Screening versus multidimensional assessment of symptoms and psychosocial distress in cancer patients from the time of incurability

TY - JOUR

T1 - Screening versus multidimensional assessment of symptoms and psychosocial distress in cancer patients from the time of incurability

AU - Solar, Stefanie

AU - Wieditz, Johannes

AU - Lordick, Florian

AU - Mehnert-Theuerkauf, Anja

AU - Oechsle, Karin

AU - van Oorschot, Birgitt

AU - Thomas, Michael

AU - Asendorf, Thomas

AU - Nauck, Friedemann

AU - Alt-Epping, Bernd

N1 - Copyright © 2023 Solar, Wieditz, Lordick, Mehnert-Theuerkauf, Oechsle, van Oorschot, Thomas, Asendorf, Nauck and Alt-Epping.

PY - 2023

Y1 - 2023

N2 - OBJECTIVE: Previous symptom prevalence studies show a diverse spectrum of symptoms and a large diversity in symptom intensities in patients being just diagnosed as having incurable cancer. It is unclear, how physical symptoms and psychosocial burden should be recorded in order to determine the variable need for palliative care and further support. Therefore, we compared two different strategies for detecting physical symptoms and psychosocial burden of patients with newly diagnosed incurable cancer and their effects on the further course of the disease.METHODS: SCREBEL is a controlled, randomized, non-blinded, longitudinal study of the research network of the Palliative Medicine Working Group (APM) of the German Cancer Society (DKG). We compared: a less complex repeated brief screening for symptoms and burden in patients using the NCCN Distress Thermometer and IPOS questionnaire versus a multidimensional comprehensive assessment using the FACT-G and their entity-specific questionnaires, the PHQ4 scales, SCNS-34-SF, IPOS and NCCN Distress Thermometer. The primary study endpoint was quality of life (QoL), measured using FACT-G, after six months. Secondary study endpoints were QoL by using evaluation of secondary scores (NCCN DT, IPOS, PHQ4, SCNS-SF-34G) at time 6 months, the number of hospital days, the utilization of palliative care, emergency services, and psychosocial care structures. To assess effects and differences, multiple linear regression models were fitted and survival analyses were conducted.RESULTS: 504 patients were included in the study. 262 patients were lost to follow-up, including 155 fatalities. There were no significant differences between the low-threshold screening approach and a comprehensive assessment with respect to symptoms and other aspects of QoL. Using the IPOS, we were able to measure an improvement in the quality of life in the low-threshold screening arm by a decrease of 0.67 points (95%-CI: 0.34 to 0.99) every 30 days. (p<0.001). Data on the involvement of emergency facilities and on supportive services were insufficient for analysis.CONCLUSION: A comprehensive, multidimensional assessment did not significantly differ from brief screening in preserving several dimensions of quality of life. These findings may positively influence the implementation of structured low-threshold screening programs for supportive and palliative needs in DKG certified cancer centers.DRKS -No. DRKS00017774 https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00017774.

AB - OBJECTIVE: Previous symptom prevalence studies show a diverse spectrum of symptoms and a large diversity in symptom intensities in patients being just diagnosed as having incurable cancer. It is unclear, how physical symptoms and psychosocial burden should be recorded in order to determine the variable need for palliative care and further support. Therefore, we compared two different strategies for detecting physical symptoms and psychosocial burden of patients with newly diagnosed incurable cancer and their effects on the further course of the disease.METHODS: SCREBEL is a controlled, randomized, non-blinded, longitudinal study of the research network of the Palliative Medicine Working Group (APM) of the German Cancer Society (DKG). We compared: a less complex repeated brief screening for symptoms and burden in patients using the NCCN Distress Thermometer and IPOS questionnaire versus a multidimensional comprehensive assessment using the FACT-G and their entity-specific questionnaires, the PHQ4 scales, SCNS-34-SF, IPOS and NCCN Distress Thermometer. The primary study endpoint was quality of life (QoL), measured using FACT-G, after six months. Secondary study endpoints were QoL by using evaluation of secondary scores (NCCN DT, IPOS, PHQ4, SCNS-SF-34G) at time 6 months, the number of hospital days, the utilization of palliative care, emergency services, and psychosocial care structures. To assess effects and differences, multiple linear regression models were fitted and survival analyses were conducted.RESULTS: 504 patients were included in the study. 262 patients were lost to follow-up, including 155 fatalities. There were no significant differences between the low-threshold screening approach and a comprehensive assessment with respect to symptoms and other aspects of QoL. Using the IPOS, we were able to measure an improvement in the quality of life in the low-threshold screening arm by a decrease of 0.67 points (95%-CI: 0.34 to 0.99) every 30 days. (p<0.001). Data on the involvement of emergency facilities and on supportive services were insufficient for analysis.CONCLUSION: A comprehensive, multidimensional assessment did not significantly differ from brief screening in preserving several dimensions of quality of life. These findings may positively influence the implementation of structured low-threshold screening programs for supportive and palliative needs in DKG certified cancer centers.DRKS -No. DRKS00017774 https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00017774.

U2 - 10.3389/fonc.2023.1002499

DO - 10.3389/fonc.2023.1002499

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 36776341

VL - 13

SP - 1002499

JO - FRONT ONCOL

JF - FRONT ONCOL

SN - 2234-943X

ER -