Early Incorporation to Palliative Care (EPC) in Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The PACO Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience a considerable disease burden, evident in symptomatic and psychological spheres. Advanced cancer represents a complex scenario for patients and the healthcare team. Early palliative care (EPC) has been proven as a clinically meaningful strategy in this context by several randomized trials but not in a resource-limited setting. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of EPC compared with standard oncological care (SOC) in patients with metastatic NSCLC in Mexico. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized clinical trial was conducted at Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia in Mexico. All patients had histologically confirmed metastatic NSCLC without previous treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive SOC or SOC + EPC. The EPC group was introduced to the palliative care team at baseline after randomization, which was integrated by psychologists, bachelor's in nutrition, specialized nurses, and physicians. Patients randomized to this arm had programmed visits to meet with the team at baseline and through the 2nd, 4th-, and 6th cycles thereafter. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary outcomes included quality of life (QoL), anxiety and depression, and symptom intensity. They were assessed using the instruments EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) (clinicaltrials.gov [NCT01631565]). Questionnaires were completed at baseline, at 2nd, 4th, and 6th cycles of treatment. RESULTS: Between March 2012 and June 2015, 201 patients were assessed for eligibility and 146 were enrolled and allocated to receive EPC (73) or SOC (73). Median OS for patients in the EPC vs SOC arm was 18.1 months (95% CI, 7.9-28.4) and 10.5 months (95% CI, 4.7-16.2) (P = .029). Having a poor performance status (HR 1.7 [1.2-2.5]; P = .004) and allocation to the control group (HR 1.5 [1.03-2.3]; P = .034) were independently associated with a worse OS. Those patients with a global QoL > 70 at baseline had a better OS if they were In the EPC arm (38.7 months (95% CI, 9.9-67.6) vs SOC 21.4 months (95% CI, 12.4-30.3)). Mean QoL had a numerical improvement in patients allocated to EPC after 6 cycles of follow-up, nonetheless this difference was not statistically significant (55.1 ± 23.7 vs 56.9 ± 25.3; P = .753). There were no significant differences in anxiety and depression at all study points. CONCLUSIONS: EPC is associated with a significant improvement in OS, although, we observed that the greatest benefit of providing EPC was observed in those with a global QoL > 70 at baseline. This study did not identify significant changes in terms of QoL or symptom burden between the study groups after follow-up. Evidence robustly suggests that EPC should be considered part of the multidisciplinary treatment of metastatic NSCLC patients since diagnosis. According to our study, EPC can be implemented in low- or middle-income countries (LMIC).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".