Search

Background: We aimed to examine the effectiveness of a nurse‐led, screening‐triggered early specialized palliative care intervention program for patients with advanced lung cancer. Methods: Patients with advanced lung cancer who underwent initial chemotherapy were randomized to intervention and usual care groups between January 2017 and September 2019. The intervention comprised comprehensive needs assessments, counseling, and service coordination by advanced‐level nurses. Patients in the usual care group received the usual oncological care. The primary end point was a change in the trial outcome index (TOI) scores from baseline to 12 weeks. The secondary end‐points were TOI scores at week 20, depression, anxiety, and survival. Results: In total, 102 patients were assigned to each group. Compared with the usual care group, no significant improvement in TOI scores was observed at 12 weeks in the intervention group (mean group difference: 2.13; 90% confidence interval: −0.70, 4.95; p = 0.107, one‐sided), whereas significant improvement was observed at 20 weeks (3.58; 90% confidence interval: 0.15, 7.00; p = 0.043). There were no significant differences in the change from baseline depression and anxiety between the groups from baseline at week 12 and 20 weeks (depression: p = 0.60 and 0.10, anxiety: p = 0.78 and 0.067). Survival did not significantly differ between the groups (median survival time: 12.1 vs. 11.1 months; p = 0.302). Conclusions: Nurse‐led, screening‐triggered, early specialized palliative care did not show significant superiority over usual care during the 12‐week study period. However, it may have yielded delayed clinical benefits, such as improved quality of life and this feasible model can be acceptable in clinical practice. Trial Registration: The University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000025491 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Older patients with cancer already represent the largest proportion of cancer survivors which will further increase in the upcoming years. However, older patients are highly underrepresented in clinical research, leading to a detrimental knowledge gap. Research on important aspects of quality of life (QoL) and associated factors for older patients with cancer is insufficient to date. Aim: The objective of this scoping review therefore is to investigate the dimensions of QoL including functional health, life-relevant values and preferences in older adults with cancer across all tumor entities and health care settings. It will further identify medical, sociodemographic, psychosocial and geriatric aspects associated with QoL in the elderly and compare these with younger cancer patients and older non-cancer cases. Methods: Published articles investigating QoL dimensions and associated factors in older patients with cancer, i.e., exclusively patients ≥65 years or mean/median age ≥ 70 years for age-mixed samples, or that compare results of older with younger cancer patients or with older non-cancer cases will be considered for this scoping review. Older patients with cancer across all tumor entities, disease stages and health care setting will be included. PubMed and PsychINFO databases will be searched for relevant articles. Abstracts and titles will be screened for basic inclusion, and two independent reviewers will conduct a full text screening to evaluate the age criteria and decide on the final inclusion of the study. Data on study and participant characteristics, QoL dimensions and geriatric factors will be extracted using a data extraction sheet. Results will be summarized descriptively to address the objectives of this review. Discussion: The findings of this scoping review will provide valuable insights into central dimensions of QoL, including values, preferences and functional health in older adults with cancer, and help to improve targeted interventions and healthcare planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To achieve patient‐centricity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treatment, it is essential to clarify the differences in perspectives between patients and physicians. This cross‐sectional analysis of a web survey aimed to clarify the differences in expectations and concerns between mRCC patients and physicians regarding systemic mRCC therapy in Japan. Methods: Surveys from 83 patients and 165 physicians were analyzed. Results: The top three most significant differences in expectations of systemic therapy between patients and physicians (patient‐based physician value) were "Chance of achieving treatment‐free status" (−30.1%, p < 0.001), "Longer survival" (+25.8%, p < 0.001), and "Chance of eliminating all evidence of disease" (−25.6%, p < 0.001). The top three most significant differences in concerns for systemic therapy between patients and physicians (patient‐based physician value) were "Lack of efficacy" (+36.1%, p < 0.001), "Lack of knowledge of treatment" (−28.2%, p < 0.001), and "Daily activities affected by side effects" (+22.3%, p < 0.001). Diarrhea, fatigue/malaise, and nausea/vomiting were patients' most distressing adverse events; 50.6% of patients had difficulty telling their physicians about adverse events such as fatigue, anxiety, and depression. Conclusions: This study demonstrated a gap between patients with mRCC and physicians in their expectations and concerns for systemic therapy. Japanese patients with mRCC suffer from a number of adverse events, some of which are not shared with physicians. This study highlights the importance of communicating well with patients in clinical practice to achieve patient‐centricity in systemic treatment for mRCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: We investigated financial toxicity in Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma using the COST tool. Despite universal coverage, patients in Japan had similar levels of financial toxicity as in other countries. There was a positive correlation between the FACT-G total score and the COST score. Age < 65 years and not having private health insurance were associated with higher financial toxicity. Information on the financial toxicity experienced by Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is lacking, even though Japan has its own unique public health insurance system. Thus, a web-based survey was conducted to evaluate the financial toxicity experienced by Japanese mRCC patients using the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) tool. This study enrolled Japanese patients who underwent, or were undergoing, systemic therapy for mRCC. The outcomes evaluated were the distribution of COST scores, the correlation between COST and quality of life (QOL) assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale, and demographic factors associated with financial toxicity. The median (range) COST score was 19.0 (3.0–36.0). The Pearson correlation coefficient for COST and FACT-G total scores was 0.40. Univariate analysis revealed that not having private health insurance and lower household income per year were significantly associated with lower COST scores. Multivariate analyses showed that age < 65 years and not having private health insurance were significantly associated with lower COST scores. This study revealed that Japanese mRCC patients experience adverse financial impacts even under the universal health insurance coverage system available in Japan, and financial toxicity negatively affects their QOL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]