Impact of ambulatory palliative care on symptoms and service outcomes in cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The integration of palliative care into routine cancer care has allowed for improved symptom control, relationship building and goal setting for patients and families. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of an ambulatory palliative care clinic on improving symptom burden and service outcomes for patients with cancer. METHODS: A retrospective review of data of cancer patients who attended an ambulatory care clinic and completed the Symptom Assessment Scale between January 2015 and December 2019. We classified moderate to severe symptoms as clinically significant. Clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms (excluding pain) was defined by a ≥ 1-point reduction from baseline and pain treatment response was defined as a ≥ 2-point or ≥ 30% reduction from baseline. RESULTS: A total of 249 patients met the inclusion criteria. The most common cancer diagnosis was gastrointestinal (32%) and the median time between the initial and follow-up clinic was 4 weeks. The prevalence of clinically significant symptoms at baseline varied from 28% for nausea to 88% for fatigue, with 23% of the cohort requiring acute admission due to unstable physical/psychosocial symptoms. There was significant improvement noted in sleep (p < 0.001), pain (p = 0.002), wellbeing (p < 0.001), and overall symptom composite scores (p = 0.028). Despite 18-28% of patients achieving clinically meaningful symptom improvement, 18-66.3% of those with moderate to severe symptoms at baseline continued to have clinically significant symptoms on follow-up. A third of patients had opioid and/or adjuvant analgesic initiated/titrated, with 39% educated on pain management. Goals of care (31%), insight (28%) and psychosocial/existential issues (27%) were commonly explored. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the burden of symptoms in a cohort of ambulatory palliative care patients and the opportunity such services can provide for education, psychosocial care and future planning. Additionally routine screening of cohorts of oncology patients using validated scales may identify patients who would benefit from early ambulatory palliative care.

The Relationship Between Social Determinants of Health and Racial Disparities in COVID-19 Mortality.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified existing health disparities for marginalized populations in the United States (U.S.), particularly among Black Americans. Social determinants of health are powerful drivers of health outcomes that could influence COVID-19 racial disparities. METHODS: We collected data from publicly available databases on COVID-19 death rates through October 28, 2020, clinical covariates, and social determinants of health indicators at the U.S. county level. We utilized negative binomial regression to assess the association between social determinants of health and COVID-19 mortality focusing on racial disparities in mortality. RESULTS: Counties with higher death rates had a higher proportion of Black residents and greater levels of adverse social determinants of health. A one percentage point increase in percent Black residents, percent uninsured adults, percent low birthweight, percent adults without high school diploma, incarceration rate, and percent households without internet in a county increased COVID-19 death rates by 0.9% (95% CI 0.5%-1.3%), 1.9% (95% CI 1.1%-2.7%), 7.6% (95% CI 4.4%-11.0%), 3.5% (95% CI 2.5%-4.5%), 5.4% (95% CI 1.3%-9.7%), and 3.4% (95% CI 2.5%-4.2%), respectively. Counties in the lowest quintile of a measure of economic privilege had an increased COVID-19 death rates of 67.5% (95% CI 35.9%-106.6%). Multivariate regression and subgroup analyses suggested that adverse social determinants of health may partially explain racial disparities in COVID-19 mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that social determinants of health contribute to COVID-19 mortality for Black Americans at the county level, highlighting the need for public health policies that address racial disparities in health outcomes.

An Australian Neuro-Palliative perspective on Huntington's disease: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Huntington's Disease (HD) is an incurable, progressive neuro-degenerative disease. For patients with HD access to palliative care services is limited, with dedicated Neuro-Palliative Care Services rare in Australia. We discuss the experiences of and benefits to a patient with late-stage HD admitted to our Neuro-Palliative Care service. CASE PRESENTATION: We present the case of a patient with a 16-year history of HD from time of initial genetic testing to admission to our Neuro-Palliative Care service with late-stage disease. CONCLUSIONS: Given the prolonged, fluctuating and heterogenous HD trajectory, measures need to be implemented to improve earlier access to multi-specialty integrative palliative care services. Given the good outcomes of our case, we strongly advocate for the role of specialised Neuro-Palliative Care services to bridge the gap between clinical need and accessibility.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Anthracycline-free and Anthracycline-containing Neoadjuvant Carboplatin Chemotherapy Regimens in Stage I-III Triple-negative Breast Cancer (NeoSTOP).

PURPOSE: Addition of carboplatin (Cb) to anthracycline chemotherapy improves pathologic complete response (pCR), and carboplatin plus taxane regimens also yield encouraging pCR rates in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Aim of the NeoSTOP multisite randomized phase II trial was to assess efficacy of anthracycline-free and anthracycline-containing neoadjuvant carboplatin regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with stage I-III TNBC were randomized (1:1) to receive either paclitaxel (P) weekly × 12 plus carboplatin AUC6 every 21 days × 4 followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) every 14 days × 4 (CbP → AC, arm A), or carboplatin AUC6 + docetaxel (D) every 21 days × 6 (CbD, arm B). Stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTIL) were assessed. Primary endpoint was pCR in breast and axilla. Other endpoints included residual cancer burden (RCB), toxicity, cost, and event-free (EFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: One hundred patients were randomized; arm A (n = 48) or arm B (n = 52). pCR was 54% [95% confidence interval (CI), 40%-69%] in arm A and 54% (95% CI, 40%-68%) in arm B. RCB 0+I rate was 67% in both arms. Median sTIL density was numerically higher in those with pCR compared with those with residual disease (20% vs. 5%; P = 0.25). At median follow-up of 38 months, EFS and OS were similar in the two arms. Grade 3/4 adverse events were more common in arm A compared with arm B, with the most notable differences in neutropenia (60% vs. 8%; P < 0.001) and febrile neutropenia (19% vs. 0%; P < 0.001). There was one treatment-related death (arm A) due to acute leukemia. Mean treatment cost was lower for arm B compared with arm A (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The two-drug CbD regimen yielded pCR, RCB 0+I, and survival rates similar to the four-drug regimen of CbP → AC, but with a more favorable toxicity profile and lower treatment-associated cost.