Search

Antidepressants require several weeks for the onset of action, a lag time that may exceed life expectancy in palliative care. Ketamine has demonstrated rapid antidepressant effects, but has been minimally studied in cancer and palliative care populations. Herein, the objective was to determine the feasibility, safety, tolerability and preliminary efficacy of intranasal racemic ketamine for major depressive disorder (MDD) in patients with advanced cancer. We conducted a single-arm, open-label phase II trial at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, ON, Canada. Participants with advanced cancer with moderate to severe MDD received three flexible doses of intranasal (IN) ketamine (50–150 mg) over a one-week period. The primary efficacy outcome was an antidepressant response and remission rates as determined by the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) from baseline to the Day 8 primary endpoint. Twenty participants were enrolled in the trial, receiving at least one dose of IN ketamine, with fifteen participants receiving all three doses. The Day 8 antidepressant response (MADRS decreased by >50%) and remission (MADRS < 10 on Day 8) rates were high at 70% and 45%, respectively. Mean MADRS scores decreased significantly from baseline (mean MADRS of 31, standard deviation 7.6) to Day 8 (11 +/− 7.4) with an overall decrease of 20 points (p < 0.001). Antidepressant effects were partially sustained in the second week in the absence of additional ketamine doses, with a Day 14 mean MADRS score of 14 +/− 9.9. Common adverse effects included fatigue, dissociation, nausea, dysgeusia and headaches; almost all adverse effects were mild and transient, resolving within 2 h of each ketamine dose with one dropout related to adverse effects (negative dissociative episode). Given these promising findings, larger, controlled trials are merited.

Family physicians' (FPs) long-term relationships with their oncology patients position them ideally to provide primary palliative care, yet their involvement is variable. We examined perceptions of FP involvement among outpatients receiving palliative care at a cancer center and identified factors associated with this involvement.Patients with advanced cancer attending an oncology palliative care clinic (OPCC) completed a 25-item survey. Eligible patients had seen an FP within 5 years. Binary multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with (1) having seen an FP for palliative care within 6 months, and (2) having a scheduled/planned FP appointment.Of 258 patients, 35.2% (89/253) had seen an FP for palliative care within the preceding 6 months, and 51.2% (130/254) had a scheduled/planned FP appointment. Shorter travel time to FP (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.48-0.93, p = 0.02), the FP having a 24-h support service (OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.02-3.76, p = 0.04), and a positive perception of FP's care (OR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01-1.09, p = 0.01) were associated with having seen the FP for palliative care. English as a first language (OR = 2.90, 95% CI = 1.04-8.11, p = 0.04) and greater ease contacting FP after hours (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.08-1.64, p = 0.008) were positively associated, and female sex of patient (OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.30-0.87, p = 0.01) and travel time to FP (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.47-0.93, p = 0.02) negatively associated with having a scheduled/planned FP appointment. Number of OPCC visits was not associated with either outcome.Most patients had not seen an FP for palliative care. Accessibility, availability, and equity are important factors to consider when planning interventions to encourage and facilitate access to FPs for palliative care.

BackgroundMedication reconciliation (MedRec) is a process where providers work with patients to document and communicate comprehensive medication information by creating a complete medication list (best possible medication history (BPMH)) then reconciling it against what patient is actually taking to identify potential issues such as drug-drug interactions. We undertook an environmental scan of current MedRec practices in outpatient cancer care to inform a quality improvement project at our centre with the aim of 30% of patients having a BPMH or MedRec within 30 days of initiating treatment with systemic therapy.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from 21 cancer centres across Canada, probing on current policies, and barriers and facilitators to MedRec. Guided by the findings of the scan, we then undertook a quality improvement project at our cancer centre, comprising six iterative improvement cycles.ResultsMost institutions interviewed had a process in place for collecting a BPMH (81%) and targeted patients initiating systemic therapy (59%); however, considerable practice variation was noted and completion of full MedRec was uncommon. Lack of resources, high patient volumes, lack of a common medical record spanning institutions and settings which limits access to medication records from external institutions and community pharmacies were identified as significant barriers. Despite navigating challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, we achieved 26.6% of eligible patients with a documented BPMH. However, uptake of full MedRec remained low whereby 4.7% of patients had a documented MedRec.ConclusionsRealising improvements to completion of MedRec in outpatient cancer care is possible but takes considerable time and iteration as the process is complex. Resource allocation and information sharing remain major barriers which need to be addressed in order to observe meaningful improvements in MedRec.

COVID-19 was first reported in Wuhan, China, in December 2019; it rapidly spread around the world and was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. The palliative care program at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada, provides comprehensive care to patients with advanced cancer and their families, through services including an acute palliative care unit, an inpatient consultation service, and an ambulatory palliative care clinic. In the face of a global pandemic, palliative care teams are uniquely placed to support patients with cancer who also have COVID-19. This may include managing severe symptoms such as dyspnea and agitation, as well as guiding advance care planning and goals of care conversations. In tandem, there is a need for palliative care teams to continue to provide care to patients with advanced cancer who are COVID-negative but who are at higher risk of infection and adverse outcomes related to COVID-19. This paper highlights the unique challenges faced by a palliative care team in terms of scaling up services in response to a global pandemic while simultaneously providing ongoing support to their patients with advanced cancer at a tertiary cancer center.

Performance status measures are increasingly completed by patients in outpatient cancer settings, but are not well validated for this use.We assessed performance of a patient-reported functional status measure (PRFS, based on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG]), compared with the physician-completed ECOG, in terms of agreement in ratings and prediction of survival.Patients and physicians independently completed five-point PRFS (lay version of ECOG) and ECOG measures on first consultation at an oncology palliative care clinic. We assessed agreement between PRFS and ECOG using weighted Kappa statistics, and used linear regression to determine factors associated with the difference between PRFS and ECOG ratings. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate the patients' median survival, categorized by PRFS and ECOG, and assessed predictive accuracy of these measures using the C-statistic.For the 949 patients, there was moderate agreement between PRFS and ECOG (weighted Kappa 0.32; 95% CI: 0.28-0.36). On average, patients' ratings of performance status were worse by 0.31 points (95% CI: 0.25-0.37, P 0.0001); this tendency was greater for younger patients (P = 0.002) and those with worse symptoms (P 0.0001). Both PRFS and ECOG scores correlated well with overall survival; the C-statistic was higher for the average of PRFS and ECOG scores (0.619) than when reported individually (0.596 and 0.604, respectively).Patients tend to rate their performance status worse than physicians, particularly if they are younger or have greater symptom burden. Prognostic ability of performance status could be improved by using the average of patients and physician scores.

The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) measures the severity of nine symptoms. Constipation and sleep disturbance are common in patients with cancer, but are not currently included in the ESAS.To validate the numerical rating scale (NRS) versions of ESAS and its revised version (ESAS-r), with the additional symptoms of constipation and sleep (CS), and to assess patient preference for either version.Outpatients with advanced cancer (N = 202) completed three assessments during a single clinic visit: ESAS-CS, and an added time window of "past 24 hours"; ESAS-r-CS, with a time window of "now" and symptom definitions; and the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS). Internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach's alpha. Paired t-tests compared ESAS-CS and ESAS-r-CS scores; these were correlated with MSAS using Spearman correlation coefficients. Test-retest reliability at 24 hours was assessed in 26 patients.ESAS-CS and ESAS-r-CS total scores correlated well with total MSAS (Spearman's rho 0.62 and 0.64, respectively). Correlation of individual symptoms with MSAS symptoms ranged from 0.54-0.80 for ESAS-CS and 0.52-0.74 for ESAS-r-CS. Although participants preferred the ESAS-r-CS format (42.8% vs. 18.6%) because of greater clarity and understandability, the "past 24 hours" time window (52.8%) was favored over "now" (21.3%). Shortness of breath and nausea correlated better for the "past 24 hours" time window (0.8 and 0.72 vs. 0.74 and 0.64 in ESAS-r-CS, respectively). The 24-hour test-retest of the ESAS-CS demonstrated acceptable reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.69).The ESAS-CS and ESAS-r-CS NRS versions are valid and reliable for measuring symptoms in this population of outpatients with advanced cancer. Although the ESAS-r-CS was preferred, patients favored the 24-hour time window of the ESAS-CS, which also may best characterize fluctuating symptoms.

BackgroundAlthough the effectiveness of early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer has been demonstrated in several trials, there has been no detailed published description of an early palliative care intervention.MethodIn this paper, we delineate the iterative conception and systematic evaluation of a complex intervention called team-based outpatient early palliative care (TO-EPC), and describe the components of the intervention. The intervention was developed based on palliative care theory, review of previous palliative care interventions and practice guidelines. We conducted feasibility testing and piloting of TO-EPC in a phase 2 trial, followed by evaluation in a large cluster randomised trial and qualitative research with patients and caregivers. The qualitative research informed the iterative refinement of the intervention.ResultsFour principles and four domains of care constitute a conceptual framework for TO-EPC. The main domains of care are: coping and support, symptom control, decision-making and future planning. The main principles are that care is flexible, attentive, patient-led and family-centred. The most prominent domain for the initial consultation is coping and support; follow-up visits focus on symptom control, decision-making to maximise quality of life and future planning according to patient readiness. Key tasks are described in relation to each domain.ConclusionThe description of our intervention may assist palliative care teams seeking to implement it, researchers wishing to replicate or build on it and oncologists hoping to adapt it for their patients.

Providing survival estimates is important for decision making in oncology care. The purpose of this study was to provide survival estimates for outpatients with advanced cancer, using the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), and Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) scales, and to compare their ability to predict survival.ECOG, PPS, and KPS were completed by physicians for each new patient attending the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre outpatient Oncology Palliative Care Clinic (OPCC) from April 2007 to February 2010. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test for trend was employed to test for differences in survival curves for each level of performance status (PS), and the concordance index (C-statistic) was used to test the predictive discriminatory ability of each PS measure.Measures were completed for 1,655 patients. PS delineated survival well for all three scales according to the log-rank test for trend (P.001). Survival was approximately halved for each worsening performance level. Median survival times, in days, for each ECOG level were: EGOG 0, 293; ECOG 1, 197; ECOG 2, 104; ECOG 3, 55; and ECOG 4, 25.5. Median survival times, in days, for PPS (and KPS) were: PPS/KPS 80-100, 221 (215); PPS/KPS 60 to 70, 115 (119); PPS/KPS 40 to 50, 51 (49); PPS/KPS 10 to 30, 22 (29). The C-statistic was similar for all three scales and ranged from 0.63 to 0.64.We present a simple tool that uses PS alone to prognosticate in advanced cancer, and has similar discriminatory ability to more complex models.