Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
The best palliative outcomes are obtained when palliative care is involved early in advanced lung cancer.
Integration of palliative care early in the advanced cancer patient has important health utilization and economic outcomes besides patient-related outcomes.
Supportive oncology and palliative care are not the same. Supportive oncology involves therapies to treat or minimize anticancer therapy toxicity.
There is in general a misunderstanding of palliative care as hospice care. This misunderstanding is a barrier to referral.
Patient-related outcome measures predict relevant outcomes such as survival, tolerance to chemotherapy, and performance status.
Hope in advanced lung cancer can be maintained without the promise of therapies that are unlikely to alter the cause of cancer.
There are multiple symptom and quality-of-life tools with lung cancer–specific items that can be used to assess pain, nonpain symptoms, and quality of life in lung cancer.
Pain, fatigue, dyspnea, cough, and anorexia can be successfully treated using guidelines established for specific symptom management.
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines palliative care as the “holistic care of patients with advanced progressive illness. Managing pain and other symptoms, and providing psychosocial and spiritual support are paramount. The goal of palliative care is to achieve the best quality of life for patients and their families. Many aspects of palliative care also apply earlier in the course of illness, in conjunction with curative, disease-modifying or rehabilitating treatments.” This definition establishes three important points: (1) palliative care is patient-oriented rather than disease-oriented; (2) palliative care is interdisciplinary, using multiple medical and nonmedical specialties to achieve the best quality of life for the patient and family; and (3) palliative care is complementary to disease-related care. However, this definition does not provide clinical guidelines for successfully implementing early integration of palliative care. Specific guidelines are necessary for defining when and how palliative care needs to be integrated into clinical pathways for successful implementation.
Many palliative care programs have adopted multiple names, including supportive care, to facilitate early integration. According to National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services, supportive care helps the patient and family cope with cancer and treatment, from before diagnosis through the process of diagnosis, treatment, cure, continuing illness or death, and (family) bereavement. Supportive care helps patients maximize the benefits of cancer treatment and live as well as possible with the side effects of the disease and its treatment. Supportive care is of equal priority with diagnosis and treatment. Supportive care originally focused on side effects from anticancer therapies, such as neutropenic fever and nausea, related to chemotherapy agents. Unlike palliative care, supportive care does not have a recognized subspecialty status. Like palliative care, supportive care is multidisciplinary. Many trials have used the term best supportive care, but this term is not defined in trial documents. In one review, best supportive care was largely limited to biomedical support, such as transfusions, antibiotics, and antiemetics, and did not include advance directives, communication, and psychosocial or spiritual care or support.
End-of-life care has been largely associated with hospice care. In the United States, because of the hospice Medicare benefit, end-of-life care is assumed to be the 6 months, or less, prior to the patient’s death. Definitions of end-of-life care have broadened considerably regarding disease trajectory, when end-of-life care should be introduced, and the clinical conditions on which it focuses. As noted previously, there are multiple of terms and definitions for end-of-life care and palliative care. The fact that programs frequently use several descriptors leads to confusion. The reason palliative care programs have adopted the term supportive care is largely due to the fact that physicians and patients find the term more acceptable than palliative care.
The first inpatient palliative care unit in North America was established by Dr. Balfour Mount at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal, Canada in 1975. The establishment of this unit was just 8 years after St. Christopher’s Hospice was opened in London, England by Cicely Saunders. The term “palliative” was adopted at that time to describe the function of the unit and the purpose of the program. The main reason for opening this inpatient palliative care unit within an acute care hospital was because of disturbing deficiencies in the care of patients with incurable illnesses. Dr. Mount recognized the misalignment between the goals for treating incurable and terminal illnesses, and the main goals of the acute care hospital, which were to investigate, diagnose, cure, and prolong life. In contrast, the three main goals of cancer treatment were to cure, prolong life, and palliate. Prior to the establishment of the palliative care unit, most, if not all, effort and resources were being applied toward curing or prolonging life. The palliative needs of terminally ill patients and their families, including medical, emotional, and spiritual needs, were generally neglected in an acute care hospital.
A shift to a scientific-based, disease-oriented medical model, which occurred in the latter half of the 19th century, resulted in major advances in health care. Louis Pasteur’s germ theory led to Joseph Lister’s management of surgical wounds and the remarkable reduction in postoperative mortality and morbidity due to infections. Florence Nightingale used statistics and collected mortality data to prove that sanitary conditions reduce mortality, and the randomized clinical trial based on disease models and evidence-based therapeutics became the language of medicine. However, the adverse outcome of this shift was to objectify patients and identify them with their disease (e.g., cancer patients) and to depersonalize the healing process through reductionism. Quantification of outcomes became a priority when treating large populations.
The curative and the disease-modifying models include the inherent assumptions that analytical, rational, and clinical encounters are the basis for scientific inquiry. The object of analysis is the disease rather than the patient and their experience of illness. Symptoms are valued as clues to a diagnosis instead of a disease worthy of treatment. Cure is contingent on effective diagnosis and treatment. Treatment is largely empiric, uniformly applied, rather than person-centered, and based on stringently controlled trials of persons with similar disease states and measurable disease-related objective outcomes that are viewed as most important (survival, disease-free survival, or progression-free survival). Laboratory and radiographic data are trusted more than the patient’s self-report, and patient-related outcomes are of secondary importance to disease-related outcomes. In fact, most physicians are unfamiliar with patient-related outcomes and outcome measures. Few oncologists routinely use patient-related outcome measures in practice and largely depend on laboratory and radiographic disease states to guide treatment and clinical decisions. The disease-oriented and curative model tends to ignore phenomena that cannot be scientifically explained. Patients are perceived as component parts, and treatment is delivered by subspecialists. Physicians tend to think in terms of molecules, cells, organ systems, and genomes, particularly those with critical cancer-related (so-called addicted) pathways. They place secondary importance on relational perspectives. Oncology within the cancer center is largely hierarchical and physician centered. Multidisciplinary tumor boards are almost entirely comprised of physicians from various subspecialties and rarely involve nonmedical and noncancer medical specialties such as nursing, palliative care, social work, and rehabilitation services. Discussions within tumor boards are almost entirely centered on managing the disease; treatment recommendations are largely biomedical in nature and limited to radiotherapy, surgery, and chemotherapy, or a combination of antitumor therapies. Death in a curative model is seen as defeat. There are no so-called good deaths in oncology. The most commonly heard excuses are that treatment failed, or, even worse, the patient failed the treatment, or nothing more can be done. The curative model fosters the involvement of palliative care in a transitional approach, in which palliative care is considered only when anticancer therapy is exhausted, rather than as simultaneous care. As a result, in the absence of palliative care support, physicians do what they have been trained to do; they give chemotherapy or targeted agents even in a terminally ill patient with little-to-no expected benefit. Reviews published regarding management of nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have sometimes explicitly used an either-or approach when comparing chemotherapy with palliative care. In the curative model, palliative care is considered end-of-life care, and referral is made once treatment is no longer effective.
In the palliative-care approach, treatment centers around the patient and family, with the goals of providing relief of pain and other symptoms, reducing psychosocial and spiritual stressors, restoring function, including social life and the role within the family, and improving quality of life. Palliative care supports patient values, concerns and personal choices. Treatment of pain and other symptoms is a legitimate outcome and goal of medicine. Diagnosis is not a predetermined goal, but is pursued if compatible with the patient’s personal goals. Treatment is individualized based on evidence from guidelines. Palliative care, like hospice, seeks neither to hasten nor delay death and sees death as a natural part of living. The structure of palliative care services is nonhierarchical, with multiple medical and nonmedical specialists, including physicians, forming an interdisciplinary team that recognizes different roles and responsibilities. Encounters are usually lengthy. To achieve the most favorable outcome, palliative care is best practiced within multiple encounters over a prolonged period of time and is best used early in the course of illness, rather than as a crisis intervention or as a death management service at the end of life.
There are three basic integrated palliative care models. The first involves the oncologist playing both roles in cancer care. This requires extensive time and expanded expertise, and, in general, it is impractical, because of time constraints and the need for secondary training. Oncologists should be skilled in basic palliative care. In areas where there is a lack of palliative care services, this is the default model. The second approach is the so-called cafeteria model, in which the oncologist forms an interdisciplinary team by arranging multiple consultations with specialists in radiotherapy, surgery, palliative care, social work, psychology, and spiritual care. The oncologist makes up the hub of the wheel and multiple specialists serve as the spokes of the wheel. This approach is time-consuming and expensive for patients who have to make multiple visits to many consultants. A breakdown in communication is also more likely to occur, and knowing which specialist to contact for which symptom, stressor, family concern, or financial matter may be problematic for the patient. The third model involves a simultaneous consult with a palliative care specialist and the oncologist, early in the course of cancer treatment. Communication and rapport can be established with both specialists, and the oncologist is free to focus on cancer management. This is a time-efficient practice that improves communication between two services. In this model, the palliative care specialist may potentially act as a so-called treatment broker. As the patient and oncologist gain trust in the palliative care specialist, the patient may feel free to use the palliative care specialist as a sounding board to clarify preferences and goals of care. Palliative care includes several components, and interdisciplinary palliative care teams have many distinct characteristics (see Boxes 58.1 and 58.2 ).
Outpatient clinics
Early referral
Consultation services
Inpatient/outpatient
Crisis intervention
Inpatient units
Direct care
Association or affiliation with hospice services
Home palliative care services
Education
Fellowships
Grand Rounds and other teaching modalities
Provision for teaching internal medicine residents, oncology fellows, other fellows (gynecology, oncology, radiation, pain management)
Research
Quality-improvement projects
Prospective observational and interventional studies
Dedicated time, fellows, personnel, and resources
Integration into oncology as supportive care trials
Continuity: reconciliation of service lines
Assessment of symptoms: expert use of patient-related outcome measures
Treatment of cancer complications and associated symptoms (expertise in pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management of symptoms)
Communication
Treatment goals and prognosis
Assess values and preferences and understanding regarding disease stage, course, outlook, and goals of care
End-of-life care and decisions, preference for site of care
Advance directives
Transition facilitation
Active cancer treatment plus palliative care to active palliative care
Active palliative care to hospice
Family care
Facilitate family meetings
Understand family systems
Management of family distress, dysfunction, and family grief
Psychosocial care
Management of distress, depression, demoralization
Management of anticipatory grief, complicated grief, and depression in grief
Spiritual care
Recognize existential suffering
Able to take a spiritual history
Understand diverse religious practices
Rehabilitation
Referral to pulmonary and nonpulmonary rehabilitation, physical therapy, and occupational therapy
Supportive care
Treatment of toxicity and complications related to anticancer therapy
Care of the actively dying
Bereavement
Research in supportive and palliative care interventions, service structures, and complex research designs
Individuals presenting with lung cancer are usually highly symptomatic. Most patients with advanced disease have at least four distressing symptoms. Their average pain severity is 6 to 7, which is considered moderate, based on a numerical rating scale with 0 being no pain and 10 being severe pain. The most frequently reported symptoms are anorexia, cough, dyspnea, fatigue, pain, and insomnia. Individuals with lung cancer experience a greater prevalence of depression and anxiety than individuals with other cancers and also have more frequent and prolonged fatigue compared with patients with other cancers. Breathlessness occurs in 70% of patients, is associated with a substantially greater symptom burden, and can adversely influence the experience of caring for a loved one. Symptom burden may, in fact, be greater than patients indicate. That is why it is important to use a standardized symptom questionnaire. Studies have shown that, when presented with a symptom checklist, patients report three to four times more symptoms than they volunteer.
Even individuals with relatively early-stage lung cancer (stages I–IIIB) have substantial symptoms. When using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale at disease presentation, patients reported an average of 11 symptoms, and, even when successfully treated, they reported an average of 6 to 7 symptoms still present a year after treatment. As mentioned previously, individuals with early-stage lung cancer experience lack of energy, worry, dyspnea, cough, and insomnia. The Karnofsky performance status often remains impaired at 36 to 52 weeks after treatment, but symptom distress gradually declines by 1 year. Symptom distress is the primary reason for clinical encounters in the outpatient setting and the primary reason for unscheduled admissions. Despite treatments for NSCLC, there is gradual deterioration in physical function, activities of daily living, and cognitive function and an increasing need for social support.
Physicians frequently believe that tumor reduction is a surrogate for improved patient-related outcomes. However, based upon a systematic review of quality of life associated with standard chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC, there are no major changes in the global quality of life for patients on standard chemotherapy regimens. There is only a modest correlation (0.35) between objective tumor size and symptoms. Improved patient-related outcomes with treatment last a much shorter time (3.8 months on average) than duration of objective tumor response (6.4 months). Objective tumor response and patient-related outcomes contribute unique, independent information. One cannot be substituted for the other. Unfortunately, most oncologists are unfamiliar with standard symptom questionnaires, and most are not aware of clinically meaningful differences in patient-related outcome measures. However, having patients complete quality-of-life and symptom questionnaires gives patients a sense of better continuity with their physician and the feeling that their treating oncologist has considered their daily activities and emotional state. Patients think that such questionnaires are helpful and not burdensome. Longitudinal assessment of symptoms is also important because treatment reduces certain symptoms but increases others.
At least 40% of outpatients with cancer are undertreated for pain, as measured by the Pain Management Index. This reflects inadequate analgesic choices based on pain severity, but does not reflect pain response. Despite the fact that greater than 60% of patients have substantial pain, there is no change in the Pain Management Index score with follow-up. Oncologists self-rate their ability to manage pain as high (7 to 10, with 10 being the best management), but rate their colleagues’ ability to control pain lower (3 to 10). Oncologists perceive lack of assessment, time constraints, and patient reluctance to complain as barriers to pain management. Most oncologists know the WHO analgesic stepladder and prescribe opioids around-the-clock for chronic pain. However, most (greater than 60%) fail to correctly answer questions regarding opioid management (dose, schedule, conversion and rotation ratios, and titration) when tested through clinical scenarios. This has been documented in several studies. Symptom burden increases in intensity and number of symptoms as cancer progresses and then plateaus in the last month of survival. Eighty percent have increasing fatigue, dyspnea, and anorexia, and most have chest pain in the last 3 months of life. Left poorly managed, these individuals experience a painful death, and families experience complicated grief or depression in bereavement. Integrating palliative care into outpatient oncology practice early in the course of cancer reduces symptom burden, improves quality of life, and provides the care and support patients and families want (see Box 58.3 ).
Be treated as individuals
Be heard
Be valued for their skills and knowledge
Exercise real choice about treatment and services
Receive detailed, high-quality information about the disease, disease trajectory, prognosis, and goals of care
Know options and alternatives, including access to support groups, self-help services, and complementary therapy
Know they will undergo interventions that they have been informed of and have agreed to
Have excellent face-to-face communication
Know that services are well coordinated and are of high quality
Know that physical symptoms will be assessed and managed to their satisfaction and within the physician’s current expertise and knowledge
Have services available that can provide support and advice about financial concerns, including employment
Have access to spiritual care and be supported spiritually
Die in the place of choice
Be assured that the family will be supported throughout their illness and into bereavement
Honest communication is important but can be marred when a patient and physician maintain false hope in anticancer therapy. Good communication includes discussions about alternative therapies, prognosis, the goals of therapy, advance directives, and end-of-life care. Giving bad news requires some special skills, and few oncologists have had that type of communication training. In the US Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (Can CORS) study, only half of patients with advanced cancer had discussions about hospice care, and yet greater than 70% died within 6 months. Of the more than 4000 physicians caring for Can CORS patients, most would not initiate discussions about prognosis, advance directives, resuscitation, and hospice care, even if death was expected within 6 months and despite national guidelines. Most physicians stated that they would postpone these discussions until the patient was highly symptomatic or failed disease-modifying therapy. Some will not conduct these discussions unless initiated by the family or patient. Medical oncologists explain the disease course in 53% of consultations and discuss the absence of cure in 84%. However after consultation, most patients with advanced lung cancer still believe there is some chance of cure with chemotherapy. Even after being fully informed using decision aids, one-third of patients with incurable cancer feel that their cancer has some chance of being cured with chemotherapy. Patients do want to be fully informed about the stage at diagnosis and the prognosis, but comprehension often lags behind. Within consultations, oncologists address symptoms in 35% of patient encounters and discuss prognosis in 39%. Patients may perceive prognosis differently than incurability, which has no time line. Even when prognosis is discussed, physicians tend to be overly optimistic. Documentation of discussions about prognosis appears in less than 40% of medical charts. However, documented discussions about prognosis are also associated with documented discussions about options regarding ongoing anticancer therapy (odds ratio 5.8), and documented do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders (odds ratio, 2.2). Individuals with advanced cancer who overestimate their prognosis or who are given an overly optimistic estimate of survival are more likely to choose therapies for which the burden outweighs the benefit, are less likely to discuss preferences with surrogates, and are less likely to obtain information that would improve the quality of end-of-life care.
The picture may be a bit different from the patient’s perspective. In a study involving 276 patients from four major medical centers, 40% of patients rated communication with their oncologist about the potential for cure of their lung cancer low, and 80% gave low ratings about communication regarding resuscitation, life-sustaining treatments, and preparation of advance directives. Over half of patients reported that communication with their oncologist was inadequate. These findings may be related to a patient’s perception and inability to comprehend the seriousness of the situation, which is only realized as cancer progresses.
A large number of patients choose palliative chemotherapy at the end-of-life, for little to no benefit, because it helps them maintain a sense of control. Adverse effects are less of a concern for patients who value quantity of life. In this situation, alternatives are frequently not discussed. There are few, if any, decision aids to help patients make choices when considering palliative chemotherapy. Patients who have a priority of a longer life rather than better quality of life and who have had a previous response to anticancer treatment are likely to choose aggressive treatment. Patients experience cognitive dissonance when oncologists attempt to discuss end-of-life care and palliative chemotherapy within the same visit. Few patients with advanced cancer have completed advance directives, and less than one-quarter of patients want to discuss advance directives with their oncologists. Sixty percent of oncologists prefer not to discuss advance directives and end-of-life care, including resuscitation and hospice, until anticancer treatments are exhausted.
A collusion of hope surrounding anticancer therapy is maintained by continuing aggressive anticancer therapies despite little or no benefit. Although once important, patients seem to disregard quality of life and give precedence to quantity of life in choosing salvage chemotherapy. Physicians are inclined to continue anticancer therapy, despite lack of benefit, to maintain hope rather than provide supportive and palliative care. Paradoxically, this occurs despite the fact that there is little survival benefit with chemotherapy given within 1 to 3 months of death. In fact, chemotherapy may shorten survival, and early palliative care and hospice care may prolong survival.
As a result, the average time from the last chemotherapy to death is 50 to 60 days, and the time from the last targeted therapy to death is 40 to 50 days. Fourteen to eighteen percent of individuals receive chemotherapy or targeted therapy within 30 days of dying. The most common targeted agents used at the end of life are erlotinib and bevacizumab. Patients with lung cancer had greater odds (2.6) of being on a targeted agent within the last 30 days of life than individuals with other advanced cancers. In one study at a large cancer center, the median time from palliative care consult to death was 1.4 months (interquartile 0.5 to 4.2 months) but the median length of time from the first encounter with an oncologist to consultation about palliative care was 20 months (interquartile 6 to 45). Therefore, there were multiple missed opportunities to include palliative care as part of patient care earlier in the course of disease. Half of patients with lung cancer are within 2 months of death before end-of-life care and hospice are mentioned. The average stable performance score of patients with lung cancer, as measured by the Palliative Prognostic Index, a modification of the Karnofsky performance score, is 8 to 9 months. Once the Palliative Prognostic Index has dropped to 30 or less, the average survival is 0.38 months. At this stage, very few patients (less than 5%) will have improvement in their performance score. Consulting palliative care services after the patient has become bedridden, or has a poor performance score, provides little time to manage symptoms and primarily requires crisis intervention. Offering additional anticancer therapy when a performance score improves is unlikely to occur and, if discussed with the patient, will lead to a false sense of hope and will delay advanced care planning and hospice referral. Even patients with technically treatable small cell lung cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 3 or 4 do poorly. Only 20% of them will finish the standard four cycles. With a performance score of 4, the median survival is 7 days, and, with a performance score of 3, it is 64 days.
The end results of poor communication and a collusion of hope in anticancer therapy are aggressive care at the end of life, chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life, intensive care unit admissions in the last 30 days of life, and acute hospital-based care in the last 30 days of life. About half of patients with advanced lung cancer will have aggressive therapy at the end of life. The detrimental effect of aggressive care at the end of life is not just economic. It also creates a greater risk of caregiver depression and complicated grief. In retrospect, many patients and families regret their choices of aggressive therapy near the end of life.
In general, patients feel that advance directives should be discussed earlier than physicians do, and the majority of families wished palliative care had been involved earlier in the course of cancer treatment. In one study, end-of-life care discussions took place a median of 33 days before death. In hospitalized patients with advanced cancer, palliative consults usually occur late within the hospital stay, when death is imminent, after a substantial hospital stay, or after admission to an intensive care unit. Consultations often involve the transfer of care.
Most patients in large cancer centers do have a DNR directive in place at the time of death. The average time of signing a DNR directive is less than 3 days before death, and one-third are signed by surrogates. As few as 5% of individuals with advanced cancer who die in the hospital have signed outpatient DNR directives.
One of the benefits of integrating palliative care into outpatient oncology is decreased symptom burden. The use of symptom assessment questionnaires will uncover more bothersome symptoms, which can then be managed by the palliative care team. Individuals referred to palliative care early in the course of treatment are more likely to perceive and retain accurate information about prognosis and are less likely to receive aggressive chemotherapy at the end of life. Prognostic discussions do not dampen hope. They empower individuals by providing realistic expectations to help them make informed choices about their medical care. Early palliative care is associated with longer intervals between the last chemotherapy and death and increased hospice enrollment more than 7 days before death (60% compared with 33%). Individuals who have less than 30 days of exposure to palliative care are more likely to receive chemotherapy within 30 days of death. Hope is more influenced by a caring relationship between patient and physician than by prognostic disclosure. The great majority of caregivers feel that avoiding discussions about prognosis is an inappropriate way of maintaining hope.
Become a Clinical Tree membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles
If you are a member. Log in here