The objective of this article is to describe the profile of the population attended to by the palliative geriatrics clinic and to evaluate the symptomatic control derived from the care provided.

During 2017 a model based on a holistic approach was implemented, in this model the team geriatric palliative care plays a fundamental role by being part of the palliative care team and functioning as a liaison with the oncology team and other required services. We outlined the profile of 100 patients aged 70 and older seen between 2017 and 2019 at our geriatric palliative care clinic. Descriptive statistics were used. In addition, the symptoms and the care clinic model effect on the symptomatic control were analyzed, as well as the complexity of patients in palliative care with IDC-Pal.

The patients median age was 83.5 years. Patients were classified by type of management: 47% within the supportive care group and 53% with palliative care only; 58% had metastatic disease and 84% presented at least 1 comorbidity. Frailty was observed in 78% and a Karnofsky scale of 60 or less was observed in 59% of the overall population.

Elderly cancer patients have a complex profile and may have multiple needs. Integrating geriatric palliative care can help to provide better and personalized care along with symptomatic control. Further studies are required to establish the ideal care model for these patients. Importantly, a personalized treatment with a geriatric palliative care specialist is a key element.

This study aimed to investigate the patient’s perception of the usefulness and limitations of a mobile application as part of the supportive care provided to patients undergoing radiotherapy.

Patients undergoing radiotherapy between February 2023 and March 2023 at a local oncology hospital (n = 150) were invited to complete a questionnaire that assessed the patient’s smartphone knowledge, willingness to use an app during radiotherapy, perceptions of the usefulness of specific app features, and barriers to using such applications. For quantitative analysis, frequencies were obtained for all areas of interest, and the results were correlated with the patient’s demographics.

Of the 39 participants who completed the questionnaire, 82·1% had a smartphone device, 59% could use their smartphones with minimal to no help and 41% had not used their smartphones for medical purposes before. However, 79·5% of patients showed a strong interest in using a mobile app during radiotherapy. Age, gender and level of education had no significant impact on the acceptability of using the mobile application for radiotherapy purposes.

Overall, the findings indicate that most patients have access to mobile technology and are willing to use the mobile app as an additional supportive care tool.

Information needs are one of the most common unmet supportive care needs of those living with cancer. Little is known about how existing tools for assessing information needs in the cancer context have been created or the role those with lived cancer experience played in their development.

This review aimed to characterize the development and intended use of existing cancer specific information needs assessment tools.

A systematic scoping review was conducted using a peer-reviewed protocol informed by recommendations from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Prefered Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

Twenty-one information needs assessment tools were included. Most tools were either breast cancer (n = 8) or primary tumor nonspecific (n = 8). Patients and informal carers participated in initial identification of questionnaire items in the minority of cases (n = 6) and were more commonly involved in reviewing the final questionnaire before use or formal psychometric testing (n = 9). Most questionnaires were not assessed for validity or reliability using rigorous quantitative psychometric testing.

Existing tools are generally not designed to provide a rigorous assessment of informational needs related to a specific cancer challenge and are limited in how they have been informed by those with lived cancer experience. Tools are needed that both rigirously address information needs for specific cancer challenges and that have been developed in partnership with those who have experienced cancer. Future directions should include understanding barriers and facilitators to developing such tools.

On 3–4 October 2022, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Supportive Care Service and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences hosted the Third Annual United States (US) Celebration of World Hospice and Palliative Care Day (WHPCD). The purpose of this article is to reflect on the event within the broader context of the international WHPCD theme: “healing hearts and communities.” We describe lessons learned in anticipation of the fourth annual conference to be held on 3–4 October 2023.

Description of the third annual event, conference planning team reflection, and attendee evaluation responses.

The Worldwide Hospice Palliative Care Alliance launched WHPCD in 2005 as an annual unified day of action to celebrate and support hospice and palliative care globally. Since 2020, the conference has attracted an increasing number of attendees from around the world. Two primary aims continue to guide the event: community building and wisdom sharing. Fifty-two interprofessional palliative care experts, advocates, patients, and caregivers provided 13 unique interactive sessions. Four hundred and fifty-eight multidisciplinary registrants from at least 17 countries joined the program. Free registration for colleagues in low- and middle-income countries, students and trainees, and individuals experiencing financial hardship remains a cornerstone of inclusion and equitable access to the event.

The US WHPCD celebration provides a virtual platform that offers opportunities for scientific dissemination and collective reflection on hospice and palliative care delivery amid significant local and global changes in clinical practice, research, policy and advocacy, and population health. We remain committed to ensuring an internationally relevant, culturally diverse, and multidisciplinary agenda that will continue to draw increased participation worldwide during future annual events.

The absence of a specific tool to evaluate the impact of supportive care in general and socioesthetics (SE) in particular is undoubtedly at the origin of the lack of published research based on scientific standards.

We developed a supportive-care, patient-reported outcome questionnaire using the multistep methods, following COSMIN recommendations.

The Patient Centricity Questionnaire (PCQ) was developed using the standardized methodology for designing patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires according to the following steps: elaboration of the questionnaire, measurement properties of the questionnaire, internal and external validation, test–retest validation and translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and cognitive debriefing. A multidisciplinary work group was designed including professionals, such as physicians, public health experts, sociologists, supportive-care experts, and socioestheticians.

Our questionnaire includes 11 items. It is scored by adding each Visual Analogue Scale [VAS], making it range from 0 to 110, with a higher benefit when the score is higher. The Cronbach's α coefficient is 0.88 for the entire questionnaire. As the questionnaire is a reflection of the patient's feelings, it is quite natural that the name “Patient Centricity Questionnaire” (PCQ) was retained and validated by the Scientific Committee. The PCQ correlated negatively and moderately with the Perceived Stress Scale [PSS], positively and moderately with the mental dimension of the Short Form-12, and poorly with the Well Beng 12 [WB12], the physical dimension of the SF-12, and the satisfaction VAS.

Constructed according to the recommendations, the PCQ meets the prerequisite for this type of questionnaire. Its short format and simplicity of use allow it to be used by a large number of people. The PCQ is a simple, reliable, easy-to-use, and validated tool for research teams, making it possible for randomized studies to prove the impact of supportive care in general and SE in particular, on the patient's quality of life.

On October 5–6, 2021, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Supportive Care Service and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences hosted the 2nd Annual United States (US) Celebration of World Hospice and Palliative Care Day (WHPCD). The purpose of this article is to describe the event within the broader context of the international WHPCD theme: “Leave No One Behind — Equity in Access to Palliative Care.” We reflect on lessons learned in anticipation of the 3rd annual conference to be held October 3–4, 2022.

Description of the 2nd annual event, conference planning team reflection, and attendee evaluation responses.

The Worldwide Hospice Palliative Care Alliance launched WHPCD in 2005 as an annual unified day of action to celebrate and support hospice and palliative care around the world. The 2021 US-based innovative virtual conference featured 37 interprofessional hospice and palliative care specialists and patient and family caregiver speakers across 11 diverse sessions with a focus on health equity and COVID-19 considerations. Two primary aims continue to guide the event: community building and wisdom sharing at the intersection of art and science. 278 registrants from at least 14 countries and 21 different states across the US joined the program, which served as a global debriefing for hospice and palliative care workers from diverse settings, contexts, and disciplines.

The US WHPCD Celebration creates a virtual coming together for collective reflection on hospice and palliative care delivery amid vast changes in clinical practice, research, and policy, both locally and globally. In addition, our goal to ensure an internationally relevant, culturally inclusive, and multidisciplinary agenda will continue to draw increased participation worldwide during future annual events.

To identify early symptoms and changes in QoL among men with primary localized prostate cancer (PC) who later develop metastases.

From an ongoing prospective study of 3.885 men with localized PC, primarily treated with radiotherapy (RT), a subsample of men developing metastatic PC (mPC) following the first year after the start of RT and that had died during the follow-up (mPC group, n = 107) were matched against men who did not develop metastases (non-mPC group, n = 214). Data were collected using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and PCSS instruments. Non-parametric tests were performed for comparisons at baseline, end of RT, 3 months, and 1, 2, 3, and 5 years after RT.

The final sample consists of 317 men (mPC n = 106; non-mPC n = 211) who had completed at least one questionnaire. Initially, symptom levels were generally low and QoL and functioning high in both groups. An increasing difference between the groups was found, where the mPC group gradually deteriorated from the 2-year follow-up. Significant differences were found for several outcomes at 3 and 5 years. In a sensitivity analysis, where metastatic patients were removed from the time-point of verified metastases, most differences did not remain significant. Significant deterioration over time was seen within both groups for some outcomes.

The results indicate that unmet supportive needs occur over time among these men. Worsening QoL or functioning and symptoms may be difficult to recognize when the development is gradual over several years, and with various access to systematic follow-up in late phases. This highlights the need for continuous monitoring of PC patients to detect needs for supportive interventions early and throughout the disease course, also among those with non-metastatic disease who have undergone curatively intended treatment.

The objectives of this study were to evaluate, in the Italian cultural context, breast cancer patients’ main meaning themes related to the experience of the disease, on the one side, and to be part of an existentially oriented group intervention, on the other.

A short reorientation-existential (RET) group intervention, structured by using some tools and background from cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) and based on the meaning-centered psychotherapy (MCP) existential framework, was delivered to 29 breast cancer patients. The sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, with the narratives from reflective exercises (meaning of the journey cancer, meaning of the journey of intervention) uploaded to computer software NVivo 11. Analysis of the transcripts emerged from reflective exercises on the personal meaning of cancer and the letters of meaning (goodbye letter) written by the patients to express the meaning of their experience in the group was conducted through the interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) framework.

Four superordinate themes were identified in the exercise meaning of the experience of cancer, namely “sense of stigma and loneliness (the foreigner),” “guilt (unjust guilt and anticipatory guilt),” “reconsidering one's own life and nostalgia,” and “rebirth (a new life, life after life).” Three superordinate themes were found in the meaning of the group experience in the letters, namely “togetherness and gratitude,” “legacy,” and “acceptance.”

The study confirmed that a short group intervention, based on the existentially oriented framework and delivered in a public clinical healthcare setting, was enriched by focusing on the personal meaning of cancer. Some themes, such as loneliness, nostalgia, and rebirth, emerged during reflection giving, in written letters to participants, the sense of the group therapeutic experience.

On October 10, 2020, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Supportive Care Service hosted their first-ever United States (US) World Hospice and Palliative Care Day (WHPCD) Celebration. The purpose of this article is to describe the US inaugural event in alignment with the broader goals of WHPCD and provide lessons learned in anticipation of the second annual conference to be held on October 5–6, 2021.

Description of the inaugural event in the context of COVID-19 and WHPCD, co-planning conference team reflection, and attendee survey responses.

The Worldwide Hospice Palliative Care Alliance initially launched WHPCD in 2005 as an annual unified day of action to celebrate and support hospice and palliative care around the world. The US-based innovative virtual conference featured 23 interprofessional hospice and palliative care specialists and patient and family caregiver speakers across nine diverse sessions addressing priorities at the intersection of COVID-19, social injustice, and the global burden of serious health-related suffering. Two primary aims guided the event: community building and wisdom sharing. Nearly 270 registrants from at least 16 countries and one dozen states across the US joined the free program focused on both personal and professional development.

Unlike many other academic conferences and professional gatherings that were relegated to online forums due to pandemic-related restrictions, the US WHPCD Celebration was intentionally established to create a virtual coming together for collective reflection on the barriers and facilitators of palliative care delivery amid vast societal change. The goal to ensure a globally relevant and culturally inclusive agenda will continue to draw increased participation at an international level during future annual events. Finally, the transparent and respectful sharing of palliative care team experiences in the year preceding the conference established a safe environment for both individual expression and scholarly discussion.

Family caregivers (FCs) of cancer patients often experience high distress. This randomized clinical trial assessed the feasibility and preliminary effects of an intervention to improve FC supportive care.

A pragmatic and minimal intervention to improve FC supportive care was developed and pretested with FCs, oncology team, and family physicians to assess its relevance and acceptability. Then, FCs of lung cancer patients were randomized to the intervention or the control group. The intervention included (1) systematic FC distress screening and problem assessment in the first months after their relative cancer diagnosis, and every 2 months after; (2) privileged contact with an oncology nurse to address FC problems, provide emotional support and skills to play their caregiving role; (3) liaison with the family physician of FCs reporting high distress (distress thermometer score ≥4/10) to involve them in the provision of supportive care. Distress, the primary outcome, was measured every 3 months, for 9 months. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, caregiving preparedness, and perceived burden. At the end of their participation, a purposive sample of FC from the experimental group was individually interviewed to assess the intervention usefulness. Content analysis was performed.

A total of 109 FCs participated in the trial. FC distress decreased over time, but this reduction was observed in both groups. Similar results were found for secondary outcomes. However, FCs who received the intervention felt better prepared in caregiving than controls (p = 0.05). All 10 interviewed FCs valued the intervention, even though they clearly underused it. Knowing they could contact the oncology nurse served as a security net.

Although the intervention was not found effective, some of its aspects were positively perceived by FCs. As many of them experience high distress, an improved intervention should be developed to better support them.

All accredited cancer institutions are required to screen patients for psychosocial distress. This paper describes the development, implementation, and preliminary outcomes of the University of California San Diego Health Moores Cancer Center Wellbeing Screening Program.

Essential steps learned in a formal National Cancer Institute–funded training workshop entitled “Implementing Comprehensive Biopsychosocial Screening” were followed to ensure successful program implementation. These steps included identification of stakeholders; formation of a working committee; establishment of a vision, process, and implementation timeline; creation of a screening tool; development of patient educational material; tool integration into an electronic medical record system; staff training and pilot testing of tool administration; and education about tool results and appropriate follow-up actions. Screening data were collected and analyzed retrospectively for preliminary results and rapid cycle improvement of the wellbeing screening process.

Over an 8-month implementation and assessment period, the screening tool was administered 5,610 times of 7,664 expected administrations (73.2%.) to 2,394 unique patients. Visits in which the questionnaire was administered averaged 39.6 ± 14.8 minutes, compared with 40.3 ± 15.2 minutes for visits in which the questionnaire was not administered (t = −1.76, df = 7,662, p = 0.079).

This program provides a process and a tool for successful implementation of distress screening in cancer centers, in a meaningful way for patients and providers, while meeting accreditation standards. Further, meaningful data about patient distress and tool performance were able to be collected and utilized.

Cancer-related drowsiness (CRD) is a distressing symptom in advanced cancer patients (ACP). The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and factors associated with severity of CRD. We also evaluated the screening performance of Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale-drowsiness (ESAS-D) item against the Epworth Sedation Scale (ESS).

We prospectively assessed 180 consecutive ACP at a tertiary cancer hospital. Patients were surveyed using ESAS, ESS, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Insomnia Severity Index, and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale.

Ninety of 150 evaluable patients had clinically significant CRD (ESS); median (interquartile ratio): ESS. 11 (7–14); ESAS-D. 5 (2–6); Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. 8 (5–11); Insomnia Severity Index. 13 (5–19); Stop Bang Scoring 3 (2–4), and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale-D 6 (3–10). ESAS-D was associated with ESAS (r, p) sleep (0.38, <0.0001); pain (0.3, <0.0001); fatigue (0.51, <0.0001); depression (0.39, <0.0001); anxiety (0.44, <0.0001); shortness of breath (0.32, <0.0001); anorexia (0.36, <0.0001), feeling of well-being [(0.41, <0.0001), ESS (0.24, 0.001), and opioid daily dose (0.19, 0.01). Multivariate-analysis showed ESAS-D was associated with fatigue (odds ratio [OR] = 9.08, p < 0.0001), anxiety (3.0, p = 0.009); feeling of well-being (OR = 2.27, p = 0.04), and insomnia (OR = 2.35; p = 0.036). Insomnia (OR = 2.35; p = 0.036) cutoff score ≥3 (of 10) resulted in a sensitivity of 81% and 32% and specificity of 70% and 44% in the training and validation samples, respectively.

Clinically significant CRD is frequent and seen in 50% of ACP. CRD was associated with severity of insomnia, fatigue, anxiety, and worse feeling of well-being. An ESAS-D score of ≥3 is likely to identify most of the ACP with significant CRD.

There is a limited number of pragmatic studies to evaluate the criteria for referral to outpatient palliative care. The aim of our study was to compare the characteristics, symptoms, and survival of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) referred (RF) versus not referred (NRF) to a novel embedded same-day rapid-access supportive care clinic (RASCC) and to compare the subgroups among referred patients.

We reviewed the medical records of all patients who received treatment at the thoracic oncology clinic for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer between August 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013, who were referred to the RASCC and those who were not referred. An oncology-estimated prognosis of ≤6 months and/or severe symptom distress was employed as criteria for referral to the RASCC.

Of 410 eligible patients, 155 (37.8%) were referred to the RASCC. RF patients had significantly higher patient-reported scores for pain, fatigue, lack of appetite, and symptom distress, as well as worse performance status and shorter survival than NRF patients. Among the RF patients, those who were referred early (≤3 months) had significantly worse symptom distress and shorter overall survival than patients who were referred later on. The patients treated by thoracic oncologists who referred a smaller proportion of their patients to the RASCC had significantly worse anxiety, well-being, spiritual pain, and symptom distress than patients treated by those who referred a larger proportion of their patients to the RASCC.

We found that patients who were referred to the RASCC had higher reported symptom distress and worse survival ratings. Further studies are needed to evaluate the optimal criteria for timely integration of palliative care and oncology care.

We replicated a 1994 study that surveyed the state of supportive care services due to changes in the field and the increased need for such services. We provide an updated assessment, comparing the changes that have occurred and describing the current status of supportive care services in comprehensive cancer settings.

We used Coluzzi and colleague's 60-question survey from their 1995 Journal of Clinical Oncology article to frame the 98-question survey employed in the current study. Medical and palliative care directors for the 2011 National Cancer Institute (NCI) comprehensive cancer centers were surveyed regarding their supportive care services and their subjective review of the overall effectiveness of the services provided.

We achieved a 76% response rate (n = 31). The data revealed increases in the number of cancer beds in the hospitals, the degree of integration of supportive care services, the availability of complementary services, and the number of pain and palliative care services offered. There was also an overall shift toward centers becoming more patient centered, as 65% reported now having a patient and family advisory council. Our findings revealed a growing trend to offer distress screening for both outpatients and inpatients. Medical and palliative care directors' evaluations of the supportive care services they offered also significantly improved. However, the results revealed an ongoing gap in services for end-of-life care and timely referrals for hospice services.

Overall, both the quantity and quality of supportive care services in the surveyed NCI-designated cancer centers has improved.

The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and factors associated with fall episodes in advanced cancer patients.

We analyzed data that included demographic characteristics, utilization of assistive devices, cancer diagnosis, metastatic site, performance status, medications including hypnotics and opioids, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) score, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) score in 384 consecutive patients who were newly referred to the Supportive Care Clinic at the MD Anderson Cancer Center from January 1 to December 31, 2009. All patients completed standardized forms to report falls within the last month. Multivariate backward regression analyses were employed to identify factors predictive of falls in advanced cancer.

The mean age of patients was 58 years, and 192 (50%) were male. Mean (SD)/median score for pain was 5 (2.8), 5; fatigue 5.6 (2.6), 6; sleep disturbance 5(2.7), 5; drowsiness 3.7(3), 3; and anorexia 5(3), 5. Some 31 patients (8%) reported fall episodes within the past month, 17 (55%) of whom reported the use of assistive devices. Using assist devices (OR = 5.5, 95% CI: 2.6–11.9, p < 0.0001) and taking zolpidem (OR = 3.39, 95% CI: 1.39–7.7, p = 0.008) were associated with an enhanced chance of falling. Higher MDAS score (4.00 vs. 1.42, p = 0.001) and MDAS positive screening for delirium (21 vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001) were also associated with falls. However, severity on the ESAS at the initial consult was not associated with falls.

We conclude that 31 of 384 patients (8%) with advanced cancer receiving outpatient supportive care reported falls in the previous month. Patients with assistive devices, taking zolpidem, and with a higher MDAS score, and a positive delirium screening reported more frequent falls. Further studies are warranted.

The aim of our study was to explore the impact of gender and hematological cancer grade on distress, anxiety, and depression in patients receiving chemotherapy.

A prospective study was done in a cohort of 104 patients with hematological cancer. We employed the (1) Distress Thermometer (DT) and the Problem List (PL) and (2) the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) for assessments at baseline (T1), the halfway timepoint (T2), and completion of chemotherapy (T3).

The proportion of patients experiencing significant distress (DT ≥ 4) decreased from the first to the last timepoint; the proportion experiencing anxiety and depression (as assessed by HADS) also decreased. Specifically, 50% of participants reported significant distress levels, 47.1% anxiety, and 26% depression at T1. At T2, the proportion of patients experiencing distress was reduced by 60.8%, by 76% for anxiety, and by 48.5% for depression; at T3, the reduction was close to 80% for all assessments compared with T1. Emotional and physical problems were most commonly reported. Significant reductions were discovered for distress and problem-related distress levels over time, and a significant interaction was found between gender and practical and physical problems (p < 0.05).

Our findings suggest that female patients reported more distress, anxiety, and depression than male patients. Gender differences were related to problem-related distress but not to grade of neoplasm. We observed that, over the course of chemotherapy, the distress levels of patients with hematological cancer decrease over time.

Health care professionals (HCPs) caring for people with primary malignant glioma (PMG) and their carers see many of the profound challenges facing this group, yet their perspectives are not documented. This study aimed to understand and document the unique perspective of HCPs in relation to the supportive and palliative care needs of patients with PMG and their carers, with a view to developing a model of care.

Qualitative study involving semi-structured focus groups and interviews with 35 medical, nursing and allied health staff actively engaged in providing care for this patient group. Purposive and theoretical sampling from two major metropolitan hospitals and one community palliative care service in Australia was utilised to seek perspectives from a variety of disciplines and health care settings. Thematic analysis was conducted by three independent researchers, using a constant comparative method influenced by grounded theory.

Key themes relating to the needs of people with PMG which were apparent from the HCPs included: The difference in the illness course of glioma compared to other cancers; Limitations of current medical care; Challenges in balancing hope with reality of the illness; and Recommendations to improve care, including recognising the role of family and moving from a model where services are offered in response to demonstrated needs.

Current models of care based upon the classic cancer trajectory are unresponsive to the needs of people with PMG. Care may be enhanced by moving towards a proactive approach, extending the goals of care beyond medical needs and broadening the focus of care to include family needs.