Does Delay in Starting Treatment Affect the Outcomes of Radiotherapy? A Systematic ReviewJenny Huang, Lisa Barbera, Melissa Brouwers et al.|Journal of Clinical Oncology|2003 PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to synthesize what is known about the relationship between delay in radiotherapy (RT) and the outcomes of RT. METHODS: A systematic review of the world literature was conducted to identify studies that described the association between delay in RT and the probability of local control, metastasis, and/or survival. Studies were classified by clinical and methodologic criteria and their results were combined using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 46 relevant studies involving 15,782 patients met our minimum methodologic criteria of validity; most (42) were retrospective observational studies. Thirty-nine studies described rates of local recurrence, 21 studies described rates of distant metastasis, and 19 studies described survival. The relationship between delay and the outcomes of RT had been studied in diverse situations, but most frequently in breast cancer (21 studies) and head and neck cancer (12 studies). Combined analysis showed that the 5-year local recurrence rate (LRR) was significantly higher in patients treated with adjuvant RT for breast cancer more than 8 weeks after surgery than in those treated within 8 weeks of surgery (odds ratio [OR] = 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21 to 2.16). Combined analysis also showed that the LRR was significantly higher among patients who received postoperative RT for head and neck cancer more than 6 weeks after surgery than among those treated within 6 weeks of surgery (OR = 2.89; 95% CI, 1.60 to 5.21). There was little evidence about the impact of delay in RT on the risk of metastases or the probability of long-term survival in any situation. CONCLUSION: Delay in the initiation of RT is associated with an increase [corrected] in LRR in breast cancer and head and neck cancer. Delays in starting RT should be as short as reasonably achievable.
Trajectory of Performance Status and Symptom Scores for Patients With Cancer During the Last Six Months of LifeHsien Seow, Lisa Barbera, Rinku Sutradhar et al.|Journal of Clinical Oncology|2011 PURPOSE: Ontario's cancer system is unique because it has implemented two standardized assessment tools population-wide to improve care: the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) measures severity of nine symptoms (scale 0 to 10; 10 indicates the worst) and the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) measures performance status (scale 0 to 100; 0 indicates death). This article describes the trajectory of ESAS and PPS scores 6 months before death. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational cohort study of cancer decedents between 2007 and 2009. Decedents required ≥1 ESAS or PPS assessment in the 6 months before death for inclusion. Outcomes were the decedents' average ESAS and PPS scores per week before death. RESULTS: Ten thousand seven hundred fifty-two (ESAS) and 7,882 (PPS) decedents were included. The mean age was 65 years, half were female, and approximately 75% of assessments occurred in cancer clinics. Average PPS score declined slowly over the 6 months before death, starting at approximately 70 and ending at 40, declining more rapidly in the last month. For ESAS symptoms, average pain, nausea, anxiety, and depression scores remained relatively stable over the 6 months. Conversely, shortness of breath, drowsiness, well-being, lack of appetite, and tiredness increased in severity over time, particularly in the month before death. More than one third of the cohort reported moderate to severe scores (ie, 4 to 10) for most symptoms in the last month of life. CONCLUSION: In this large outpatient cancer population, trajectories of mean ESAS scores followed two patterns: increasing versus generally flat. The latter was perhaps due to available treatment (eg, prescriptions) for those symptoms. Future research should prioritize addressing symptoms that worsen over time.
Trends in the Aggressiveness of End-of-Life Cancer Care in the Universal Health Care System of Ontario, CanadaThi Hien Ho, Lisa Barbera, Refik Saskin et al.|Journal of Clinical Oncology|2011 PURPOSE: To describe trends in the aggressiveness of end-of-life (EOL) cancer care in a universal health care system in Ontario, Canada, between 1993 and 2004, and to compare with findings reported in the United States. METHODS: A population-based, retrospective, cohort study that used administrative data linked to registry data. Aggressiveness of EOL care was defined as the occurrence of at least one of the following indicators: last dose of chemotherapy received within 14 days of death; more than one emergency department (ED) visit within 30 days of death; more than one hospitalization within 30 days of death; or at least one intensive care unit (ICU) admission within 30 days of death. RESULTS: Among 227,161 patients, 22.4% experienced at least one incident of potentially aggressive EOL cancer care. Multivariable analyses showed that with each successive year, patients were significantly more likely to encounter some aggressive intervention (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.02). Multiple emergency department (ED) visits, ICU admissions, and chemotherapy use increased significantly over time, whereas multiple hospital admissions declined (P < .05). Patients were more likely to receive aggressive EOL care if they were men, were younger, lived in rural regions, had a higher level of comorbidity, or had breast, lung, or hematologic malignancies. Chemotherapy and ICU utilization were lower in Ontario than in the United States. CONCLUSION: Aggressiveness of cancer care near the EOL is increasing over time in Ontario, Canada, although overall rates were lower than in the United States. Health system characteristics and patient or physician cultural factors may play a role in the observed differences.
Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Routine Medical CareEthan Basch, Lisa Barbera, Carolyn L. Kerrigan et al.|American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book|2018 There is increasing interest to integrate collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in routine practice to enhance clinical care. Multiple studies show that systematic monitoring of patients using PROs improves patient-clinician communication, clinician awareness of symptoms, symptom management, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and overall survival. The general approach includes a brief electronic survey, administered via the Web or an app or an automated telephone system, with alerts to clinicians for concerning or worsening issues. Patients have generally been asked to self-report on a regular basis (remotely between visits and/or at visits), with reminders prompting patients to self-report that are sent via email, text, or automated phone message. More recently, care management pathways for patients and clinicians have been triggered by PRO system alerts. PRO systems may be free-standing, integrated into electronic health record systems or patient portals, or native functionality of an electronic health record. Despite potential benefits, there are challenges with integrating PROs into practice for monitoring patient status, as there are with any modifications to existing clinical processes. These challenges range from administrative to technical to workflow. A session at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting was dedicated to the implementation of PROs in clinical practice. The session focused on practical examples of PRO implementations, with honest reflections on barriers and strategies that may be generalizable to other systems looking to implement PROs. Panelists for that session are the authors of this paper, which describes their respective experiences implementing PROs in practice settings.
Why do patients with cancer visit the emergency department near the end of life?Lisa Barbera, Chelsea Taylor, Deborah Dudgeon|Canadian Medical Association Journal|2010 BACKGROUND: For patients dying of cancer, a visit to the emergency department can be disruptive, distressing and exhausting. Such visits made near the end of life are considered an indicator of poor-quality cancer care. We describe the most common reasons for visits made to the emergency department during the final six months of life and the final two weeks of life by patients dying of cancer. METHODS: We performed a descriptive, retrospective cohort study using linked administrative sources of health care data. RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2005 in Ontario, 91,561 patients died of cancer. Of these, 76,759 patients made 194,017 visits to the emergency department during the final six months of life. Further, 31,076 patients made 36,600 visits to the emergency department during the final two weeks of life. In both periods, the most common reasons were abdominal pain, lung cancer, dyspnea, pneumonia, malaise and fatigue, and pleural effusion. INTERPRETATION: Many visits made to the emergency department by patients with cancer near the end of life may be avoidable. An understanding of the reasons for such visits could be useful in the development of dedicated interventions for preventing or avoiding their occurrence.