Feasibility of a Palliative Care Intervention within Routine Care of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) are at risk for poor quality of life (QoL) and high symptom burden, coupled with limited treatment options. Palliative care (PC) can play an important role in reducing the suffering of this population, but remains underutilized. Aim: To demonstrate feasibility of an outpatient PC intervention within HCC care. Methods: This is a pilot randomized controlled trial conducted at an academic center. All stages of HCC patients (except Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage D) with a scheduled hepatology appointment were eligible. Patients were randomized to receive PC intervention or usual care (control arm). In the PC arm, patients received PC from a PC provider at enrollment and at three months from the baseline visit, in addition to continued standard of care. Control arm received only standard care. All patients completed FACT-Hep (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary Cancer) and modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale at baseline and at three-month visit. Descriptive statistics were utilized to summarize questionnaires, and change in QoL and symptoms from baseline to three months were compared between the two study groups. Results: Of the 109 approached, 57 patients (52.3%) consented to enroll, and 52 (91%) completed the study. QoL and symptom burden assessments demonstrated impaired QoL and high symptom burden in both arms of the study. At least 50% of enrolled patients in each arm had some degree of fatigue, pain, sleep disturbance, and appetite loss, at baseline. Post-intervention, symptom burden and QoL improved in the intervention arm and remained same or worsened in the control group. All FACT-Hep scores decreased numerically among controls and increased numerically among patients in the PC intervention group. Conclusion: Outpatient PC intervention within routine HCC care is feasible, and can potentially improve QoL and symptoms.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".