MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Randomized controlled trial (RCT) of symptom screening with targeted early palliative care (STEP) versus usual care in patients with advanced cancer.

2022· article· en· W4281738403 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Camilla Zimmermann, Ashley Pope, Breffni Hannon, Monika K. Krzyzanowska, Gary Rodin, Madeline Li, Doris Howell, Jennifer J. Knox, Natasha B. Leighl, Srikala S. Sridhar, Amit M. Oza, Rebecca M. Prince, Stéphanie Lheureux, Aaron R. Hansen, Neesha C. Dhani, Geoffrey Liu, Philippe L. Bédard, Eric Xueyu Chen, Nadia Swami, Lisa W. Le

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicinePalliative careRandomized controlled trialQuality of life (healthcare)CancerPhysical therapyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e24084 Background: To direct limited specialized palliative care resources to patients in greatest need, we developed STEP (Symptom screening with Targeted Early Palliative care). STEP entails symptom screening (ESAS-r) at each oncology clinic visit and triggered alerts (for moderate-high physical and psychological symptoms) to a nurse who calls the patient to offer a palliative care clinic (PCC) visit. We conducted a phase III RCT to assess the impact of STEP versus usual care on quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Methods: Adults with advanced cancer were recruited from medical oncology clinics at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada. Consenting patients with oncologist-assessed ECOG 0-2 and estimated survival of 6-36 months were enrolled and block randomized (stratified by tumour site and symptom severity) to STEP or usual care. Participants completed measures of quality of life (FACT-G7), depression (PHQ-9), symptom control (ESASr-CS), and satisfaction with care (FAMCARE-P16) at baseline, 2, 4 and 6 months. The primary outcome was FACT-G7 at 6 months, with a planned sample size of 261/arm. Results: From 8/2019 to 3/2020, 69 patients were enrolled: 33 randomized to STEP and 36 to usual care. The trial was then halted permanently due to the COVID-19 pandemic, owing to substantial changes to elements of STEP (shift to virtual symptom screening and palliative care) and usual care (shift to virtual oncology care). Median age was 64 years (range 25-87) and 62% (43/69) were women; study arms were balanced at baseline except gender, with more women randomized to STEP. Within the STEP arm, 20 (61%) participants triggered a nurse’s call to offer a PCC visit, of whom 13 attended the clinic at least once. All outcomes tended to be better in the STEP arm compared to usual care, particularly depression and satisfaction with care at 6 months; however, results were not statistically significant (Table). Conclusions: STEP holds promise for improving quality of life and other PROs in patients with advanced cancer and effectively directing early palliative care towards those who need it most. In response to the pandemic, an online version of STEP has been developed and a further trial is in progress. Clinical trial information: NCT03987906. [Table: see text]

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→