses and identified frequently occurring themes.

RESULTS

Several areas of unsatisfactory interactions with staff were identified: confusing, inadequate, or uncaring communications regarding treatment or prognosis; preventable oversights in procedures or policies; failure to include or meet the needs of siblings and Spanish-speaking family members; and inconsistent bereavement follow-up. A discrepancy emerged between the high degree of pain described by the families and parents' perceptions that pain had been managed well. Community hospice programs are frequently poorly prepared to serve pediatric patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to improve pediatric palliative care. Recurring themes in the family interviews suggest useful issues to consider in the development of a palliative care program.

Pain measurement tools and methods in clinical research in palliative care: recommendations of an Expert Working Group of the European Association of Palliative Care

An Expert Working Group was convened under the auspices of the Steering Committee of the Research Network of the European Association of Palliative Care to review the status of the use of pain measurement tools (PMTs) in palliative care research conducted in a multilingual-multicenter setting. Based on a literature review and on the experts' opinion, the present work recommends that standardized methods should be applied for the use of PMTs in research in palliative care. Visual analogue scales, numerical rating scales, and verbal rating scales are considered valid to assess pain intensity in clinical trials and in other types of studies. Among the multidimensional questionnaires designed to assess pain, the McGill Pain Questionnaire and Brief Pain Inventory are valid in many multilingual versions. Specific recommendations for PMT use and administration, depending on the study type and aim, are reviewed. Special population requirements specific of clinical situations encountered in palliative care (elderly, terminal, cognitively impaired patients, pediatric patients) are also considered.

Palliative Sedation Therapy in the Last Weeks of Life: A Literature Review and Recommendations for Standards

PURPOSE

Palliative sedation therapy (PST) is a controversial issue. There is a need for internationally accepted definitions and standards.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed by an international panel of 29 palliative care experts. Draft papers were written on various topics concerning PST. This paper is a summary of the individual papers, written after two meetings and extensive e-mail discussions.

RESULTS

PST is defined as the use of specific sedative medications to relieve intolerable suffering from refractory symptoms by a reduction in patient consciousness, using appropriate drugs carefully titrated to the cessation of symptoms. The initial dose of sedatives should usually be small enough to maintain the patients' ability to communicate periodically. The team looking after the patient should have enough expertise and experience to judge the symptom as refractory. Advice from palliative care specialists is strongly recommended before initiating PST. In the case of continuous and deep PST, the disease should be irreversible and advanced, with death expected within hours to days. Midazolam should be considered first-line choice. The decision whether or not to withhold or withdraw hydration should be discussed separately. Hydration should be offered only if it is considered likely that the benefit will outweigh the harm. PST is distinct from euthanasia because (1) it has the intent to provide symptom relief, (2) it is a proportionate intervention, and (3) the death of the patient is not a criterion for success. PST and its outcome should be carefully monitored and documented.

CONCLUSION

When other treatments fail to relieve suffering in the imminently dying patient, PST is a valid palliative care option.

Successful validation of the palliative prognostic score in terminally ill cancer patients. Italian Multicenter Study Group on Palliative Care

The aim of this work was to validate a previously constructed prognostic score for terminally ill cancer patients in order to determine its value in clinical practice. The Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP Score) was tested on a population of 451 evaluable patients consecutively entered in the hospice programs of 14 Italian Palliative Care Centers. The score subdivided patients into three specific risk classes based on the following six predictive factors of death: dyspnea, anorexia, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), Clinical Prediction of Survival (CPS), total white blood count (WBC), and lymphocyte percentage. The performance of the PaP Score index in the training and testing sets was evaluated by comparing mortality rates in the 3 prognostic risk categories. The score was able to subdivide the validation-independent case series into three risk groups. Median survival was 76 days in group A (with a 86.6% probability of 30-day survival), 32 days in group B (with a 51.6% probability of 30-day survival), and 14 days in group C (with a 16.9% probability of 30-day survival). Survival medians were remarkably similar to those of the training set (64 days in group A, 32 days in group B, and 11 days in group C). In the complex process of staging terminally ill patients, the PaP Score is a simple instrument which permits a more accurate quantification of expected survival. It has been validated on an independent case series and is thus suitable for use in clinical practice.

Introduction: Understanding and influencing multilevel factors across the cancer care continuum

Health care in the United States is notoriously expensive while often failing to deliver the care recommended in published guidelines. There is, therefore, a need to consider our approach to health-care delivery. Cancer care is a good example for consideration because it spans the continuum of health-care issues from primary prevention through long-term survival and end-of-life care. In this monograph, we emphasize that health-care delivery occurs in a multilevel system that includes organizations, teams, and individuals. To achieve health-care delivery consistent with the Institute of Medicine's six quality aims (safety, effectiveness, timeliness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, and equity), we must influence multiple levels of that multilevel system. The notion that multiple levels of contextual influence affect behaviors through interdependent interactions is a well-established ecological view. This view has been used to analyze health-care delivery and health disparities. However, experience considering multilevel interventions in health care is much less robust. This monograph includes 13 chapters relevant to expanding the foundation of research for multilevel interventions in health-care delivery. Subjects include clinical cases of multilevel thinking in health-care delivery, the state of knowledge regarding multilevel interventions, study design and measurement considerations, methods for combining interventions, time as a consideration in the evaluation of effects, measurement of effects, simulations, application of multilevel thinking to health-care systems and disparities, and implementation of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Our goal is to outline an agenda to proceed with multilevel intervention research, not because it guarantees improvement in our current approach to health care, but because ignoring the complexity of the multilevel environment in which care occurs has not achieved the desired improvements in care quality outlined by the Institute of Medicine at the turn of the millennium.

Judging the quality of care at the end of life: can proxies provide reliable information?

A major challenge in research into care at the end of life is the difficulty of obtaining the views and experiences of representative samples of patients. Studies relying on patients' accounts prior to death are potentially biased, as they only represent that proportion of patients with an identifiable terminal illness, who are relatively well and therefore able to participate, and who are willing to take part. An alternative approach that overcomes many of these problems is the retrospective or 'after death' approach. Here, observations are gathered from proxies, usually the patient's next of kin, following the patient's death. However, questions have been raised about the validity of proxies' responses. This paper provides a comprehensive review of studies that have compared patient and proxy views. The evidence suggests that proxies can reliably report on the quality of services, and on observable symptoms. Agreement is poorest for subjective aspects of the patient's experience, such as pain, anxiety and depression. The findings are discussed in relation to literature drawn from survey methodology, psychology, health and palliative care. In addition to this, factors likely to affect levels of agreement are identified. Amongst these are factors associated with the patient and proxy, the measures used to assess palliative care and the quality of the research evaluating the validity of proxies' reports. As proxies are a vital source of information, and for some patients the only source, the paper highlights the need for further research to improve the validity of proxies' reports.

Update of the international consensus on palliative radiotherapy endpoints for future clinical trials in bone metastases

PURPOSE

To update the international consensus on palliative radiotherapy endpoints for future clinical trials in bone metastases by surveying international experts regarding previous uncertainties within the 2002 consensus, changes that may be necessary based on practice pattern changes and research findings since that time.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A two-phase survey was used to determine revisions and new additions to the 2002 consensus. A total of 49 experts from the American Society for Radiation Oncology, the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, the Faculty of Radiation Oncology of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, and the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology who are directly involved in the care of patients with bone metastases participated in this survey.

RESULTS

Consensus was established in areas involving response definitions, eligibility criteria for future trials, reirradiation, changes in systemic therapy, radiation techniques, parameters at follow-up, and timing of assessments.

CONCLUSION

An outline for trials in bone metastases was updated based on survey and consensus. Investigators leading trials in bone metastases are encouraged to adopt the revised guideline to promote consistent reporting. Areas for future research were identified. It is intended for the consensus to be re-examined in the future on a regular basis.

Improving patient and caregiver outcomes in oncology: Team-based, timely, and targeted palliative care

Over the past decade, a large body of evidence has accumulated supporting the integration of palliative care into oncology practice for patients with advanced cancer. The question is no longer whether palliative care should be offered, but what is the optimal model of delivery, when is the ideal time to refer, who is in greatest need of a referral, and how much palliative care should oncologists themselves be providing. These questions are particularly relevant given the scarcity of palliative care resources internationally. In this state-of-the-science review directed at the practicing cancer clinician, the authors first discuss the contemporary literature examining the impact of specialist palliative care on various health outcomes. Then, conceptual models are provided to support team-based, timely, and targeted palliative care. Team-based palliative care allows the interdisciplinary members to address comprehensively the multidimensional care needs of patients and their caregivers. Timely palliative care, at its best, is preventive care to minimize crises at the end of life. Targeted palliative care involves identifying the patients most likely to benefit from specialist palliative care interventions, akin to the concept of targeted cancer therapies. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of innovative care models, such as outpatient clinics, embedded clinics, nurse-led palliative care, primary palliative care provided by oncology teams, and automatic referral, are summarized. Moving forward, more research is needed to determine how different health systems can best personalize palliative care to provide the right level of intervention, for the right patient, in the right setting, at the right time. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;680:00-00. 2018 American Cancer Society, Inc.