Single early palliative care intervention added to usual oncology care for patients with advanced cancer: A randomized controlled trial (SENS Trial)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: International oncology societies recommend early palliative care. Specific models to integrate early palliative care efficiently into clinical practice are debated. The authors designed a study to look at the quantitative and qualitative outcomes of an early palliative care intervention in oncological care to decrease stress and improve quality of life. AIMS: To compare a single structured early palliative care intervention added to a usual oncology care in terms of distress and health-related quality of life at baseline compared to 6 months after enrollment. DESIGN: This multicenter randomized controlled trial (NCT01983956) enrolled adult patients with advanced cancer. Participants were either randomly assigned to usual oncology care alone or usual care plus a structured early palliative care intervention. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: One hundred fifty adult patients with a variety of advanced cancer diagnoses were randomized. Seventy-four participants were in the intervention and 76 participants in the control group. The primary outcome was the change in patient distress assessed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network distress thermometer at 6 months. Health-related quality of life, the secondary outcome, was assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Questionnaire. RESULTS: The results showed no significant effect of the early palliative care intervention neither on patient distress nor on health-related quality of life. CONCLUSION: The addition of an early intervention to usual care for patients with advanced cancer did not improve distress or quality of life. Thus, patients may need more intensive early palliative care with continuous professional support to identify and address their palliative needs early.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".