Early palliative care (PC) has been recommended for older adults with cancer to address their cancer and treatment related high symptom burden and unmet needs. However, it is underutilized; older adults with cancer are 60% less likely to use PC compared to their younger counterparts. One approach to reduce existing barriers and improve utilization is to assess their readiness for PC. However, there are no gold-standard tools to measure older adults with cancer PC readiness.

Informed by the 8 domains of PC recommended by National Consensus Project guidelines, Readiness to Change Framework, and principles of community engaged research, we will use a mixed methods approach, to develop and validate a Palliative Care Readiness (PALCARE) Tool through the following steps: 1) Identify items using semi-structured interviews with 20 diverse (race/ethnicity, rural/urban residence, cancer types) older adults with cancer; 2) Develop draft tool via expert panel surveys followed by focus group with PC experts, and 3) Determine item clarity and wording via cognitive interviews with 20 dyads of older adults with cancer and their family caregivers.

The PALCARE tool will be one of the first measures of PC readiness among a diverse sample of older adults with cancer. Once validated, PALCARE can enhance clinical practice by identifying those who are/are not ready for PC, providing targeted PC that is congruent with their readiness, and educating and supporting those who report being not yet ready for PC. The ultimate goal of this study is to improve PC early access and older adults' quality of life.

Geriatric patients, defined as those over 65 years of age, account for about 65% to 70% of all encounters for urologists in general clinical practice. Urology consistently ranks in the top 3 of specialties, together with ophthalmology and cardiology, in terms of the overall volume of care provided for geriatric patients. Population demographics show that the number and percentage of older adults continues to rise exponentially. In fact, those over 85 years of age currently represent the fastest growing segment of the United States population. This is a worldwide trend.

Integration of palliative and supportive care in cancer treatment pathways is becoming standardised. While there has been significant qualitative research in oncology on palliative and supportive care integration into clinical care, there is little evidence that focusses on clinicians who manage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and their perceptions on palliative and supportive care.

To investigate the attitudes and perceptions regarding palliative and supportive care of healthcare professionals managing patients with HCC.

Qualitative study involving semi-structured individual interviews transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

A total of 25 healthcare professionals including hepatologists, gastroenterology trainees, hepatology clinical nurse consultants, social workers, and palliative care specialists providing care to patients with HCC recruited at 4 tertiary hospitals via purposive sampling.

The following themes emerged: (1) availability of palliative care services, (2) need for clear referral pathways and processes, (3) patients' limited understanding of palliative care, (4) recognition of benefits of palliative care, and (5) the lack of training in hepatology services for palliative care provision.

Health professionals' perceptions of integration of palliative and supportive care in liver cancer care are hampered by multiple barriers. Opportunities to establish a more cohesive approach to care integration for patients with liver cancer have been identified.  TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12623000010695 (date of registration 9/01/2023).   What is already known about the topic? • Integration of palliative and supportive care for cancer can have profound benefits for patients' symptom burden and quality of life. • There is a lack of empirical studies examining the perspectives of health professionals who manage liver cancer on the integration of palliative and supportive care into the treatment pathways for patients. What this paper adds • This study identifies a number of barriers to the implementation of palliative and supportive care into liver cancer treatment algorithms. • The absence of sufficient evidence in clinical guidelines impairs the capacity of health professionals to improve the integration of palliative and supportive care for liver cancer patients. Implications for practice, theory, or policy. • As liver cancer prevalence increases, further effort is required to develop appropriate evidence-based clinical guidelines and referral pathways to support the integration of palliative and supportive care within existing liver cancer services.

Appropriately timed cessation of systemic anticancer treatments is an important part of a patient's quality of life (QoL). We aimed to determine the right time to discontinue systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) and switch to the best supportive care for patients with advanced breast cancer (BC) who are nearing the end of life.

We identified 200 BC patients who died within 30 days after palliative SACT. Laboratory parameters and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) were recorded when the patients received their last SACT and at the time of their penultimate treatment. The (Neutrophil-ECOG-LDH-Bilirubin) 'NELBI' score, created on the basis of the optimum cut-off points of ECOG PS, neutrophil count, bilirubin level, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, which can predict mortality within 30 days after SACT, was scored between 0 and 4. Patients were stratified on the basis of the NELBI score.

A total of 4164 patients receiving palliative treatment for advanced BC were examined. A total of 4.8% of patients died within 30 days after SACT. The percentage of patients who died within 30 days after SACT among all deceased patients was 19.4%. The median time from the last systemic treatment to death was 19.5 ± 7.85 (95% CI 18.06-20.26) days, and the median time from the penultimate treatment to death was 43.0 ± 24.65 (95% CI 46.81-53.85) days. A total of 21.3%, 58.0%, 70.7%, and 88.9% of patients with NELBI scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3-4, respectively, died within 30 days after SACT. Compared with a NELBI score of 0, a NELBI score of 1 (OR = 5.095; 95% CI 2.654- 9.784; p < 0.001), a NELBI score of 2 (OR = 8.911; 95% CI 4.299-18.474; p < 0.001), and a NELBI score of 3-4 (OR = 29.500; 95% CI 6.135- 141.847; p < 0.001) was associated with significantly greater 30-day mortality. The AUC of the NELBI scoring for 30-day mortality prediction after SACT was 0.713.

The 'NELBI' scoring system has the potential to significantly improve patient care by guiding the appropriate discontinuation of SACTs in patients with BC.

Head and neck cancer (HNC) often requires complex management and care. While the primary goal of treatment is curative, some advanced cases require consideration of non-curative pathways to optimize patients' quality of life (QOL) and survival. This narrative review describes important aspects of palliative care and highlights strategies for employing these non-curative options in HNC.

We identified peer-reviewed articles on the state of palliative care in HNC and its implementation. We searched for articles using terms including "palliative care," "non-curative care," "comfort care," "head and neck cancer," and "head and neck squamous cell carcinoma."

HNC is associated with a high disease burden; patients report high levels of pain, and both disease and treatment often compromise ability to carry out activities of daily living. There exist several non-curative routes of treatment, including palliation of symptoms, acute end-of-life (EOL) care, and hospice and home care. These care options provide comfort and optimize QOL of patients. Unfortunately, non-curative care could be misconstrued as withdrawal of treatment, or the provider team "giving up" on patient; these misconception can discourage patients from embracing palliative measures designed to alleviate symptom burden. Proper physician-patient communication, normalization, and early incorporation of these non-curative strategies into mainstream treatment could potentially ease patient concerns, and, eventually in EOL cases, help patients achieve dignified deaths.

Patients with HNC have unique palliative care needs due to their complex treatment and symptom burden. Early incorporation of non-curative plans such as palliative care alongside active treatment could help reduce symptom burden. Clinicians should strive to build trusting relationships with patients with HNC and effectively communicate with them about palliative care options. Guidelines that include such recommendations can help physicians regularly introduce palliation into the realm of active HNC treatment for advanced/incurable disease.

Early palliative care is associated with better outcomes for patients with advanced-stage cancers. Using a novel data linkage, we assessed outpatient palliative care use before death and its association with end-of-life care intensity and variation across 8 provider networks in Massachusetts.

We linked Massachusetts Cancer Registry and the All-Payer Claims Database for individuals with commercial insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare Advantage diagnosed with colorectal, lung, prostate, and breast cancers from 2010 to 2013 who died by December 31, 2014. We characterized outpatient palliative care visits in the 6 months before death and identified end-of-life hospitalizations, emergency department visits, intensive care unit admissions, chemotherapy, no/late hospice enrollment, and in-hospital deaths. We used logistic regression to assess factors associated with outpatient palliative care and ordinal logistic regression with provider network fixed effects to assess the association of palliative care with a composite measure summing individual end-of-life intensity measures.

Among 6279 decedents, 11.3% had at least 1 outpatient palliative care visit. Palliative care use varied across provider networks from 6.0% to 19.3%. In adjusted analyses, younger age, longer duration from diagnosis to death, death in 2012-2014 vs 2010, and provider network were associated with palliative care visits (all P values less than .05). End-of-life care intensity varied across provider networks. Patients with palliative care visits had lower adjusted odds of receiving intensive end-of-life care (adjusted odds ratio = 0.62 per additional measure of end-of-life intensity, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.72).

Outpatient palliative care use varied substantially among regional provider networks and was associated with less intensive end-of-life care.

Advancement in treatment has led to prolonged survival and a rising number of women living with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in the United States. Due to its high symptom burden, it is recommended that palliative care be integrated into the standard care to help improve quality of life. However, little is known about the use of palliative care among MBC patients in the nation.

To determine utilization of palliative care consult (PCC) after metastasis and the influence of PCC on healthcare utilization in the end of life among women living with MBC in the US.

This retrospective cohort study examined a national electronic health record database to quantify the PCC use after metastasis diagnosis until death and the associations of PCC with Emergency Department (ED), Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and chemotherapies in the end-of-life women (age ≥ 18 years) living with MBC.

From a cohort of 2615 deceased MBC patients, 37% received PCC in the last 6 months of life. Patients who had received PCC in the end-of-life were more likely to be hospitalized, admitted to ED and ICU, and receive chemotherapies in the last 60 days before death. However, patients who had received end-of-life PCC had less hospital and ED visits and received less chemotherapies after PCC initiated.

While PCC can reduce end-of-life aggressive interventions, it was underutilized among patients with MBC in the end-of-life. A myriad of clinical and patient factors may still challenge timely consultation. We urge for future endeavors in developing strategies to remove barriers in the implementation, especially earlier in the disease course, to assure timely PC treatments and reduce discomfort amid aggressive interventions for MBC.

Objectives: To explore anxiety experienced by caregivers providing home-based, end-of-life care to patients with cancer. We examined the relationship between caregiver anxiety and receipt of palliative care by the patient. Methods: A case series of terminal cancer patient-caregiver dyads (n = 223) were recruited from oncology clinics in Virginia and Pennsylvania and followed for 12 months or until patient death. Data collected included qualitative, quantitative, and observational data; this analysis utilizes the quantitative data. Longitudinal Latent Growth Models were used to characterize the heterogeneity of primary caregiver anxiety over time. The influence of palliative care on caregiver anxiety over time was assessed. Characteristics associated with membership in the trajectory groups rendered from those models are presented. Results: The majority of caregivers were female (73.9%), white (54.9%), and patient spouses (45.3%). Three classes of caregivers were identified based on their anxiety scores over time (low, elevated, and high). The 2 groups who had elevated and high anxiety had significant increases in anxiety over time. Controlling for patient receipt of palliative care attenuated those increases. Caregivers with the lowest level of anxiety were more likely to be Black, report fewer symptoms of depression or caregiver burden and higher self-rated physical health. Caregivers who were younger reported higher anxiety. Conclusions: Our analysis detected 3 distinct cancer caregiver groups reporting low, elevated, and very high levels of anxiety. Caregivers with elevated or high anxiety also demonstrated increasing anxiety overtime; however increases were attenuated with patient receipt of palliative care. For cancer caregivers with elevated and high levels of anxiety, palliative care buffers further deterioration of their mental health.

Lung cancer and chronic non-malignant respiratory disease cause pervasive, multifactorial suffering for patients and informal carers alike. Palliative care aims to reduce suffering and improve quality of life for patients and their families. An established evidence base exists that has demonstrated the essential role of specialist palliative care for people with lung cancer. Emerging evidence supports similar benefits among people with chronic respiratory disease. Many lessons can be learnt from lung cancer care, particularly as the model of care delivery has transformed over recent decades due to major advances in the diagnostic pathway and the development of new treatments. This narrative review aims to summarize the evidence for specialist palliative care in lung cancer and chronic respiratory disease, by highlighting seven key lessons from lung cancer care that can inform the development of proactive, integrated models of palliative care among those with chronic respiratory disease. These seven lessons emphasize (1) managing challenging symptoms; (2) the efficacy of specialist palliative care; (3) the importance of providing specialist palliative care integrated with disease-directed care according to patients' needs not prognosis; (4) the need for new models of collaborative palliative care, (5) which are culturally appropriate and (6) able to evolve with changes in disease-directed care. Finally, we discuss (7) some of the critical research gaps that persist and reduce implementation in practice.

Antitumour treatment in the last 2 weeks of death (ATT-W2) and a new regimen of ATT within 30 days of death (NATT-M1) are considered as aggressive end-of-life (EOL) care. We aimed to assess factors associated with inappropriate use of antitumour treatment (ATT) at EOL.

Data of patients with cancer who died in 2013, 2015, 2017 and 2019 in a single for-profit cancer centre were retrospectively analysed. ATT was divided into chemotherapy (CT), oral targeted therapy (OTT), hormonotherapy and immunotherapy (IMT).

A total of 1282 patients were included. NATT-M1 was given to 197 (15.37%) patients, and 167 (13.03%) had an ATT-W2. Patients with a performance status of <2 and treated with CT had more both ATT- W2 (OR=2.45, 95% CI 1.65 to 3.65, and OR=10.29, 95% CI 4.70 to 22.6, respectively) and NATT-M1 (OR=2.01, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.90, and OR=8.41, 95% CI 4.46 to 15.86). Predictive factors of a higher rate of ATT-W2 were treatment with OTT (OR=19.08, 95% CI 7.12 to 51.07), follow-up by a medical oncologist (OR=1.49, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.17), miscellaneous cancer (OR=3.50, 95% CI 1.13 to 10.85) and length of hospital stay before death of <13 days (OR=1.92, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.79). Urinary tract and male genital cancers received less ATT-W2 (OR=0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.89, and OR=0.40, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.99) and patients treated by IMT or with age <69 years more NATT-M1 (OR=19.21, 95% CI 7.55 to 48.8, and OR=1.69, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.37). Patients followed up by the palliative care team (PCT) had fewer ATT-W2 and NATT-M1 (OR=0.49, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.71, and OR=0.42, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.58).

Most recent ATT and access to a PCT follow-up are the two most important potentially modifiable factors associated with aggressive EOL in patients with cancer. Early integrated palliative oncology care could help to decrease futile ATT at EOL.

Given the typical trajectory of glioblastoma, many patients lose decision-making capacity over time, which can lead to inadequate advance care planning (ACP) and end-of-life (EOL) care. We aimed to evaluate patients' current ACP and EOL care status.

We conducted a cohort study on 205 patients referred to oncologists at a Korean tertiary hospital between 2017 and 2022. We collected information on sociodemographic factors, cancer treatment, palliative care consultation, ACP, legal documents on life-sustaining treatment (LST) decisions, and aggressiveness of EOL care.

With a median follow-up time of 18.3 months: 159 patients died; median overall survival: 20.3 months. Of the 159 patients, 11 (6.9%) and 63 (39.6%) had advance directive (AD) and LST plans, respectively, whereas 85 (53.5%) had neither. Among the 63 with LST plans, 10 (15.9%) and 53 (84.1%) completed their forms through self-determination and family determination, respectively. Of the 159 patients who died, 102 (64.2%) received palliative care consultation (median time: 44 days from the first consultation to death) and 78 (49.1%) received aggressive EOL care. Those receiving palliative care consultations were less likely to receive aggressive EOL care (83.3% vs 32.4%, P < .001), and more likely to use more than 3 days of hospice care at EOL (19.6% vs 68.0%, P < .001).

The right to self-determination remains poorly protected among patients with glioblastoma, with nearly 90% not self-completing AD or LST plan. As palliative care consultation is associated with less aggressive EOL care and longer use of hospice care, physicians should promptly introduce patients to ACP conversations and palliative care consultations.

Pediatric palliative care (PPC) is associated with improved end-of-life (EOL) outcomes. Inpatient and outpatient PPC have unique roles during the disease course. Yet, it is unknown whether the location of PPC receipt (inpatient vs. outpatient) is associated with healthcare utilization and EOL outcomes for pediatric and adolescent and young adult oncology patients.

A retrospective single-institution chart review of pediatric patients (age 0-28) with cancer who died between January 2015 and December 2022 was performed to compare EOL outcomes and healthcare utilization metrics among inpatient PPC, any outpatient PPC, and non-PPC recipients. Demographics and clinical factors were analyzed by PPC receipt location.

Among 450 patients, 292 (64.9%) received PPC (inpatient only 35%, any outpatient 65%). Patients who died without receiving PPC dropped from 69% to 22% following development of an outpatient PPC clinic (p < .001). In the last 6 months, 1 month, and last week of life, inpatient PPC recipients spent more days admitted to the hospital and intensive care unit (all p < .001), and had more intensive medical interventions performed (p < .01). Outpatient PPC recipients were less likely to receive intravenous (IV) chemotherapy (p < .01) or intubation (p = .05), and more likely to receive hospice, die at home, and have an outpatient do-not-resuscitate order (all p < .001).

PPC receipt substantially increased after the creation of an outpatient PPC clinic, suggesting that outpatient PPC is critical in the provision of PPC to children with cancer. Outpatient PPC was associated with fewer hospital days, IV chemotherapy, and intubation at EOL, while increasing hospice enrollment and home death.

To evaluate the use, acceptability, and experience of a seven-item palliative care referral screening tool in an outpatient oncology setting.

A two-phase convergent parallel mixed-methods study. Patient participants who met any of the "Royal Marsden Triggers Tool" criteria were compared with those who did not in terms of demographic data, palliative care needs (Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale, IPOS) and quality of life indicators (EORTC-QLQ-C30). In-depth interviews were carried out with patients and oncology staff about their views and experience of the "Royal Marsden Triggers Tool". Qualitative and quantitative data were triangulated at data interpretation.

Three hundred forty-eight patients were recruited to the quantitative phase of the study of whom 53% met at least one of the Triggers tool palliative care referral criteria. When compared with patients who were negative using the Triggers tool, "Royal Marsden Triggers Tool" positive patients had a lower quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status scale (p < 0.01)) and a higher proportion had severe or overwhelming physical needs on IPOS (38% versus 20%, p < 0.001). Median survival of "Royal Marsden Triggers Tool" positive patients was 11.7 months. Sixteen staff and 19 patients participated in qualitative interviews. The use of the tool normalised palliative care involvement, supporting individualised care and access to appropriate expertise.

The use of a palliative care referral tool streamlines palliative care within oncology outpatient services and supports teams working together to provide an early holistic patient-centred service. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of this approach.

Despite research supporting the benefits of early palliative care, timely initiation by gynecologic oncology patients is reportedly low, which may limit the effectiveness of palliative care.

To investigate the association of the timing of palliative care initiation with the aggressiveness of end-of-life care using established quality indicators among patients with ovarian cancer.

This population-based retrospective cohort study of ovarian cancer decedents used linked administrative health care data to identify palliative care provision across all health care sectors and health care professionals (specialist and nonspecialist) and end-of-life quality indicators in Ontario, Canada, from 2006 to 2018. Data analyses were performed July 12, 2024.

The primary outcome was the associations between the timing of palliative care and end-of-life quality indicators, including emergency department use, hospital or intensive care unit admission in the last 30 days of life, chemotherapy in last 14 days of life, death in the hospital, and a composite measure of aggressive care. Late palliative care was defined as 3 months or less prior to death.

There were 8297 ovarian cancer decedents. Their mean (SD) age at death was 69.6 (13.1) years, and their mean (SD) oncologic survival was 2.8 (3.9) years. Among 3958 patients with known cancer stage, 3495 (88.3%) presented with stage III or IV disease. One-third of patients (2667 [32.1%]) received late palliative care in the final 3 months of life. Results of multivariable regression analysis indicated that any palliative care initiated earlier than 3 months before death was associated with lower rates of aggressive end-of-life care (odds ratio [OR], 0.47 [95% CI, 0.37-0.60]), death in hospital (OR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.45-0.65]), and intensive care unit admission (OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.27-0.76]). Specialist palliative consultation from 3 months up to 6 monts before death was associated with decreased likelihood of late chemotherapy (OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.24-0.88]).

Findings from this cohort study suggested that early palliative care may be associated with less-aggressive end-of-life care than late palliative care. Implementation strategies for early palliative care initiation are needed to optimize care quality and health resource utilization at the end of life.

To investigate the impact of early vs. late palliative care (PC) on the frequency of admissions to acute hospital settings and the utilization of end-of-life (EoL) interventions in cancer decedents.

In this single-center, cross-sectional study, we examined the frequency of intensive care unit (ICU) and emergency department (ED) admissions among adult cancer decedents between 2018 and 2022 in a referral hospital in México. Additionally, we assessed EoL medical interventions, categorizing patients into 3 groups: those who received early PC (EPC), late PC (LPC), and those who did not receive PC (NPC).

We analyzed data from 1762 patients, averaging 56 ± 16.3 years old, with a predominant representation of women (56.8%). PC was administered to 45.2% of patients, but EPC was limited to only 12.3%. The median time from the initiation of PC to death was 5 days (interquartile range: 2.0-31.5). Hematological malignancies were the most prevalent, affecting 21.5% of patients. EPC recipients demonstrated notable reductions in ICU and ED admissions, as well as diminished utilization of chemotherapy, radiotherapy (RT), antibiotics, blood transfusions, and surgery when compared to both LPC and NPC groups. EPC also exhibited fewer medical interventions in the last 14 days of life, except for RT.

The findings of this study indicate that a significant proportion of EoL cancer patients receive PC; however, few receive EPC, emphasizing the need to improve accessibility to these services. Moreover, the results underscore the importance of thoughtful deliberation regarding the application of EoL medical interventions in cancer patients.

A comprehensive understanding of coping strategies of patients with advanced diseases can contribute to providing supportive care that meets patients' needs. However, insight into how coping of this population develops over time is lacking. We examined coping strategies of patients with advanced cancer over time and identified distinct trajectories and their predictors.

Data from 675 patients of the control group from the ACTION cluster-randomized trial were analyzed. Patients with lung or colorectal cancer from six European countries (Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the United Kingdom) completed questionnaires at baseline, 12 and 20 weeks. Measures included Denial, Acceptance, and Problem-focused coping (COPE, Brief COPE inventory; scores 4-16 per scale). We used linear mixed models to analyze the data and latent class mixed models to identify stable (within patient change < 2) coping strategies.

At baseline, patients reported low use of Denial (6.6) and greater use of Acceptance (12.6) and Problem-Focused coping (12.2). These scores did not significantly change. We found four distinct trajectories for the use of Denial, three for Acceptance and five for Problem-Focused coping strategies. Stable trajectories were found in 513 (77%) patients for Denial, 645 (96%) for Acceptance and 602 (91%) for Problem-Focused coping. All coping strategies were stable in 447 (68%) patients and two were stable in 181 patients (28%).

Overall, the use of coping strategies was rather stable in the majority of patients with advanced cancer. However, for each of the coping strategies subgroups of patients reported fluctuating coping trajectories.

Timely palliative transition in patients with advanced cancer is essential for their improved quality of life and overall survival (OS). Most prognostic models have been developed focusing on weeks' survival. The current study aimed to compare the accuracies of several indicators, such as the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), Clinicians' Prediction of Survival (CPS), and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), for predicting the survival of patients.

Two hundred patients were enrolled at a single tertiary cancer center in South Korea between 2016 and 2019. We compared the discrimination of CPS versus KPS and ESAS total scores using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) in 3-month and 6-month survival predictions.

The median age of patients was 66.0 years, and 128 (64%) were male. Two-thirds (66%) of the patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and 55.5% had a KPS of 80% or higher. The values of AUROC of CPS, KPS, and ESAS total score in 3-month survival prediction were 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.88), 0.71 (95% CI: 0.62-0.79), and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.62-0.81), respectively, whereas those in 6-month survival were 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76-0.88), 0.70 (95% CI: 0.63-0.78), and 0.63 (95% CI: 0.55-0.71), respectively.

CPS showed the highest accuracy in predicting 3- and 6-month survival, whereas KPS had an acceptable accuracy. Experienced clinicians can rely on CPS to predict survival in months. We recommend the use of KPS with CPS to assist inexperienced clinicians.

Despite the evidence for early palliative care improving outcomes, it has not been widely implemented in part due to palliative care workforce limitations.

To evaluate a stepped-care model to deliver less resource-intensive and more patient-centered palliative care for patients with advanced cancer.

Randomized, nonblinded, noninferiority trial of stepped vs early palliative care conducted between February 12, 2018, and December 15, 2022, at 3 academic medical centers in Boston, Massachusetts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Durham, North Carolina, among 507 patients who had been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer within the past 12 weeks.

Step 1 of the intervention was an initial palliative care visit within 4 weeks of enrollment and subsequent visits only at the time of a change in cancer treatment or after a hospitalization. During step 1, patients completed a measure of quality of life (QOL; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung [FACT-L]; range, 0-136, with higher scores indicating better QOL) every 6 weeks, and those with a 10-point or greater decrease from baseline were stepped up to meet with the palliative care clinician every 4 weeks (intervention step 2). Patients assigned to early palliative care had palliative care visits every 4 weeks after enrollment.

Noninferiority (margin = -4.5) of the effect of stepped vs early palliative care on patient-reported QOL on the FACT-L at week 24.

The sample (n = 507) mostly included patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (78.3%; mean age, 66.5 years; 51.4% female; 84.6% White). The mean number of palliative care visits by week 24 was 2.4 for stepped palliative care and 4.7 for early palliative care (adjusted mean difference, -2.3; P < .001). FACT-L scores at week 24 for the stepped palliative care group were noninferior to scores among those receiving early palliative care (adjusted FACT-L mean score, 100.6 vs 97.8, respectively; difference, 2.9; lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit, -0.1; P < .001 for noninferiority). Although the rate of end-of-life care communication was also noninferior between groups, noninferiority was not demonstrated for days in hospice (adjusted mean, 19.5 with stepped palliative care vs 34.6 with early palliative care; P = .91).

A stepped-care model, with palliative care visits occurring only at key points in patients' cancer trajectories and using a decrement in QOL to trigger more intensive palliative care exposure, resulted in fewer palliative care visits without diminishing the benefits for patients' QOL. While stepped palliative care was associated with fewer days in hospice, it is a more scalable way to deliver early palliative care to enhance patient-reported outcomes.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03337399.

Limited data suggest that early palliative care (EPC) improves quality of life (QOL) and survival in patients with advanced cancer.

To evaluate whether comprehensive EPC improves QOL; relieves mental, social, and existential burdens; increases survival rates; and helps patients develop coping skills.

This nonblinded randomized clinical trial (RCT) recruited patients from 12 hospitals in South Korea from September 2017 to October 2018. Patients aged 20 years or older with advanced cancer who were not terminally ill but for whom standard chemotherapy has not been effective were eligible. Participants were randomized 1:1 to the control (receiving usual supportive oncological care) or intervention (receiving EPC with usual oncological care) group. Intention-to-treat data analysis was conducted between September and December 2022.

The intervention group received EPC through a structured program of self-study education materials, telephone coaching, and regular assessments by an integrated palliative care team.

The primary outcome was the change in overall QOL score (assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative Care) from baseline to 24 weeks after enrollment, with evaluations also conducted at 12 and 18 weeks. Secondary outcomes were social and existential burdens (assessed with the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire) as well as crisis-overcoming capacity and 2-year survival.

A total of 144 patients (83 males [57.6%]; mean [SD] age, 60.7 (7.2) years) were enrolled, of whom 73 were randomized to the intervention group and 71 to the control group. The intervention group demonstrated significantly greater changes in scores in overall health status or QOL from baseline, especially at 18 weeks (11.00 [95% CI, 0.78-21.22] points; P = .04; effect size = 0.42). However, at 12 and 24 weeks, there were no significant differences observed. Compared with the control group, the intervention group also showed significant improvement in self-management or coping skills over 24 weeks (20.51 [95% CI, 12.41-28.61] points; P < .001; effect size = 0.93). While the overall survival rate was higher in the intervention vs control group, the difference was not significant. In the intervention group, however, those who received 10 or more EPC interventions (eg, telephone coaching sessions and care team meetings) showed a significantly increased probability of 2-year survival (53.6%; P < .001).

This RCT demonstrated that EPC enhanced QOL at 18 weeks; however, no significant improvements were observed at 12 and 24 weeks. An increased number of interventions sessions was associated with increased 2-year survival rates in the intervention group.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03181854.

Adults and children with cancer are referred to palliative care infrequently or late. Oncologists often gatekeep these referrals. Social exchange theory is used to explain physician referral behaviour in various clinical settings. Its utility in a cancer palliative care setting is not known.

We used Karl Popper's hypothetico-deductive approach to test the hypothesis. The hypothesis was that social exchange theory is a helpful framework for explaining oncologists' palliative care referral behaviour in a cancer setting. The utility of the theoretical framework was tested against the empiric findings of a systematic review and original research.

Most components of social exchange theory known to explain physician referral behaviour like beliefs about the provider or service, emotions triggered during the professional engagement, its symbolism and stigma, the complexity of the referral task, efforts needed to achieve it, its cost, benefit, and value were similar in a cancer setting. Empirical findings suggest that oncologists provided strategies and solutions to better palliative care integration instead of comparing their existing engagement with potential alternatives and choosing them.

Social exchange theory was found to be helpful in explaining oncologists' palliative care referral behaviour. To further develop the social exchange theory based on the data used to test it, it is recommended to include feedback and solutions as a component of the theoretical framework alongside a comparison level for alternatives.

30-day mortality after systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) has been suggested as a quality indicator primarily for measuring use of chemotherapy towards the end of life. Utility across different cancer types is unclear, especially when using immunotherapy and targeted therapies.

This retrospective study included patients with a diagnosis of lung cancer who received palliative-intent SACT at an Australian metropolitan cancer center between 2015 and 2022. Using a prospectively maintained lung cancer database, patient, disease, and treatment characteristics were evaluated against annual 30-day mortality rates following SACT.

1072 patients were identified. Annual 30-day mortality rate after palliative-intent SACT for lung cancer ranged between 9% and 15%, with significant variance between treatment types. Calculated rates of 30-day mortality are higher if longer reporting time periods are used. Patients who died within 30 days of SACT were more likely to have received targeted therapies or immunotherapy as their final line of treatment, have a poorer performance status at diagnosis, and have received multiple lines of treatment.

Our data support differential interpretation of 30-day mortality for quality assurance, especially with regard to lung cancer. Consistency in population and reporting time periods, and accounting for treatment type is crucial if 30-day mortality is to be utilized as cancer care performance quality indicator. Relevance to quality care is questionable in the lung cancer setting.

The experience of living with cancer is marked by suffering and loss, which creates a need for healing. Understanding what healing means to patients and how clinicians can play a role in the healing process is essential to holistic cancer care.

The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of cancer patients on the meaning and experiences of healing and the qualities of a clinician and the clinician-patient relationship that are healing.

A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 14 cancer patients. Participants were asked about their illness experience, definition of healing, qualities of a healer, and relationships with clinicians that were healing. Interview transcripts were coded, and qualitative analysis was conducted to identify major themes.

Participants defined the nature of healing as comprising aspects of physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being. Participants described healing as alleviating pain and symptoms; promoting mental strength, emotional comfort, and spiritual connection; restoring and adapting to losses; and improving quality of life. The qualities of a clinician that contributed to a healing relationship included listening, empathy and compassion, understanding patients' values and goals, and caring for the patient as a whole person.

Participants viewed healing as physical, psychosocial, and spiritual in nature and an important part of their cancer experience with an emphasis on quality of life. Clinicians played an important role beyond treating the cancer by helping in the healing process through their humanistic qualities and holistic approach to patient care.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without oncogenic driver mutations is considered to have a poor prognosis, although recent therapeutic progress. This study aims to assess the real-life integration of palliative care (PC) and the intensity of end-of-life (EOL) care for this population.

This was an observational cohort study of decedent patients from metastatic NSCLC without oncogenic driver mutations over the period 01/2018 to 12/2022, treated in first line with immunotherapy +/- chemotherapy. We analysed PC integration and aggressiveness criteria of EOL care in the last month before death: systemic anti-cancer treatment administration, emergency room visits, intensive care unit admission, hospitalization, hospitalization duration > 14 days, and hospital death.

Among 149 patients, 75 (50 %) met the PC team at least once, and the median time from the first encounter to death was 2.3 months. In the last month before death, at least one criterion of aggressive EOL care was present for 97 patients (70 %). For patients with PC use < 30 days and for patients with PC use < 90 days before death, there were significant changes: increase in the frequency of systemic anti-cancer treatment (respectively 51.1 % vs 20 %; p < 0.001 and 58.7 % vs 6.2 %; p < 0.001); decrease in hospitalization lasting > 14 days (respectively 30 % vs 7 %; p = 0.001 and 36 % vs 6.2 %; p = 0.018) and in death hospitalisation (respectively 66 % and 18 %; p < 0.001 and 58.7 % and 10.3 %; p < 0.001). After adjusting for the factors tested, patients with no PC or late PC use in the last month before death or in the last three month before death, the odds ratio (OR) remained significantly greater than 1 (respectively OR = 3.97 [1.70; 9.98]; p = 0.001 and OR = 23.1 [5.21-177.0], p < 0.0001).

PC is still insufficiently integrated for patients with NSCL cancer. Cancer centres should monitor key indicators such as PC use and aggressiveness criteria of EOL care.

Patients with advanced cancer who misunderstand their prognosis and chance of cure tend to overestimate the likely benefits of palliative systemic therapy.

To determine patient perceptions of palliative systemic therapy benefits in advanced cancer.

We surveyed 104 outpatients with advanced cancer receiving systemic anticancer therapy and their treating oncologists. Patients recorded their understanding of treatment impact on chance of cure and symptoms. Life expectancy was estimated by patients and oncologists. A visual analogue scale (0-10) was used to record how patients and oncologists valued quality of life (QOL) and length of life (LOL) (<4 QOL most important; 4-7 QOL and LOL equal; >7 LOL most important). Patient-oncologist discordance was defined as a ≥4-point difference.

The main reasons patients selected for receiving treatment were to live longer (54%) and cure their cancer (36%). Most patients reported treatment was very/somewhat likely to prolong life (84%) and improve symptoms (76%), whereas 20% reported treatment was very/somewhat likely to cure their cancer. 42% of patients selected a timeframe for life expectancy (choice of four timeframes between <1 year and ≥5 years); of these, 62% selected a longer timeframe than their oncologist. When making treatment decisions, 71% of patients (52% of oncologists) valued QOL and LOL equally. Patient-oncologist discordance was 21%, mostly because of oncologists valuing QOL more than their patients (70%).

At least 20% of patients receiving systemic therapy for advanced cancer reported an expectation of cure. Most patients and oncologists value QOL and LOL equally when making treatment decisions.

Identifying the complexity of palliative care needs is a key aspect of referral to specialized multidisciplinary early palliative care (EPC) teams. The PALCOM scale is an instrument consisting of five multidimensional assessment domains developed in 2018 and validated in 2023 to identify the level of complexity in patients with advanced cancer. (1) Objectives: The main objective of this study was to determine the degree of instability (likelihood of level change or death), health resource consumption and the survival of patients according to the level of palliative complexity assigned at the baseline visit during a 6-month follow-up. (2) Method: An observational, prospective, multicenter study was conducted using pooled data from the development and validation cohort of the PALCOM scale. The main outcome variables were as follows: (a) instability ratio (IR), defined as the probability of level change or death; (b) emergency department visits; (c) days of hospitalization; (d) hospital death; (e) survival. All the variables were analyzed monthly according to the level of complexity assigned at the baseline visit. (3) Results: A total of 607 patients with advanced cancer were enrolled. According to the PALCOM scale, 20% of patients were classified as low complexity, 50% as medium and 30% as high complexity. The overall IR was 45% in the low complexity group, 68% in the medium complexity group and 78% in the high complexity group (p < 0.001). No significant differences in mean monthly emergency department visits (0.2 visits/ patient/month) were observed between the different levels of complexity. The mean number of days spent in hospital per month was 1.5 in the low complexity group, 1.8 in the medium complexity group and 3.2 in the high complexity group (p < 0.001). The likelihood of in-hospital death was significantly higher in the high complexity group (29%) compared to the medium (16%) and low (8%) complexity groups (p < 0.001). Six-month survival was significantly lower in the high complexity group (24%) compared to the medium (37%) and low (57%) complexity groups (p < 0.001).

According to the PALCOM scale, more complex cases are associated with greater instability and use of hospital resources and lower survival. The data also confirm that the PALCOM scale is a consistent and useful tool for describing complexity profiles, targeting referrals to the EPC and managing the intensity of shared care.

Clinical trial evidence on the effect of palliative care models in reducing aggressive end-of-life care is inconclusive. We previously reported on an integrated inpatient palliative care and medical oncology co-rounding model that significantly reduced hospital bed-days and postulate additional effect on reducing care aggressiveness.

To compare the effect of a co-rounding model vs usual care in reducing receipt of aggressive treatment at end-of-life.

Secondary analysis of an open-label stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial comparing two integrated palliative care models within the inpatient oncology setting. The co-rounding model involved pooling specialist palliative care and oncology into one team with daily review of admission issues, while usual care constituted discretionary specialist palliative care referrals by the oncology team. We compared odds of receiving aggressive care at end-of-life: acute healthcare utilization in last 30 days of life, death in hospital, and cancer treatment in last 14 days of life between patients in two trial arms.

2145 patients were included in the analysis, and 1803 patients died by 4th April 2021. Median overall survival was 4.90 (4.07 - 5.72) months in co-rounding and 3.75 (3.22 - 4.21) months in usual care, with no difference in survival (P = .12). We found no significant differences between both models with respect to receipt of aggressive care at end-of-life. (Odds Ratio .67 - 1.27; all P > .05).

The co-rounding model within an inpatient setting did not reduce aggressiveness of care at end-of-life. This could be due in part to the overall focus on resolving episodic admission issues.

'Early' specialist palliative care (SPC) has been shown to improve outcomes for patients with advanced cancer, yet patients are often referred late. 'Enhanced supportive care' (ESC) aims to facilitate earlier integrated supportive care for those with incurable cancer. This study aimed to explore clinicians' understanding of ESC/SPC delivery through description of current service provision.

This national cross-sectional survey of 53 cancer centres had two parts. Part 1: Service details, was directed to lead ESC/SPC nurses or consultants about service configuration, and Part 2: Clinician understanding, targeting conceptual understanding of service aims including ESC/SPC teams and oncology consultants (n=262 surveys). Multiple-choice questions explored service provision, referral triggers and evidence of integration with oncology, with free-text responses. Quantitative results were analysed with Fischer's exact test. Qualitative free text was line-by-line coded by two authors independently to derive themes.

56% (30/53) of SPC and ESC teams and 14% (14/100) of oncologists responded. Those involved in ESC self-reported greater integration with oncology compared with non-ESC teams, for example, joint case discussions (64.3%, 9/14 vs 23.1%, 3/13, p=0.05), and timelier patient referral ((>6 months before death vs <6 months) (10/14 vs 4/13, p=0.06)). Qualitative themes described ambiguity in definitions of supportive and palliative terms and a perception of timelier identification of patients when ESC was involved.

Providers of ESC perceive greater integration with oncology and potentially timelier referral for patients compared with teams not delivering ESC. Terminology around SPC and ESC remains uncertain across England.

There is a concern that terminally ill cancer patients may be aggressively treated due to the rapidly growing possibilities of anticancer treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of anticancer treatment at the end of life (EoL).

This retrospective study included adult patients with advanced solid cancers who were treated at the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana and died of cancer between January 2015 and December 2019. A multiple logistic regression model was used to assess an association between the aggressiveness of anticancer treatment (i.e. systemic therapy, radiotherapy and surgery) in the last 2 weeks of life and year of death, age at death, sex, prognosis of cancer and enrolment into the specialist palliative care (SPC).

We included 1736 patients in our analysis. Overall, 13.7% of patients were enrolled into the SPC and 14.4% received anticancer treatment in the last 2 weeks of life. The odds of receiving anticancer treatment significantly increased over time [odds ratio (OR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.27]. There was an increased use of novel systemic therapy (e.g. small-molecule targeted therapy and immunotherapy) at the EoL. Older patients had significantly lower odds to receive anticancer treatment in the last 2 weeks of life as compared to younger patients (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.95-0.98). As compared to patients receiving only a standard oncology care, those also enrolled into the SPC had significantly lower odds for anticancer treatment in the last 2 weeks of life (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12-0.43).

Terminally ill cancer patients have increased odds for receiving anticancer treatment, especially novel systemic therapies, in the last 2 weeks of life. Younger patients and those not enrolled into the SPC are at particular risk for anticancer treatment at the EoL.

Early integration of palliative care and advance care planning (ACP) play an increasingly important role in the treatment of patients with advanced cancer. Advance directives (ADs) and patients' preferences regarding end-of-life (EoL) care are important aspects of ACP. In the outpatient setting, the prevalence of those documents and EoL care wishes is not well investigated, and changes in the longitudinal course are poorly understood.

From June 2020 to August 2022, 67 outpatients with advanced solid tumors undergoing palliative cancer therapy were interviewed on the topic of ACP in a longitudinal course. From this database, the prevalence of ADs, healthcare proxy, EoL care wishes, and the need for counseling regarding these issues were collected. In addition, EoL care wishes were examined for their stability.

Fifty-one patients (76.1%) reported having ADs, and 41 patients (61.2%) reported having a healthcare proxy. Nineteen patients (37.3%) with ADs and 11 patients (68.7%) without ADs indicated a wish for counseling. Reported EoL care wishes remained stable over a period of approximately 6 months. Nevertheless, intraindividual changes occurred over time within the different EoL care preferences. The desire for resuscitation and dialysis were significantly higher in men than in women (resuscitation: 15 of 21 men [71.4%] versus 9 of 22 women [40.9%], odds ratio [OR] 3.611, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-12.89, p = 0.048; dialysis: 16 of the 23 men [69.6%] versus 9 of the 25 women [36.0%], OR: 4.063, 95% CI: 1.22-13.58, p = 0.023).

Our results show a reasonably high percentage of ADs and healthcare proxies in our study cohort. The observed stability of EoL requests encourages the implementation of structured queries for ADs and healthcare proxy for outpatients undergoing palliative treatment. Our data suggest that gender-specific characteristics should be further investigated in this context.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is a rare, aggressive, and incurable cancer with a poor prognosis and high symptom burden. For these patients, little is known about the impact of palliative care consultation on outcomes such as mortality, hospital admissions, or emergency department visits. The aim of this study is to determine if referral to supportive and palliative care in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma is associated with survival and decreased hospital admissions and emergency department visits. This is a retrospective chart review. Study participants include all malignant pleural mesothelioma patients seen at The Ottawa Hospital-an acute care tertiary center-between January 2002 and March 2019. In total, 223 patients were included in the study. The mean age at diagnosis was 72.4 years and 82.5% were male. Of the patients diagnosed between 2002 and 2010, only 11 (9.6%) were referred to palliative care. By comparison, of those diagnosed between 2011 and 2019, 49 (45.4%) were referred to palliative care. Median time from diagnosis to referral was 4.1 months. There was no significant difference in the median survival of patients referred for palliative care compared to those who did not receive palliative care (p = 0.46). We found no association between receiving palliative care and the mean number of hospital admissions (1.04 vs. 0.91) from diagnosis to death, and an increase in mean number of emergency department visits in the palliative care group (2.30 vs. 1.18). Although there was increased utilization of palliative care services, more than half of the MPM patients did not receive palliative care despite their limited survival. There was an increase in emergency department visits in the palliative care group; this may represent an increase in the symptom burden (i.e., indication bias) in those referred to palliative care.

Background: This work evaluated the proportion of patients who continue therapy until their last month of life or initiate a new therapy in the last 3 months of life (end of life [EOL]). Methods: Data for 486 patients were retrospectively collected. Results: In EOL, 205 (42.3%) received systemic therapy. Better performance status (last month overall response [OR]: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.25-0.60; p < 0.001; last 3 months OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.34-0.65; p < 0.001) and lack of activation of palliative care (last month OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.13-0.54; p < 0.001; last 3 months OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.10-0.32; p < 0.001) were associated with higher probability of EOL therapy. Conclusion: A non-negligible proportion of patients in real-life settings continue to receive systemic treatment in EOL.

Effects on anticancer therapy following the integration of palliative care and oncology are rarely investigated. Thus, its potential effect is unknown.

To investigate the effects of the complex intervention PALLiON versus usual care on end-of-life anticancer therapy.

Cluster-randomised controlled trial (RCT), registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (No. NCT03088202). The complex intervention consisted of a physician education program enhancing theoretical, clinical and communication skills, a patient-centred care pathway and patient symptom reporting prior to all consultations. Primary outcome was overall use, start and cessation of anticancer therapy in the last 3 months before death. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported outcomes. Mixed effects logistic regression models and Cox proportional hazard were used.

A total of 12 Norwegian hospitals (03/2017-02/2021).

Patients ⩾18 years, advanced stage solid tumour, starting last line of anticancer therapy, estimated life expectancy ⩽12 months.

A total of 616 (93%) patients were included (intervention: 309/control:307); 63% males, median age 69, 77% had gastrointestinal cancers. Median survival time from inclusion was 8 (IQR 3-14) and 7 months (IQR 3-12), and days between anticancer therapy start and death were 204 (90-378) and 168 (69-351) (intervention/control). Overall, 78 patients (13%) received anticancer therapy in the last month (intervention: 33 [11%]/control: 45 [15%]). No differences were found in patient-reported outcomes.

We found no significant differences in the probability of receiving end-of-life anticancer therapy. The intervention did not have the desired effect. It was probably too general and too focussed on communication skills to exert a substantial influence on conventional clinical practice.

In the advanced cancer setting, low psychological functioning is a common symptom and its deleterious impact on health outcomes is well established. Yet, the beneficial role of positive psychological well-being (PPWB) on several clinical conditions has been demonstrated. Early palliative care (EPC) is a recent value-based model consisting of the early integration of palliative care into standard care for solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. While the late palliative care primary offers short-term interventions, predominantly pharmacological in nature and limited to physical symptom reduction, EPC has the potential to act over a longer term, enabling specific interventions aimed at promoting PPWB. This narrative review examines nine English studies retrieved from MEDLINE/PubMed, published up to October 2023, focusing on EPC and three dimensions of PPWB: hope, gratitude, and death acceptance. These dimensions consistently emerge in our clinical experience within the EPC setting for advanced cancer patients and appear to contribute to its clinical efficacy. The choice of a narrative review reflects the novelty of the topic, the limited existing research, and the need to incorporate a variety of methodological approaches for a comprehensive exploration.

In this study, we aimed to assess the clinical characteristics, reasons for referral, and outcomes of patients with brain metastases (BM) referred to the supportive care center.

Equal numbers of patients with melanoma, breast cancer, and lung cancer with (N = 90) and without (N = 90) BM were retrospectively identified from the supportive care database for study. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic, disease, and clinical data. Kaplan Meier method was used to evaluate survival outcomes.

While physical symptom management was the most common reason for referral to supportive care for both patients with and without BM, patients with BM had significantly lower pain scores on ESAS at time of referral (p = 0.002). They had greater interaction with acute care in the last weeks of life, with higher rates of ICU admission, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations after initial supportive care (SC) visit. The median survival time from referral to Supportive Care Center (SCC) was 0.90 years (95% CI 0.73, 1.40) for the brain metastasis group and 1.29 years (95% CI 0.91, 2.29) for the group without BM.

Patients with BM have shorter survival and greater interaction with acute care in the last weeks of life. This population also has distinct symptom burdens from patients without BM. Strategies to optimize integration of SC for patients with BM warrant ongoing study.

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted cancer diagnosis and treatment. However, little is known about end-of-life cancer care during the pandemic.

To investigate potentially inappropriate end-of-life hospital care for cancer patients before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Retrospective population-based cohort study using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch National Hospital Care Registration. Potentially inappropriate care in the last month of life (chemotherapy administration, >1 emergency room contact, >1 hospitalization, hospitalization >14 days, intensive care unit admission or hospital death) was compared between four COVID-19 periods and corresponding periods in 2018/2019.

A total of 112,919 cancer patients (⩾18 years) who died between January 2018 and May 2021 were included.

Fewer patients received potentially inappropriate end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to previous years, especially during the first COVID-19 peak (22.4% vs 26.0%). Regression analysis showed lower odds of potentially inappropriate end-of-life care during all COVID-19 periods (between OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.74-0.88 and OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.87-0.97) after adjustment for age, sex and cancer type. For the individual indicators, fewer patients experienced multiple or long hospitalizations, intensive care unit admission or hospital death during the pandemic.

Cancer patients received less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because several factors may have contributed, it is unclear whether this reflects better quality care. However, these findings raise important questions about what pandemic-induced changes in care practices can help provide appropriate end-of-life care for future patients in the context of increasing patient numbers and limited resources.