A Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument to Assess Symptom Burden and Predict Survival in Patients with Advanced Cancer: Flipping the Paradigm to Improve Timing of Palliative and End-of-Life Discussions and Reduce Unwanted Health Care Costs.
Hospice
Neoplasms
Palliative care
Patient‐reported outcome measures
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2019
01 2019
Historique:
received:
18
04
2018
accepted:
08
08
2018
pubmed:
30
9
2018
medline:
25
3
2020
entrez:
30
9
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Discussions regarding palliative care and end-of-life care issues are frequently delayed past the time of usefulness, resulting in unwanted medical care. We sought to develop a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument that allows patients to voice their symptom burdens and facilitate timing of discussions. A seven-item PRO instrument (Cota Patient Assessed Symptom Score-7 item [CPASS-7]) covering physical performance status, pain, burden, and depression was administered (September 2015 through October 2016) with correlation to overall survival, correcting for time to complete survey since diagnosis. A total of 1,191 patients completed CPASS-7 at a median of 560 days following the diagnosis of advanced cancer. Of these patients, 49% were concerned that they could not do the things they wanted; 35% reported decreased performance status. Financial toxicity was reported by 39% of patients, with family burdens noted in 25%. Although depression was reported by 15%, 43% reported lack of pleasure. Pain was reported by 33%. The median CPASS-7 total symptom burden score was 16 (possible 0-112). With a median follow-up of 15 months from initial survey, 46% had died. Patients with symptom burden scores <29 and ≥29 had a 6-month overall survival rate of 87% and 67%, respectively, and 12-month survival rates of 72% and 50%. A one-point score increase resulted in a 1.8% increase in expected hazard. Patients with advanced cancer with higher levels of symptom burden, as self-reported on the CPASS-7, had inferior survival. The PRO facilitates identification of patients appropriate for reassessment of treatment goals and potentially palliative and end-of-life care in response to symptom burden concerns. A seven-item patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument was administered to 1,191 patients with advanced cancers. Patients self-reporting higher levels of physical and psychological symptom burden had inferior overall survival rates. High individual item symptom PRO responses should serve as a useful trigger to initiate supportive interventions, but when scores indicate global problems, discussions regarding end-of-life care might be appropriate.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Discussions regarding palliative care and end-of-life care issues are frequently delayed past the time of usefulness, resulting in unwanted medical care. We sought to develop a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument that allows patients to voice their symptom burdens and facilitate timing of discussions.
SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS
A seven-item PRO instrument (Cota Patient Assessed Symptom Score-7 item [CPASS-7]) covering physical performance status, pain, burden, and depression was administered (September 2015 through October 2016) with correlation to overall survival, correcting for time to complete survey since diagnosis.
RESULTS
A total of 1,191 patients completed CPASS-7 at a median of 560 days following the diagnosis of advanced cancer. Of these patients, 49% were concerned that they could not do the things they wanted; 35% reported decreased performance status. Financial toxicity was reported by 39% of patients, with family burdens noted in 25%. Although depression was reported by 15%, 43% reported lack of pleasure. Pain was reported by 33%. The median CPASS-7 total symptom burden score was 16 (possible 0-112). With a median follow-up of 15 months from initial survey, 46% had died. Patients with symptom burden scores <29 and ≥29 had a 6-month overall survival rate of 87% and 67%, respectively, and 12-month survival rates of 72% and 50%. A one-point score increase resulted in a 1.8% increase in expected hazard.
CONCLUSION
Patients with advanced cancer with higher levels of symptom burden, as self-reported on the CPASS-7, had inferior survival. The PRO facilitates identification of patients appropriate for reassessment of treatment goals and potentially palliative and end-of-life care in response to symptom burden concerns.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
A seven-item patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument was administered to 1,191 patients with advanced cancers. Patients self-reporting higher levels of physical and psychological symptom burden had inferior overall survival rates. High individual item symptom PRO responses should serve as a useful trigger to initiate supportive interventions, but when scores indicate global problems, discussions regarding end-of-life care might be appropriate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30266893
pii: theoncologist.2018-0238
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0238
pmc: PMC6324621
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
76-85Informations de copyright
© AlphaMed Press 2018.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article.
Références
Health Serv Res. 2004 Apr;39(2):363-75
pubmed: 15032959
J Health Commun. 2009;14 Suppl 1:95-108
pubmed: 19449273
J Oncol Pract. 2017 Nov;13(11):e889-e899
pubmed: 28723253
N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug 19;363(8):733-42
pubmed: 20818875
J Oncol Pract. 2011 Sep;7(5):301-6
pubmed: 22211126
J Palliat Med. 2011 Apr;14(4):451-7
pubmed: 21391819
Ann Intern Med. 1997 Jul 1;127(1):1-12
pubmed: 9214246
J Clin Oncol. 1991 Sep;9(9):1618-26
pubmed: 1651993
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Dec 1;22(23):4823-8
pubmed: 15570085
J Oncol Pract. 2012 Nov;8(6):75s-80s
pubmed: 23598848
Support Care Cancer. 2013 May;21(5):1503-7
pubmed: 23325092
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Mar 1;28(7):1203-8
pubmed: 20124172
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2000;46(5):357-64
pubmed: 11127939
Ann Intern Med. 2003 Apr 15;138(8):639-43
pubmed: 12693886
BMJ. 2000 Apr 1;320(7239):909-13
pubmed: 10742000
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 10;28(2):299-304
pubmed: 19933909
JAMA. 2016 Nov 22;316(20):2104-2114
pubmed: 27893131
Cancer. 1984 May 1;53(9):2002-7
pubmed: 6704925
J Palliat Med. 2000 Spring;3(1):27-35
pubmed: 15859719
Palliat Med. 2014 Dec;28(10):1167-96
pubmed: 24866758
Arch Intern Med. 2002 Aug 12-26;162(15):1722-8
pubmed: 12153375
Arch Intern Med. 1992 Mar;152(3):478-80
pubmed: 1546909
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Nov 1;35(31):3618-3632
pubmed: 28892432
J Clin Oncol. 2004 May 1;22(9):1721-30
pubmed: 15117995
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jan 28;(1):CD001431
pubmed: 24470076
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Jan;35(1):96-112
pubmed: 28034065
Arch Intern Med. 2009 Mar 9;169(5):480-8
pubmed: 19273778
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Aug 1;30(22):2715-7
pubmed: 22753911
BMJ. 2003 Jul 26;327(7408):195-8
pubmed: 12881260
Lancet. 2014 May 17;383(9930):1721-30
pubmed: 24559581
Cancer. 2010 Oct 1;116(19):4656-63
pubmed: 20572030
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2015 Mar;5(1):78-90
pubmed: 25613983
Eur J Cancer. 2008 May;44(8):1146-56
pubmed: 18394880
Eur J Public Health. 2014 Oct;24(5):819-26
pubmed: 24642602
J Palliat Med. 2016 Oct;19(10):1092-1097
pubmed: 27348597
Arch Intern Med. 2009 May 25;169(10):954-62
pubmed: 19468089
JAMA. 2017 Jul 11;318(2):197-198
pubmed: 28586821
Ann Palliat Med. 2016 Jan;5(1):22-9
pubmed: 26841812
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Feb 7;156(3):204-10
pubmed: 22312140
JAMA. 2000 Nov 15;284(19):2476-82
pubmed: 11074777
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 22;10(4):e0122321
pubmed: 25902309
JAMA. 2008 Jun 11;299(22):2667-78
pubmed: 18544726
Med Care. 2003 Nov;41(11):1284-92
pubmed: 14583691
Br J Cancer. 2003 Sep 15;89(6):1022-7
pubmed: 12966419
JAMA. 2008 Oct 8;300(14):1665-73
pubmed: 18840840
Palliat Support Care. 2014 Feb;12(1):63-8
pubmed: 24468423