Technology-enhanced palliative care for patients with advanced cancer undergoing phase I therapies: A pilot randomized clinical trial (RCT).
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
12017 Background: Outpatient palliative care (PC) has been found to improve quality of life (QOL). It is not known if more frequent symptom monitoring and PC nursing contacts between clinic visits would offer additional benefits. We conducted a pilot RCT to examine the effect of a specialist PC referral with and without technology-enhancement (TEC) on symptoms in patients undergoing Phase I cancer therapies. Methods: This single-center parallel group RCT enrolled adult patients with advanced solid tumors prior to starting Phase I therapies and at least 1 Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) symptom ≥4/10 and ESAS Global Distress Score (GDS) ≥20/90. Patients were randomized to PC alone or PC + TEC in a 1:1 ratio. Over the 12 w period, the PC group had in person or virtual outpatient visits with a PC physician, nurse, and as needed psychotherapist every 4 weeks; the PC + TEC group also received weekly symptom monitoring with ESAS electronically and weekly nursing phone call. The primary outcome was within-group change of GDS from baseline to 2 w; secondary outcomes included change in GDS over 4, 8, and 12 w, and change in QOL (FACIT-Sp) over 2, 4, 8 and 12 w. We estimated that a sample size of 50 patients per group would provide 90% power to detect a within-group GDS difference of 6 units with a 2-sided α of 2.5% and 20% attrition. Results: Between 12/15/2020 and 12/21/2022, 115 patients were enrolled and 101 were randomized (PC + TEC n = 57, PC n = 44). By 2 w, PC + TEC showed a significant within-group improvement in GDS (mean change -5 [95% CI -8.9, -1.2]; P= 0.01) but not PC alone (Table). PC+TEC group also had a significant improvement in GDS at 8 w and 12 w and in FACIT-SP at 2 w, 8 w and 12 w. PC alone group had a significant within-group improvement in GDS at 4 w and 12 w but no significant differences in QOL were detected. This study was not powered for between group comparison; however, FACIT-SP at 12 w was significantly higher in PC+TEC vs. PC alone (Table; mean difference 13.9; P= 0.02). Conclusions: Higher intensity of PC with closer monitoring showed within-group improvement in symptoms and QOL, while PC alone had some symptom reduction but no QOL improvement. Further studies are needed to confirm the QOL benefit of PC + TEC over PC alone. Clinical trial information: NCT04989556 . [Table: see text]
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».