Abstract

1. INTRODUCTION

Patients with advanced cancer suffer from multiple physical and psychosocial symptoms. ^{1 , 2} Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that integration of specialized palliative care within oncology early in the course of disease improves quality of life and symptom burden. ^{3 , 4 , 5 , 6} However, universal implementation of early specialized palliative care is not feasible, given the shortage of specialized palliative care clinicians. ^{7 , 8} A more realistic model may be one in which basic palliative care needs are provided by oncologists, while complex problems are addressed by palliative care specialists. ⁹

Routine symptom screening is increasingly being implemented at cancer centers and may provide a means of identifying patients who would benefit from specialized palliative care. ^{10 , 11 , 12} Risk‐stratifying patients according to symptoms may lead to a more equitable distribution of specialized palliative care resources to those with the greatest need and with the greatest potential for benefit. Further, automatic triggering of palliative care referrals based on such criteria could help to diminish stigma and increase the acceptance of palliative care by both patients and providers. ^{13 , 14}

We previously reported on the results of a cluster‐randomized controlled trial that examined the impact of early palliative care provided in a specialized palliative care clinic on multiple patient‐reported outcomes. ³ Compared to those receiving standard oncology care, patients assigned to the early palliative care group had improved quality of life, symptom control, and satisfaction with care 4 months after randomization. There was no difference between the intervention and standard care arms in difficulties with clinician‐patient interactions.

The aim of the current analysis was to examine whether outcomes of this cluster‐randomized trial differed between subgroups according to symptom severity at baseline. We hypothesized that early palliative care would be associated with greater improvements in quality of life, symptom control, satisfaction with care, and clinician–patient interactions in those with high symptom burden at baseline, compared to those with low symptom burden at baseline.

2. METHODS

3. RESULTS

The median age of all trial participants (n = 461; 228 intervention, 233 control) was 61 years and the median baseline ESAS SDS score was 23 (range 2–78, interquartile range 13–36). Of the 461 participants, 229 (127 intervention and 102 control) had baseline ESAS SDS scores above the median (high baseline symptom group) and 232 (101 intervention and 131 control) had baseline ESAS SDS scores at or below the median (low baseline symptom group) (Figure 1).

Open in a separate window

FIGURE 1

Study design

The mean (SD) baseline ESAS SDS was 38.5 (11.1) in the high baseline symptom group and 12.7 (6.4) in the low baseline symptom group. The baseline characteristics of patients in the intervention and control arms, for those with high and low baseline symptoms, are shown in Table 1. For those with high baseline symptoms, there was no significant difference in baseline demographic characteristics or outcome measures between the intervention and control arms. For those with low baseline symptoms, patients in the intervention arm were more likely than those in the control arm to have worse baseline ESAS SDS, FAMCARE‐P16, and CARES‐MIS scores (Table 1).

As shown in Table 2 and Figure 2, among participants who received early palliative care, those in the high baseline symptom group had a significant improvement in FACIT‐Sp scores at 4 months compared to controls (adjusted mean difference in change scores +8.7; 95% CI 2.8–14.5, p = 0.01). There was no improvement in the low baseline symptom subgroup (+2.9; 95% CI −3.7 to 9.5, p = 0.36); the interaction term was not significant (p for interaction, 0.16). Similar results were demonstrated for the QUAL‐E score, which was significantly improved in those in the high baseline symptom group who received early palliative care compared to those who received standard care (adjusted mean difference [AMD] in change scores +4.2; 95% CI 0.9–7.5, p = 0.02). There was no significant improvement in QUAL‐E scores among those in the low baseline symptom group who received the intervention compared to those who received standard care (+0.6; 95% CI −2.6 to 3.7, p = 0.59). For ESAS SDS scores, there was no significant difference between early palliative care and standard care arms in those with high baseline symptoms (AMD −5.6, 95% CI −12.7 to 1.4, p = 0.11), nor in those with low baseline symptoms (−0.2, 95% CI −5.3 to 4.9, p = 0.92).

Open in a separate window

FIGURE 2

Estimated adjusted mean change in FACIT‐Sp, QUAL‐E, ESAS SDS, FAMCARE‐P16, and CARES‐MIS total scores in high and low baseline symptom subgroups at 4 months

Results for the FAMCARE‐P16 and CARES‐MIS outcomes are shown in Table 3 and Figure 2. Among those assigned to early palliative care, those in the high baseline symptom group had a significant improvement in FAMCARE‐P16 at 4 months compared to controls (AMD +6.9; 95% CI 3.8–9.9, p = 0.001), whereas there was no significant improvement in the low baseline symptom group (+3.4; 95% CI −0.5 to 7.4, p = 0.08). Similarly, the high baseline symptom group reported improved clinician‐patient interactions (AMD for CARES‐MIS −1.7; 95% CI −3.4 to −0.1, p = 0.04), whereas there was no improvement in the low baseline symptom group (+0.2; 95% CI −1.3 to 1.7, p = 0.77). The p for interaction was 0.06 for CARES‐MIS and 0.13 for FAMCARE‐P16.

In sensitivity analyses using MCMC imputation, there were significant differences between intervention and control groups for those with high, but not low, baseline symptoms in the primary outcome of FACIT‐Sp as well as QUAL‐E, and nonsignificant results for ESAS SDS regardless of baseline symptom severity. For satisfaction with care and clinician‐patient interactions, those who received early palliative care had improved FAMCARE‐P16 scores within both the high and low symptom groups, whereas CARES‐MIS scores did not improve significantly for those in either symptom group.

4. DISCUSSION

The present subgroup analysis extends the findings of a cluster‐randomized controlled trial in patients with advanced cancer ³ by demonstrating that early palliative improved quality of life, satisfaction with care, and clinician‐patient interactions at 4 months only in those with high baseline symptoms. For symptom control, which showed a marginal benefit from early palliative care in the original trial, there was no difference between the intervention and control arms in either the high or low baseline symptom group. In sensitivity analyses, the results were consistent for quality of life and symptom control, whereas for satisfaction with care those who received early palliative care benefitted regardless of symptom group; for clinician‐patient interactions, no benefit was demonstrated in either symptom group.

The differential improvement from early palliative care in two quality of life measures among those with high, but not low, baseline symptoms is particularly striking given the lack of similar findings for symptom control. There are several possible reasons for these findings. Although the physical domain is important for quality of life, high baseline symptom burden may be a marker of greater palliative care needs across a range of other quality‐of‐life domains. Specialized palliative care not only addresses symptoms, ²⁰ but also strengthens coping, provides holistic support for patients and their caregivers; provides guidance in decision‐making; and assists patients in preparing for the future. ^{24 , 25 , 26 , 27} These interventions may lead to improvements in non‐physical domains of quality of life, such as social and spiritual wellbeing, life completion, end‐of‐life preparation, and relationships with healthcare providers. The need for interventions to address these domains tends to increase with disease severity, ²⁷ as does symptom burden. ^{2 , 28} Thus symptoms may provide a marker for patients who require more care in all quality‐of‐life domains.

There are also several potential explanations for the lack of differential improvement in symptom burden. Although symptom control is a core domain of early palliative care, ^{15 , 24 , 25} symptoms were mild in the total study sample at baseline. This ceiling effect, combined with reduced sample size and power for the subgroup analysis, may have made detection of symptom improvement difficult. Of note, in the high symptom group, there was a nonsignificant trend toward greater improvement of symptoms in the early palliative care arm than in controls, whereas, in the low symptom group, symptom control tended to worsen in both trial arms. Regression to the mean may have played a role in the trends for both high and low symptom groups, though the tendency for difference between arms in the high symptom group is noteworthy. ²⁹ Prior studies have shown that specialized palliative care improves symptom control, ^{6 , 10} which is addressed in up to 75% of early palliative care visits. ²⁴

The more robust findings for patient satisfaction with care compared to clinician‐patient interactions in the current study were also demonstrated in the analysis for the original trial, ³ despite the fact that items for the FAMCARE‐P16 and CARES‐MIS measures are similar. Indeed, for satisfaction with care, there was a tendency for improvement associated with early palliative care in both the high and low symptom groups, although the high symptom group improved to a greater extent. For clinician‐patient interactions, there was a much smaller effect only for those in the high symptom group, which was nonsignificant in the sensitivity analysis. These differences in results between similar measures may relate to the phrasing of items: FAMCARE‐P16 items emphasize the healthcare provider and are phrased positively (e.g. “Doctor's attention to your description of symptoms”; “The availability of doctors to answer your questions”), whereas CARES‐MIS items are phrased negatively and emphasize the patient (e.g. “I have difficulty telling my doctor about new symptoms”; “I have difficulty asking doctors questions”). Perhaps due to this wording, CARES‐MIS results were highly skewed, without much room for improvement. The FAMCARE‐P16 also includes several items related to symptom control, including satisfaction with pain relief, information provided on how to treat pain, speed of symptom control, and physicians' thoroughness and attention to patient's description of symptoms, ^{21 , 22} compared to the CARES‐MIS, which contains only one item specifically on symptom control. ²³ Those with a higher symptom burden may improve most for these symptom‐related items.

Interpretation of our study findings may be considered in the context of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for health‐related quality of life measures. Although no specific MCID has been established for any of the measures in the present study, some may be extrapolated from other quality of life measures. In that regard, a 5–10% change in quality‐of‐life scores is generally considered to be significant. ^{30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34} A change in FACIT‐Sp total score of 8.25 points (5.2%) from baseline was used in the original cluster‐randomized controlled trial to calculate the sample size, based on evidence supporting this as the MCID. ^{30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34} In our study, the change in FACIT‐Sp scores observed among those with high baseline symptoms was found to be above the MCID, with a mean change of 8.7 points from baseline, supporting the clinical significance of our findings. For our secondary quality‐of‐life outcome, the mean change in QUAL‐E score was 4.2 points (4%) from baseline. While this is less than the 5% change estimated as an MCID for quality‐of‐life measures, a validated MCID for QUAL‐E has yet to be determined and MCID values may be subject to change based on study population and context. ³⁵ In general, these results are consistent with those of reviews and meta‐analyses demonstrating that effect sizes for the impact of palliative care on quality of life are significant but small. ^{4 , 6 , 9} No MCID values are available for satisfaction with care or clinician‐patient interactions.

Various consensus‐based criteria have been proposed to prioritize referrals by primary and secondary providers to specialized palliative care. These criteria tend to fall into the general categories of physical symptoms, cancer trajectory, prognosis, performance status, psychosocial distress, and end‐of‐life care planning. ^{13 , 36} However, there is a need for evidence to establish clearly defined criteria to identify the patients most likely to benefit from early palliative care intervention. Such criteria are most likely to be utilized if they are based on symptoms or functions that are already routinely assessed or can be assessed relatively easily in clinical practice. Symptom screening is already routinely conducted in many oncology settings ^{10 , 12 , 37} and could be linked to triaged early palliative care rather than relying on oncologist referral.

This study has limitations. While it stems from a sound clinical rationale, the subgroup analysis was unplanned, and the study was not powered for this analysis. Generalizability is limited as participants were mainly of European ethnicity, English‐speaking, well‐educated, and receiving treatment in a large, urban, comprehensive cancer center. The confidence intervals reported in this study are relatively wide; this is likely due to splitting the sample into two separately analyzed groups, which reduced power. Selection bias due to randomization of clusters before consent of individuals is a limitation of cluster‐randomized trials, including this study. ^{3 , 38 , 39} Blinding of those in the intervention group was impossible, although neither trial arm was aware of the existence of the other. ³ As well, the attrition rate in the current study was higher in the high baseline symptom group compared to the low baseline symptom group. Although this is expected as those with a higher symptom burden might be more likely to drop out or die, it may affect the validity of our findings. Nevertheless, our sensitivity analyses performed with this limitation in mind were broadly consistent with the main findings.

Overall, our study findings suggest that symptom severity may be an appropriate screening mechanism to identify patients who would most benefit from early palliative care and to trigger early palliative care referrals. Further trials with longer follow‐up are needed to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of a triaged model of early palliative care.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

We declare that we have no competing conflicts of interest.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Rebecca Rodin: Conceptualization and design, analysis and interpretation of data, writing and critical revision of the report. Nadia Swami: Acquisition and interpretation of data, critical revision of the report, administrative support. Ashley Pope: Interpretation of data, critical revision of the report, administrative support. David Hui: Interpretation of data and critical revision of the report. Breffni Hannon: Interpretation of data and critical revision of the report. Lisa Le: Conceptualization and design, formal analysis and interpretation of data, writing and critical revision of the report. Camilla Zimmermann: Conceptualization and design, analysis and interpretation of data, writing and critical revision of the report. All authors have provided final approval of the version to be published and have agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

ETHICS STATEMENT

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the University Health Network Research Ethics Board (#06‐0525‐CE).

Funding information

This study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society (CZ; grant number 700862) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CZ; grant number 152996).

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01248624.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Notes

Rodin R, Swami N, Pope A, Hui D, Hannon B, Le LW, Zimmermann C. Impact of early palliative care according to baseline symptom severity: Secondary analysis of a cluster‐randomized controlled trial in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer Med. 2022;11:1869–1878. 10.1002/cam4.4565 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

REFERENCES