The Impact of an Outpatient Palliative Care Consultation on Symptom Burden in Advanced Prostate Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There are limited studies characterizing cancer-related symptoms in outpatient advanced prostate cancer patients. The aim of this retrospective study was to describe the impact of an outpatient palliative care (PC) consultation on symptoms in patients with advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 55 consecutive patients with advanced prostate cancer seen in our institution's outpatient PC center. Information regarding demographics, disease status, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) scores, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status, laboratory data, and pharmacological interventions were analyzed. RESULTS: The median age of the study's patients was 66 years old, with 73% Caucasian ethnicity. All patients had metastatic disease and 96% had received prior cytotoxic chemotherapy. The most frequently occurring symptoms upon presentation were pain, fatigue, and drowsiness (>50%). Pain and fatigue were also the most severe symptoms, each having median ESAS scores of 7 (on a 0-10 scale). We instituted a median of 3 pharmacological interventions per patient, with a median of 15 days to follow-up assessment. At follow-up, patients reported significant symptom improvements in pain, drowsiness, fatigue, depression, sleep, sense of well-being, and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our preliminary data, we conclude that patients with advanced prostate cancer referred to PC experience severe and clinically significant symptoms. An outpatient PCconsultation is associated with significant symptom improvement in this subset of a distressed population. Future prospective studies are warranted to further describe symptom burden and the role for outpatient PC for advanced prostate cancer patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".