Early Integrated Palliative Care in Patients With Advanced Cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Limited data suggest that early palliative care (EPC) improves quality of life (QOL) and survival in patients with advanced cancer. Objective: To evaluate whether comprehensive EPC improves QOL; relieves mental, social, and existential burdens; increases survival rates; and helps patients develop coping skills. Design, Setting, and Participants: 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. Interventions: 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. Main Outcomes and Measures: 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. Results: 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). Conclusions and Relevance: 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. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03181854.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».