Contribution of collegial support meetings (CSM) in the management of complex situations of patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: Collegial support meetings (CSM) have been set up in the Gustave Roussy Cancer Center for inpatients whose complex care requires a multi-professional approach involving many participants: oncologists but also health-caregivers, a member of the palliative care team, an intensivist, and a psychologist. This study is aimed at describing the role of this newly multidisciplinary meeting implemented in a French Comprehensive Cancer Center. METHODS: Each week, the health-caregivers decide which situations should be examined, depending on the difficulty of a case. The discussion goes on to include the goal of treatment, the intensity of care, ethical and psychosocial issues, and the patient's life plan. Finally, to obtain feedback from the teams, a survey has been distributed to assess the interest in the CSM. RESULTS: In 2020, 114 inpatients were involved, and 91% were in an advanced palliative situation. During the CSMs, 55% of the discussions focused on whether to continue specific cancer treatment-29% about whether to continue invasive medical care-50% about optimizing supportive care. We estimate that between 65 and 75% of CSMs influenced further decisions. Death occurred during the hospitalization for 35% of the patients that were discussed. The lapse of time between last chemotherapy and death was 24 days (IQR, 28.5). CSMs were well received, since 80% of the teams find these meetings useful. CONCLUSIONS: CSMs reach conclusions for medical and nursing staff involved, in order to improve the management of inpatients with cancer in advanced palliative situation and to define the better goals of care.

PALLIA 10 score in phase I cancer studies.

OBJECTIVE: Phase I clinical trials usually include patients with advanced disease who have failed standard therapies and should benefit from early palliative care. We try to assess whether PALLIA 10, a score developed in France to help identify patients who might benefit from a palliative care referral, could be used in a phase I department trial. METHODS: We assessed PALLIA 10 score and other prognostic factors in patients enrolled in phase I trials at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center prospectively during two periods of time (cohort 1 (C1) and 2 (C2)). A double-blind assessment of the PALLIA 10 score was done in C2 by a palliative care specialist and a nurse. RESULTS: From 1 July 2018 to 1 November 2018 (C1) and from 1 December 2020 to 16 April 2021 (C2), 86 patients were assessed in C1 and 302 in C2. Median PALLIA 10 was very low in both cohorts (median 1, range 1-5 in C1 and 1-8 in C2). On C1 and C2, 12% and 5% of patients had a dedicated palliative consultation. In C2, assessment of PALLIA 10 score was significantly different between palliative care physician (median 5, range 3-8), phase I physician (median 1, range 1-6) and phase I nurse (median 3, range 1-8) (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Median PALLIA 10 score was low when assessed by the phase I physician, which suggests the need for a better tool and appropriate clinician's education to implement early palliative care in clinical practice and trials.

Decisions about treatment with targeted therapies in a palliative care unit: A case series.

BACKGROUND: Early palliative care integration into the oncologic treatment pattern is recognized and strongly recommended to anticipate end-of-life issues and avoid disproportionate care. Targeted therapies (TTs), with their very rapid onset of action and relatively good tolerance, may have an effect on cancer-related symptoms, which could be beneficial in the context of palliative care. METHODS: Data were extracted from a cohort of all patients hospitalized in an acute palliative care unit between 03.04.2019 and 07.04.2020. Data for all consecutive patients for which a decision on a TT was made during hospitalization were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were identified. Thirty-one patients were currently receiving TT on admission. For 19/31 (61.3%) patients, the treatment was discontinued. The remaining 12 patients had TT after discharge from the palliative care unit (continuation of the same TT or modification of the TT during the stay), with an average duration of 208 days and an average of 46 days between the last TT and death. TT was introduced or reintroduced in 7 patients of the 11 patients hospitalized without treatment at admission. In this group, the average duration of treatment was 28 days, with an average of 28 days between the last TT and death. Five of the patients who received re-challenged TT experienced a subjective improvement of their symptom. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: TT was discontinued in the majority of our patients. However, in some cases, the treatment was maintained because it was effective on cancer-related symptoms even at the end of life. However, this should not overshadow the palliative process. The continuation or introduction of a specific oncological treatment requires close cooperation between oncologists and palliative care physicians and an honest and clear explanation to patients and their families.