Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Cancer Medicine logoLink to Cancer Medicine
. 2023 Oct 30;12(23):21335–21353. doi: 10.1002/cam4.6490

What is an “early palliative care” intervention? A scoping review of controlled studies in oncology

Stephan Nadolny 1,2,✉, Eva Schildmann 3,4, Elena S Gaßmann 1, Jan Schildmann 1
PMCID: PMC10726823  PMID: 37902232

Abstract

Introduction

Early palliative care (EPC) has been advocated to improve cancer patients' health. However, EPC differs with regard to its elements and target groups. It is not known which parts of EPC contribute to effectiveness for which patient group. This scoping review provides a structured analysis of EPC interventions and outcome measures.

Design

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL up to February 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT), nonrandomized trials, cohort studies (CS), and controlled before‐after studies of EPC in adult patients in English, Dutch, and German language. Interventions had to be self‐labeled as EPC. Screening and data extraction were performed by two raters. A structured analysis incorporating the TIDieR checklist was performed to describe the elements of the interventions.

Results

We screened 2651 articles, resulting in 40 articles being included: 34 studies were RCT and six studies were CS with a mean sample size of 208 patients. Patients with pancreatic (n = 10) and lung cancer (n = 9) were most often included. Studies reported different reference points for the onset of EPC such as time after diagnosis of incurable cancer (n = 18) or prognosis (n = 9). Thirteen studies provided information about elements of EPC and eight studies about the control intervention. Most frequent elements of EPC were symptom management (n = 28), case management (n = 16), and advance care planning (ACP; n = 15). Most frequently reported outcome measures were health‐related quality of life (n = 26), symptom intensity (n = 6), resource use, and the patient's mood (n = 4 each).

Conclusion

The elicited heterogeneity of ECP in combination with deficits of reporting are considerable barriers that should be addressed to further develop effective EPC interventions for different groups of cancer patients.

Keywords: cancer, early integration, early palliative care, oncology, palliative care, scoping review

1. INTRODUCTION

Many patients with incurable cancer suffer from a wide range of physical symptoms and encounter psychological and social challenges associated with the disease as well as due to tumor‐specific treatment. 1 , 2 , 3 Palliative care (PC) contributes to the improved health of these patients by addressing their physical, psychosocial, and spiritual needs. While PC traditionally has been offered to patients in the last phase of life this approach has changed over the past few decades. In line with the definition of the World Health Organization, 4 it is nowadays recommended to offer PC at earlier stages of the disease trajectory and along with anti‐cancer treatment. 5

The concept of early PC (EPC) reflects this development. 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), for example, recommends that patients with advanced cancer diagnosis should be offered EPC within 8 weeks after diagnosis. 5 Accordingly, EPC targets a broad range of patients, some of whom may only have a life expectancy of several weeks whereas others may have a life expectancy of several years.

Research suggests that EPC can have a positive impact on a range of outcomes, such as patients' quality of life, the severity of the symptoms experienced and even prolongation of life. 10 , 11 To date, however, the evidence is limited, since the certainty regarding the elicited positive effects is low to very low. 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 Moreover, there is lack of consensus regarding the best timing, elements, and mode of EPC. 5 This is also reflected in a more recent systematic review about EPC in hematological diseases which stresses the need to specify patient groups, the right time to start with early palliative care as well as the elements of care to provide EPC. 12 In a similar vein, distinguishing different care models to introduce EPC 7 and identifying those factors of EPC that contribute most to the improvement of the situations of patients with incurable cancer EPC 14 has been called for.

One reason for the current debate is the fact that EPC is a so‐called complex intervention which means that the intervention encompasses multiple treatment modalities that may contribute to the (different) effect(s). 15 , 16 , 17 Against this background a detailed knowledge about structure, processes, and targets of the intervention is important. However, to the best of our knowledge, no structured analysis of EPC interventions using an established instrument, such as the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), exists.

To be able to develop and evaluate EPC further, it is necessary to collect and critically appraise studies on commonalities and differences regarding the elements of EPC interventions, which possibly contribute to the effects of EPC. Moreover, given the broad range of patients with advanced cancer and their needs, clarification concerning the right type of EPC intervention for a specific patient group is important. Against this background, this scoping review aims to provide a detailed overview of the elements of EPC interventions, target groups, and reported outcome measures that have been used in controlled trials with cancer patients.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a scoping review in a multidisciplinary team (medical ethicists, physicians with an expertise in oncology and PC, and a nursing scientist). We followed the steps described by Arkey & O'Malley 18 : (1) formulating the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) selecting relevant studies, (4) charting the data, and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results.

We searched the following databases for available evidence up to February 2022:

  • MEDLINE via Pubmed

  • CINAHL via EBSCO

  • CENTRAL via Cochrane Library

  • Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group (PAPAS) Database via Cochrane Library

We also screened the reference lists of all included articles for other relevant studies.

The search terms and combinations for each database were derived from previous reviews about this topic. 7 , 10 They are reported in adherence with the PRISMA‐S checklist 19 (see Data S1). The search terms were subject to internal quality assurance through the application of the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies checklist. 20 Deduplication of the results was performed by Citavi Version 6.6 21 and Rayyan software. 22

Studies were included if they were self‐labeled in title or abstract as “early palliative care” or its synonyms, if the respective study population was adult (≥18 years), and if the publication was written in Dutch, English, or German. We chose that language because we are fluent in those languages. A diverse range of study designs was included to gather a broad range of interventions. Randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized trials, cohort studies, and controlled before‐after studies were eligible for inclusion. We included studies conducted in hospitals or outpatient clinics, but we excluded studies focusing only on home care in order to be able to compare the interventions taking place within hospitals and further clinical settings. Control interventions could be either an active intervention designed for the study or usual care. We do not report outcomes in terms of the effectiveness of EPC due to the focus of this review on elements of the intervention and outcome measures.

Two reviewers (EG and SN) independently screened titles and abstracts and subsequently read the full texts of the papers thus identified. 22 A third author (JS) was consulted in case of dissent or uncertainty. The search flow was visualized with the PRISMA Flowchart. 23 The data were extracted by EG and SN independently, using a piloted form that included the following items: year of publication, country, setting, study design, funding, population (inclusion and exclusion criteria with a focus on the type and stage of cancer), outcomes and outcome measures. We used the TIDieR for the extraction of the information on the intervention and the control interventions. 24 We did not perform a risk of bias assessment because the aim of this review was to assess the content of the interventions and not the effectiveness of EPC, which is in line with the process described by Arksey & O'Malley. 18 We synthesized the data by means of a narrative and tabular overview of the data regarding study design, sample size, country, cancer entity, time until onset of EPC, outcomes measured, and the elements of the interventions. Although this review does not focus on the pooling of outcomes we decided to synthesize these data, because of information on the consistency of the described elements of EPC with the respective goals.

3. RESULTS

The database search yielded 3766 records. After deduplication, 2651 articles remained. Exclusion of 2397 articles was based on the screening of title and abstract. The assessment of the remaining 254 full‐text articles resulted in the inclusion of a total of 40 studies 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 for synthesis. See Figure 1 for details on the PRISMA Flowchart.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

PRISMA flowchart.

The publication dates ranged from 2009 to 2022. Six studies were cohort studies, 39 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 47 , 48 while the remainder were all randomized controlled trials. Sample sizes ranged from 23 30 to 969 41 patients (median = 156, mean = 208). The most prominent study countries were the USA (n = 16), 25 , 26 , 27 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 47 , 50 , 51 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 60 Canada 30 , 46 , 63 , 64 (n = 4) and Italy (n = 3). 36 , 40 , 49 Table 1 provides an overview of the included studies.

TABLE 1.

Overview of included studies.

Study Study design Country Sample size Setting
Bakitas 2009 25 RCT USA 322 Outpatient
Bakitas 2015 26 RCT USA 207 Outpatient
Bischoff 2020 27 CS USA 60 Outpatient
Brims 2018 28 RCT UK, Australia 174 Outpatient
Chen 2022 29 RCT China 120 Inpatient
Cusimano 2021 30 RCT Canada 23 Outpatient
Do Carmo 2017 31 RCT Brazil 63 Both
Dyar 2012 32 RCT USA 26 Outpatient
El‐Jawahri 2017 33 RCT USA 160 Inpatient
El‐Jawahri 2021 34 RCT USA 160 Inpatient
Eychmüller 2021 35 RCT Germany 150 Outpatient
Franciosi 2019 36 RCT Italy 281 Both
Greer 2022 37 RCT USA 120 Outpatient
Groenvold 2017 38 RCT Denmark 297 Outpatient
King 2016 39 CS USA 207 Outpatient
Maltoni 2016 40 RCT Italy 207 Outpatient
May 2015 41 CS USA 969 Inpatient
Nakajima 2016 42 CS Japan 63 Inpatient
Nieder 2015 43 CS Norway 58 Inpatient
Nottelmann 2021 44 RCT Denmark 288 Outpatient
Patil 2021 45 RCT India 180 Inpatient
Rodin 2020 46 RCT Canada 42 Both
Romano 2017 47 CS USA 470 Outpatient
Rugno 2014 48 CS Brazil 87 Inpatient
Scarpi 2019 49 RCT Italy 186 Outpatient
Schenker 2018 50 RCT USA 30 Outpatient
Schenker 2021 51 RCT USA 672 Outpatient
Slama 2020 52 RCT Czech Republic 126 Both
Soto‐Perez‐De‐Ceus 2021 53 RCT Mexico 134 Outpatient
Tattersall 2014 54 RCT Australia 120 Inpatient
Temel 2010 55 RCT USA 151 Outpatient
Temel 2016 56 RCT USA 350 Outpatient
Temel 2020 57 RCT USA 405 Outpatient
Ullrich 2022 58 RCT Germany 80 Outpatient
Vanbutsele 2018 59 RCT Belgium 168 Inpatient
Wallen 2012 60 RCT USA 152 Inpatient
Woo 2019 61 RCT South Korea 288 Outpatient
Zhuang 2018 62 RCT China 150 Inpatient
Zimmerman 2014 63 RCT Canada 461 Outpatient
Zimmerman 2021 64 RCT Canada 110 Outpatient
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CS, cohort study; RCT, randomized controlled trials.

3.1. Cancer diagnosis and the onset of early palliative care

Studies included in this review investigated outcomes of EPC for patients with a range of cancer entities, stages of disease, and other characteristics. Most studies included more than one diagnosis, whereas 10 studies 28 , 29 , 30 , 34 , 37 , 40 , 49 , 50 , 55 , 62 focused on patients with one cancer entity. Patients were most frequently diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (n = 10) 31 , 35 , 36 , 40 , 41 , 50 , 52 , 56 , 61 , 64 and non‐small cell lung cancer (n = 9). 25 , 29 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 62 Eight studies 25 , 29 , 38 , 39 , 45 , 47 , 63 , 64 used stage III or IV as inclusion criterion for specifying the status of disease, while others described the stage of disease eligible for ECP studies as “advanced” or “incurable.” 26 , 27 , 31 , 32 , 35 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 Other criteria amenable for EPC in the studies were the line of therapy or treatment 30 , 33 , 34 , 45 , 52 or resistance to a certain regime. 31 , 63 , 64 Two studies used a symptom burden over 33% regarding four symptoms, one symptom with at least 50% burden measured by the EORTC‐QLQ‐C30, 38 or cancer‐related pain higher than 3 measured by the Brief Pain Inventory, 61 to determine eligibility for the EPC intervention. An Eastern Co‐operative Oncology Group score of 0–2 was often used as an additional criterion for inclusion in the analyzed studies. 28 , 29 , 31 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 40 , 45 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 62 , 63 , 64 Findings regarding diagnoses and other inclusion criteria are summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2.

Overview of cancer diagnoses and additional EPC inclusion criteria.

Study Entities Stages or progression a Hematologic/Solid Further specification Prognosis (months) ECOG
Bakitas 2009 25 Gastrointestinal cancer Unresectable 3 Solid Diagnosis withing 8–12 weeks 12
NSCLC 4 For breast cancer: estrogen receptor negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive
Small‐cell lung cancer 3b–4
Genitourinary cancer Breast Extensive
4
4 and visceral crisis or liver metastasis
Bakitas 2015 26 Solid tumor Advanced Both 6–24
Hematologic malignancies Advanced stage
Bischoff 2020 27 Appendiceal cancer Metastatic Solid Diagnosis after
Colorectal cancer
Brims 2018 28 Malignant pleural mesothelioma Solid Diagnosis within 6 weeks 0–1
Chen 2022 29 NSCLC 3b–4 Solid Diagnosis within 8 weeks >6 0–2
Metastatic
Cusimano 2021 30 Ovarian cancer Solid Systematic therapy no more than 30 days prior
Do Carmo 2017 31 Breast cancer Metastatic Solid For breast: Me 6–24 0–2
Ovarian cancer AND recurrent OR For ovarian, cervical, endometrial cancer: platinum‐resistant
Cervical cancer Incurable For neck and head cancer: after radiotherapy failure
Endometrial cancer For prostate cancer: castration‐resistant
Neck and head cancer
Prostate cancer
Bladder cancer
Kidney cancer
Testicular cancer
Penile cancer
Lung cancer
Colorectal cancer
Pancreas cancer
Liver cancer
Gastric cancer
Esophageal cancer
Gallbladder cancer
Dyar 2012 32 Unspecified cancer Metastatic Unclear Expected hospice referral within 12 months
El‐Jawahri 2017 33 Hematologic malignancies Undergoing HCT Hematologic 2 weeks after HCT
El‐Jawahri 2021 34 Acute myeloid leukemia Hematologic Receiving chemotherapy
Eychmüller 2021 35 Bladder cancer Advanced Solid Diagnosis within 16 weeks 0–2
Breast cancer Metastatic
Colorectal cancer
NSCLC
Pancreatic cancer Castration‐refractory
Prostate cancer
Franciosi 2019 36 NSCLC Solid Diagnosis within 8 weeks 0–2
Pancreatic cancer
Gastric cancer
Biliary tract cancer
Greer 2022 37 Breast cancer Metastatic Solid Diagnosis within 8 weeks 0–2
Groenvold 2017 38 Unspecified cancer 4 Unclear EORTC QLQ‐C30‐4 symptoms with ≥33% burden
CNS cancer 3–4 OR
≥1 symptom with ≥50% burden
King 2016 39 NSCLC 3b–4 Solid
Small‐cell lung cancer Extensive stage
Maltoni 2016 40 Pancreatic cancer Inoperable Solid Diagnosis within 8 weeks >2 0–2
AND locally advanced AND/ OR
Metastatic
May 2015 41 Solid tumor Metastatic Both Admission with 48 h
Melanoma
Head and neck cancer Locally advanced
Pancreatic cancer
Lymphoma Transplant‐ineligible
Multiple myeloma
CNS malignancy
Nakajima 2016 42 Unclear Advanced Unclear
OR
Recurring
Nieder 2015 43 Primary tumors Solid Diagnosis and palliative radiotherapy within 12 weeks
Lymph node metastases
Distant metastases
Nottelmann 2021 44 Solid tumors Metastatic Solid Diagnosis within 8 weeks
OR
Unresectable
Patil 2021 45 Head and neck cancer 4 Solid Planned palliative chemotherapy 0–2
OR
Recurrence
Rodin 2020 46 Acute myeloid leukemia Hematologic Admission to cancer center within 4 weeks
Acute lymphocytic leukemia
Romano 2017 47 Solid tumors 4 Solid
OR
Other advanced
AND incurable
Rugno 2014 48 Breast cancer Advanced Solid
Endometrium cancer
Ovary cancer
Uterine cancer
Cervix cancer
Vulva cancer
Vagina cancer
Scarpi 2019 49 Gastric cancer Inoperable Solid >2 0–2
AND locally advanced
AND/OR
Metastatic
Schenker 2018 50 Pancreatic adenocarcinoma Locally advanced OR Solid Diagnosis within 8 weeks 0–2
Metastatic
OR
Borderline resectable
Schenker 2021 51 Solid tumors Metastatic Solid 0–2
Slama 2020 52 Lung carcinoma Advanced Solid Noncurative treatment within 12 weeks
Pancreatic cancer For colorectal: third or higher line of systematic therapy
Gastric cancer
Head and neck cancer
Colorectal carcinoma
Soto‐Perez‐De‐Ceus 2021 53 Solid tumors Solid Diagnosis within 6 weeks
Tattersall 2014 54 Solid tumors Incurable Solid <12
AND metastatic
Temel 2010 55 NSCLC Metastatic Solid Diagnosis within 8 weeks 0–2
Temel 2016 56 NSCLC Incurable Solid Diagnosis within 8 weeks 0–2
Small‐cell mesothelioma
Pancreatic cancer
Esophageal cancer
Gastric cancer
Hepatobiliary cancer
Temel 2020 57 NSCLC Incurable Solid Diagnosis within 8 weeks 0–2
Small‐cell lung cancer
Mesothelioma
Non‐colorectal GI cancer
Ullrich 2022 58 Unspecified cancer Incurable Unclear Diagnosis within 6–12 weeks
Vanbutsele 2018 59 Solid tumors Advanced Solid Diagnosis within 12 weeks 12 0–2
Wallen 2012 60 Solid tumors Advanced Solid Surgery scheduled
Woo 2019 61 Pancreatic cancer Locally advanced Solid Diagnosis within 8 weeks
Biliary tract cancer Cancer‐related pain BPI >3
Depression CES‐D > 16
Karnofsky performance rating scale ≥50%
Zhuang 2018 62 NSCLC Solid Diagnosis within 8 weeks 0–2
Zimmerman 2014 63 Solid tumors 3 with poor prognosis Solid For breast and prostate cancer: refractory to hormonal therapy 6–24 0–2
4
Zimmerman 2021 64 Advanced cancer 4 For breast and prostate cancer: refractory to hormonal therapy ≥6 0–2
Lung and pancreatic cancer 3
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: ECOG, Eastern Co‐operative Oncology Group score; NSLC, non‐small‐cell lung cancer.

a

A stage was given if it was stated in the text, otherwise, further descriptions of the progression were reported.

Studies reported different reference points to define the onset of EPC: (a) time after (advanced) cancer diagnosis, (b) estimated prognosis, and (c) other. The majority of those studies used time after diagnosis as a reference point for the onset of EPC with a time span of 8 weeks (n = 12), 25 , 29 , 36 , 37 , 40 , 44 , 50 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 61 , 62 12 weeks (n = 4), 25 , 43 , 58 , 59 6 weeks (n = 2), 28 , 53 90 days (n = 1), 27 and 16 weeks (n = 1). 35 Estimated life expectancy was used as an (additional) reference point for the onset of EPC in nine studies: four studies used a prognosis of 6–24 months, 26 , 31 , 63 , 64 three studies an estimated life expectancy of 12 months 25 , 54 , 59 and two studies an estimated life expectancy of less than 2 months as inclusion criterion. 40 , 49

3.2. Outcome measures and elements of the intervention

The reporting of outcome measures in this review is intended to provide information on the correspondence between the described elements of EPC and the respective goals. The most common primary outcomes measured were health‐related quality of life (n = 26), 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 62 , 63 , 64 symptom intensity 25 , 26 , 30 , 46 , 54 , 58 (n = 6), resource use (e.g. treatment costs), 25 , 26 , 41 , 47 and mood 26 , 37 , 48 , 52 (n = 4 each). Further details about the primary outcomes measured can be found in Table 3.

TABLE 3.

Primary outcomes measured in the studies.

Study QoL Symptom intensity Resource use Mood Trial Outcome Index Survival Degree of perceived support Primary need Pain Prognostic awareness Depression Treatments Place of death Quality of care Distress
Bakitas 2009 25 X X X
Bakitas 2015 26 X X X X X
Bischoff 2020 27 X X
Brims 2018 28 X
Chen 2022 29 X
Cusimano 2021 30 X X
Do Carmo 2017 31 X
Dyar 2012 32 X
El‐Jawahri 2017 33 X
El‐Jawahri 2021 34 X
Eychmüller 2021 35 X
Franciosi 2019 36 X
Greer 2022 37 X X
Groenvold 2017 38 X X
King 2016 39 X
Maltoni 2016 40 X
May 2015 41 X
Nakajima 2016 42 X X
Nieder 2015 43 X
Nottelmann 2021 44 X
Patil 2021 45 x
Rodin 2020 46 X
Romano 2017 47 X X X
Rugno 2014 48 X X
Scarpi 2019 49 X
Schenker 2018 50 X
Schenker 2021 51 X
Slama 2020 52 X X
Soto‐Perez‐De‐Ceus 2021 53 X
Tattersall 2014 54 X X X
Temel 2010 55 X
Temel 2016 56 X
Temel 2020 57 X
Ullrich 2022 58 X X
Vanbutsele 2018 59 X
Wallen 2012 60 X
Woo 2019 61 X X
Zhuang 2018 62 X
Zimmerman 2014 63 X
Zimmerman 2021 64 X
Open in a new tab

Thirteen studies 25 , 26 , 31 , 32 , 36 , 40 , 41 , 46 , 50 , 52 , 59 , 61 , 63 provided more detailed information about the intervention and underlying theoretical assumptions (see Table 4). In this respect, three studies 26 , 46 , 49 explained the theories regarding the choice of the interventions. Two studies 46 , 63 provided a conceptual framework that captures those structural and/process elements that are conceived to contribute to the effects of EPC (so‐called active elements). 15

TABLE 4.

TIDieR checklist elements covered.

Study Why (goals)? Why (rationale)? What (materials)? What (process)? Who? How? Where? When? How much? Control group intervention sufficiently described?
Bakitas 2009 25 x x x x x x x x
Bakitas 2015 26 x x x x x x x x
Bischoff 2020 27 x x x x x x
Brims 2018 28 x x x x x x
Chen 2022 29 x x x x x x
Cusimano 2021 30 x x x x x x
Do Carmo 2017 31 x x x x x x x
Dyar 2012 32 x x x x x x
El‐Jawahri 2017 33 x x x x x x x
El‐Jawahri 2021 34 x x x x x x
Eychmüller 2021 35 x x x x x x x x x x
Franciosi 2019 36 x x x x x x x x
Greer 2022 37 x x x x x x x
Groenvold 2017 38 x Deliberately non‐standardized x x x x x x
King 2016 39 x x x x
Maltoni 2016 40 X x x x x x x
May 2015 41 x x x x
Nakajima 2016 42 x x x x x x
Nieder 2015 43 x x x
Nottelmann 2021 44 x x x x x x
Patil 2021 45 x x x x x x x
Rodin 2020 46 x x x x x x x x x
Romano 2017 47 x x x
Rugno 2014 48 x x
Scarpi 2019 49 x x x x x x x x
Schenker 2018 50 x x x x x x x
Schenker 2021 51 x x x x x x
Slama 2020 52 x x x x x x x
Soto‐Perez‐De‐Ceus 2021 53 x x x x x x x
Tattersall 2014 54 x x x x x x
Temel 2010 55 x x x x x x
Temel 2016 56 x x x x x x
Temel 2020 57 x x x x x
Ullrich 2022 58 x x x x x x
Vanbutsele 2018 59 x x x x x x x
Wallen 2012 60 x x x x
Woo 2019 61 x x x x x x x x
Zhuang 2018 62 x x x x x x
Zimmerman 2014 63 x x x x x x x x
Zimmerman 2021 64 x x x x x x x
Open in a new tab

The assessment and management of physical (n = 28), psychological/emotional/spiritual (n = 27), and social (n = 21) symptoms or needs are the most common interventions within the context of ECP. Case management or coordination of care (n = 16), 25 , 28 , 29 , 35 , 36 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 49 , 53 , 55 , 57 , 61 , 62 goals of care/ACP/assistance with decision‐making (n = 15), 29 , 30 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 44 , 53 , 55 , 57 , 59 , 64 illness understanding or coping (n = 15), 33 , 34 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 57 , 59 and education (n = 6) 25 , 26 , 31 , 46 , 54 , 61 were also often mentioned to be part of EPC in analyzed studies. Three studies provided information on resources (e.g. information leaflet for patients) to support the intervention. Eight studies 33 , 36 , 38 , 40 , 46 , 49 , 61 , 63 gave more detailed information on elements of the standard care that constituted the control intervention. 65 Table 5 summarizes the details of the elements and mode of intervention.

TABLE 5.

Elements and mode of EPC interventions.

Study Symptom management (physical) Symptom management (psychological/ emotional/ spiritual) Symptom management (social) Illness understanding/ coping Goals of care/ ACP Assistance with decision‐making Case management Education Dosis Single/ team approach
Bakitas 2009 25 x x x x x 1×/month Team
Bakitas 2015 26 x 1×/week Team
Bischoff 2020 27 x x Every 3 months Unclear
Brims 2018 28 x x x x 1×/month Single
Chen 2022 29 x x x 1×/month Team
Cusimano 2021 30 x x x x Single
Do Carmo 2017 31 x x 1×/week Single
Dyar 2012 32 x x x x 1×/month Single
El‐Jawahri 2017 33 x x x Team
El‐Jawahri 2021 34 x x x x x 2×/week Team
Eychmüller 2021 35 x x x x x Team
Franciosi 2019 36 x x x x x x 2×/month Team
Greer 2022 37 x x x x x x
Groenvold 2017 38 Team
King 2016 39 x x x x x x Single
Maltoni 2016 40 x x x x x 1–2×/month Single
May 2015 41 x x x x x Team
Nakajima 2016 42 x x x x x 1×/week Team
Nieder 2015 43 x x 1×/week Team
Nottelmann 2021 44 x x x x x x x Team
Patil 2021 45 x x x x 1×/month Team
Rodin 2020 46 x x x x 1‐2×/week Team
Romano 2017 47 x x x x 1×/week Team
Rugno 2014 48 Team
Scarpi 2019 49 x x x x 1‐2×/month Single
Schenker 2018 50 x x x x 1×/month Single
Schenker 2021 51 x x x x x 1×/month Single
Slama 2020 52 x x x x Every 6–8 weeks Single
Soto‐Perez‐De‐Ceus 2021 53 x x x x 1×/week Single
Tattersall 2014 54 x x x x 1×/month Single
Temel 2010 55 x x x x x x x Team
Temel 2016 56 x x x 1×/month Team
Temel 2020 57 x x x x x x 1/month Team
Ullrich 2022 58 x Single
Vanbutsele 2018 59 x x x x x 1×/month Team
Wallen 2012 60 x x Team
Woo 2019 61 x x x x Team
Zhuang 2018 62 x x x x 1×/month Team
Zimmerman 2014 63 x x x 1×/week Team
Zimmerman 2021 64 x x x x 1×/month Team
Open in a new tab

3.3. Professional groups and models of EPC interventions

The majority of studies provide information about the professional(s) performing the intervention (n = 34). In most cases, a PC physician conducted the intervention alone or in a team (n = 27) together with nurses (n = 22) and other healthcare providers, such as social workers or psychologists. However, it was unclear whether all nurses or nurse practitioners had a PC specialization. In five studies, a PC or advanced practice nurse was solely responsible for the intervention. 26 , 32 , 53 , 58 , 59 The number or frequencies of tasks performed as part of the EPC interventions (e.g. consultations by a PC specialist per month) are reported in 38 studies. 32 studies provide data about the mode (e.g. telephone, face‐to‐face) PC specialists consulted their patients as part of the intervention. Regarding the model of implementation of EPC during the intervention period, four studies describe a consultative approach in the hospital, according to which one of the members of the PC team sees the patient and provides advice to the treating oncological team. Six studies describe an approach according to which EPC was embedded in an existing interdisciplinary team. The majority of studies (n = 30) reported a solo practice approach in outpatient clinics, which often includes a strong coordination of care or case management approach (Table 5). Box 1 provides illustrations of the implementation of EPC according to the models of “consultative,” “embedded” or “solo practice.” 66

BOX 1. Examples of models of implementation.

The study by In Slama (2020) 52 is an example of a consultative approach in which a palliative care physician was consulted by the oncology team and visited the patient every 6–8 weeks. He assessed the physical, psychological, and social needs, coping, and need for psychosocial support. The palliative care physicians then gave recommendations for treatment to the oncologists and did not employ care plan changes themselves.

The studies of Vanbutsele (2018) 59 and Rodin (2020) 46 are examples of an embedded approach. In Vanbutsele (2018), 59 a palliative care team was introduced early in the disease trajectory and focused strongly on the assessment of physical, psychological and spiritual needs, illness understanding and medical decision‐making. The palliative care team is able to implement care plan changes and is part of the multidisciplinary case conferences. Here, the team works alongside other disciplines with their own competencies regarding decision‐making and treatment. In the study by Rodin (2020), 46 the intervention consists of psychological and physical components comprising an assessment of physical and psychological needs, education and coping strategies. While the psychological component incorporated 12 educational sessions based on cognitive behavioral therapy performed by the palliative care specialists, the physical component focused on a needs assessment two to three times a week. The usual team takes on the case up to a certain score in the needs burden assessment, while the specialist palliative care team applied symptom management over this value.

The studies of Brims (2018), 28 Temel (2010), 55 Zimmerman (2014) 63 and Zhuang (2018) 62 are examples of the solo practice. In all these studies, patients met with the clinicians in the outpatient setting, which performed physical, psychological and spiritual needs and incorporated care plans or organized further interventions performed by others. The content of the interventions then varies slightly, for example, most studies focus on the assessment and management of the aforementioned needs, while Temel (2010) 55 also incorporated goals of care planning. Some studies also had an educational component, for example, Bakitas (2009, 2015) 25 , 26 and Rodin (2020), 46 which focused on problem‐solving, symptom management, self‐care, identification and coordination of resources, communication, decision‐making and ACP. The studies also varied regarding the follow‐up mode and frequency. Brims (2018) 28 and Temel (2010) 55 have a monthly follow‐up with meetings in the outpatient clinic, while Zimmerman (2014) 63 did this via telephone without a clear schedule.

4. DISCUSSION

This scoping review provides an up‐to‐date comprehensive and structured analysis of existing EPC interventions in oncology. The broad range of studied cancer entities and the stage of cancer reflect the broad target group for EPC. While some elements of EPC are shared by the majority of EPC interventions (e.g. assessment of patients' symptoms), the structured analysis of the interventions shows that there are also many elements of EPC that are only used in a few studies (e.g. the implementation of ACP). The identified lack of information regarding the nature of EPC interventions as well as the lack of information about interventions in the control group make it difficult to identify those elements of EPC which most likely contribute to improvement of health of the heterogeneous group of patients with incurable cancer.

4.1. Triggers to initiate EPC in cancer care and the content of the interventions

The trigger to start EPC for most of the patients was a diagnosis of advanced or incurable cancer and/or a limited life expectancy. However, the objective and perceived health situation of patients being offered EPC seems rather heterogeneous. 67 Given that EPC directed at patients with a life expectancy of less than 6 months likely need a different care approach compared to an intervention directed at patients with a life expectancy of 2 years it seems crucial to specify the triggers as well as the content of specific EPC interventions. 68 , 69 The assessment of patients' symptoms and needs is part of most EPC interventions. Interestingly, there is little information about the role of assessment scores and possible cutoff values, which may be used to determine whether and what kind of EPC should be offered to cancer patients at all. Bearing in mind the findings of research using patient‐reported outcomes in oncology, we argue that the rigorous use of PC assessments may pave the way to more individualized EPC interventions. 14 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73

4.2. Models of EPC and the reporting of intervention elements

Our review reveals considerable differences in how EPC is provided. EPC often had a strong case management approach, especially in the outpatient clinics. According to such model EPC not only included the assessment of symptoms but also the provision of all forms of relevant care options and coordination of different services. Such a case management approach is different from the “embedded” or “consultative” approaches (see Box 1). The large differences in how EPC is provided underlines the importance of a detailed description of the EPC intervention to be able to implement it on a larger scale, if successful. However, as indicated by use of the TIDieR, (see Table 4) information on the details of EPC interventions is currently available only for a minor part of interventions.

Clarifying core elements of EPC during different stages of incurable cancer seems also important to clarify specific professional requirements including the distinction between when to consult a generalist or specialist in PC. 66 , 68 While specialist knowledge may be worthwhile for specific symptomatic treatment, this may be less the case for basic supportive care, such as treatment of pain which is likely to be delivered as part of standard oncology care. 66

Most studies did not report in detail what has been provided as part of the control intervention. This is of particular relevance for a meaningful interpretation of findings given the fact that PC measures have been introduced at many places as part of standard care for patients with advanced and/or incurable cancer simply 65 In cases, in which patients in the control group also receive some basic PC, the effects of EPC will probably be underestimated. Knowledge about the measures in the control group is necessary to estimate the effectiveness of the EPC intervention in a real‐world clinical setting. 65 , 74

The broad range of target groups and stakeholders in ECP interventions, and the various intervention elements identified in this systematic review clearly show that EPC fulfills the characteristics of “complex interventions”. 15 Against this background, it comes as some surprise that no logic model or other theoretical account 75 , 76 seems to exist for the majority of EPC interventions. We argue that development of conceptual frameworks for particular EPC interventions may contribute to improved outcome research in terms of matching interventions and specific outcomes. In addition, we think the findings of this review and in particular the different elements of EPC, are also relevant from a clinical practice perspective. For example, it allows clinicians to stratify EPC interventions according to the goals that should be achieved for a given patients at a defined point in time in the disease trajectory. This may well differ, as EPC for some patients may be close to supportive care, while for others it may focus on advance care planning. Against this background, a more nuanced approach of EPC interventions may support the choice of which patient should be offered which type of EPC at which point in time.

4.3. Limitations

We employed a rigorous search strategy, however, some smaller studies on the topic might have been missed. Although we contacted the study authors in the case of severely missing data, we did not receive responses in all cases. Nonetheless, our results reflect the actual reporting of the studies. We searched only five databases for studies in English, Dutch and German, but there may be additional evidence in other languages as well as databases. In addition, we limited the search to specific quantitative study designs and there is additional evidence in qualitative studies on this topic. From a practice perspective, another limitation is the lack of distinction between primary and specialist palliative care interventions due to the lack of information in the included studies as well as differences in the organization of palliative care in the different countries where the studies were conducted.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Overall, a variety of interventions in the field of early palliative care already exist for different entities. They differ in the triggers and the mode of intervention as well as the objectives. There are clear commonalities between specific interventions. However, considerable work has to be done regarding the transparency and comprehensibility of those intervention.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Stephan Nadolny: Conceptualization (supporting); data curation (lead); formal analysis (equal); investigation (equal); methodology (equal); writing – original draft (lead); writing – review and editing (equal). Eva Schildmann: Formal analysis (equal); validation (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Elena Sophie Gaßmann: Formal analysis (equal); investigation (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Jan Schildmann: Conceptualization (lead); formal analysis (equal); methodology (equal); project administration (lead); supervision (lead); validation (equal); writing – review and editing (equal).

FUNDING INFORMATION

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not‐for‐profit sectors.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare that they have no known conflict of interest.

Supporting information

Data S1.

Click here for additional data file. (111.8KB, pdf)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Dr. Hilde Buiting for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Nadolny S, Schildmann E, Gaßmann ES, Schildmann J. What is an “early palliative care” intervention? A scoping review of controlled studies in oncology. Cancer Med. 2023;12:21335‐21353. doi: 10.1002/cam4.6490

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data from this review can be obtained upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Gegechkori N, Haines L, Lin JJ. Long‐term and latent side effects of specific cancer types. Med Clin North Am. 2017;101:1053‐1073. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Gilbertson‐White S, Aouizerat BE, Jahan T, Miaskowski C. A review of the literature on multiple symptoms, their predictors, and associated outcomes in patients with advanced cancer. Pall Supp Care. 2011;9:81‐102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Dong ST, Butow PN, Costa DSJ, Lovell MR, Agar M. Symptom clusters in patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review of observational studies. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014;48:411‐450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. World Health Organization . WHO definition of palliative care. 2020. Accessed June 20, 2023. https://www.who.int/news‐room/fact‐sheets/detail/palliative‐care
  • 5. Ferrell BR, Temel JS, Temin S, et al. Integration of palliative care into standard oncology care: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:96‐112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Radbruch L, De Lima L, Knaul F, et al. Redefining palliative care‐a new consensus‐based definition. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020;60:754‐764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. El‐Jawahri A, Nelson AM, Gray TF, et al. Palliative and end‐of‐life care for patients with hematologic malignancies. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:944‐953. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. World Health Organization . Integrating Palliative Care and Symptom Relief into Primary Health Care: A WHO Guide for Planners, Implementers and Managers. World Health Organization; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Bauman JR, Temel JS. The integration of early palliative care with oncology care: the time has come for a new tradition. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014;12:1763‐1771. quiz 1771. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Haun MW, Estel S, Rücker G, et al. Early palliative care for adults with advanced cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6:CD011129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Gaertner J, Siemens W, Meerpohl JJ, et al. Effect of specialist palliative care services on quality of life in adults with advanced incurable illness in hospital, hospice, or community settings: systematic review and meta‐analysis. BMJ. 2017;357:j2925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Tanzi S, Venturelli F, Luminari S, et al. Early palliative care in haematological patients: a systematic literature review. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2020;10:395‐403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Byrne A, Torrens‐Burton A, Sivell S, et al. Early palliative interventions for improving outcomes in people with a primary malignant brain tumour and their carers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;2022:CD013440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Hoerger M, Greer JA, Jackson VA, et al. Defining the elements of early palliative care that are associated with patient‐reported outcomes and the delivery of end‐of‐life care. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:1096‐1102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374:n2061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Hughes MT, Smith TJ. The growth of palliative care in the United States. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35:459‐475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Arias‐Casais N, López‐Fidalgo J, Garralda E, et al. Trends analysis of specialized palliative care services in 51 countries of the WHO European region in the last 14 years. Palliat Med. 2020;34:1044‐1056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19‐32. [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, et al. PRISMA‐S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10:39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40‐46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Swiss Academic Software GmbH . Citavi. Swiss Academic Software GmbH; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan‐a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Bakitas M, Lyons KD, Hegel MT, et al. Effects of a palliative care intervention on clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancer: the project ENABLE II randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;302:741‐749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Bakitas MA, Tosteson TD, Li Z, et al. Early versus delayed initiation of concurrent palliative oncology care: patient outcomes in the ENABLE III randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:1438‐1445. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Bischoff KE, Zapata C, Sedki S, et al. Embedded palliative care for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a mixed‐methods pilot study. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28:5995‐6010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Brims F, Gunatilake S, Lawrie I, et al. Early specialist palliative care on quality of life for malignant pleural mesothelioma: a randomised controlled trial. Thorax. 2019;74:354‐361. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Chen M, Yang L, Yu H, et al. Early palliative care in patients with non‐small‐cell lung cancer: a randomized controlled trial in Southwest China. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2022;39:1304‐1311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Cusimano MC, Sajewycz K, Harle I, et al. Acceptability and feasibility of early palliative care among women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a randomized controlled pilot study. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2021;43:707‐715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. do Carmo TM, Paiva BSR, Oliveira CZ, et al. The feasibility and benefit of a brief psychosocial intervention in addition to early palliative care in patients with advanced cancer to reduce depressive symptoms: a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:564. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Dyar S, Lesperance M, Shannon R, Sloan J, Colon‐Otero G. A nurse practitioner directed intervention improves the quality of life of patients with metastatic cancer: results of a randomized pilot study. J Palliat Med. 2012;15:890‐895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. El‐Jawahri A, LeBlanc T, VanDusen H, et al. Effect of inpatient palliative care on quality of life 2 weeks after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316:2094‐2103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. El‐Jawahri A, LeBlanc TW, Kavanaugh A, et al. Effectiveness of integrated palliative and oncology care for patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:238‐245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Eychmüller S, Zwahlen S, Fliedner MC, et al. Single early palliative care intervention added to usual oncology care for patients with advanced cancer: a randomized controlled trial (SENS trial). Palliat Med. 2021;35:1108‐1117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Franciosi V, Maglietta G, Degli Esposti C, et al. Early palliative care and quality of life of advanced cancer patients‐a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Ann Palliat Med. 2019;8:381‐389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Greer JA, Moy B, El‐Jawahri A, et al. Randomized trial of a palliative care intervention to improve end‐of‐life care discussions in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022;20:136‐143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Groenvold M, Petersen MA, Damkier A, et al. Randomised clinical trial of early specialist palliative care plus standard care versus standard care alone in patients with advanced cancer: the Danish palliative care trial. Palliat Med. 2017;31:814‐824. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. King JD, Eickhoff J, Traynor A, Campbell TC. Integrated onco‐palliative care associated with prolonged survival compared to standard care forpatients with advanced lung cancer: a retrospective review. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016;51:1027‐1032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Maltoni M, Scarpi E, Dall'Agata M, et al. Systematic versus on‐demand early palliative care: a randomised clinical trial assessing quality of care and treatment aggressiveness near the end of life. Eur J Cancer. 2016;69:110‐118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. May P, Garrido MM, Cassel JB, et al. Prospective cohort study of hospital palliative care teams for inpatients with advanced cancer: earlier consultation is associated with larger cost‐saving effect. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2745‐2752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Nakajima N, Abe Y. Concurrent specialized palliative care upon initiation of first‐line chemotherapy for cancer progression: is it early enough? Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2016;33:340‐345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Nieder C, Dalhaug A, Pawinski A, Haukland E, Mannsåker B, Engljähringer K. Palliative radiotherapy with or without additional care by a multidisciplinary palliative care team in patients with newly diagnosed cancer: a retrospective matched pairs comparison. Radiat Oncol. 2015;10:61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Nottelmann L, Groenvold M, Vejlgaard TB, Petersen MA, Jensen LH. Early, integrated palliative rehabilitation improves quality of life of patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer: the Pal‐Rehab randomized controlled trial. Palliat Med. 2021;35:1344‐1355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Patil VM, Singhai P, Noronha V, et al. Effect of early palliative care on quality of life of advanced head and neck cancer patients: a phase III trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113:1228‐1237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Rodin G, Malfitano C, Rydall A, et al. Emotion And Symptom‐focused Engagement (EASE): a randomized phase II trial of an integrated psychological and palliative care intervention for patients with acute leukemia. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28:163‐176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Romano AM, Gade KE, Nielsen G, et al. Early palliative care reduces end‐of‐life intensive care unit (ICU) use but not ICU course in patients with advanced cancer. Oncologist. 2017;22:318‐323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Rugno FC, Paiva BSR, Paiva CE. Early integration of palliative care facilitates the discontinuation of anticancer treatment in women with advanced breast or gynecologic cancers. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;135:249‐254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Scarpi E, Dall'Agata M, Zagonel V, et al. Systematic vs. on‐demand early palliative care in gastric cancer patients: a randomized clinical trial assessing patient and healthcare service outcomes. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27:2425‐2434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Schenker Y, Bahary N, Claxton R, et al. A pilot trial of early specialty palliative care for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: challenges encountered and lessons learned. J Palliat Med. 2018;21:28‐36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Schenker Y, Althouse AD, Rosenzweig M, et al. Effect of an oncology nurse‐led primary palliative care intervention on patients with advanced cancer: the CONNECT cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181:1451‐1460. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Slama O, Pochop L, Sedo J, et al. Effects of early and systematic integration of specialist palliative care in patients with advanced cancer: randomized controlled trial PALINT. J Palliat Med. 2020;23:1586‐1593. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Soto‐Perez‐de‐Celis E, Chavarri‐Guerra Y, Ramos‐Lopez WA, et al. Patient navigation to improve early access to supportive care for patients with advanced cancer in resource‐limited settings: a randomized controlled trial. Oncologist. 2021;26:157‐164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Tattersall M. Early contact with palliative care services: a randomized trial in patients with newly detected incurable metastatic cancer. J Palliat Care Med. 2014;04:S309. [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, et al. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non‐small‐cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:733‐742. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Temel JS, Greer JA, El‐Jawahri A, et al. Effects of early integrated palliative care in patients with lung and GI cancer: a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:834‐841. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Temel JS, Sloan J, Zemla T, et al. Multisite, randomized trial of early integrated palliative and oncology care in patients with advanced lung and gastrointestinal cancer: alliance A221303. J Palliat Med. 2020;23:922‐929. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Ullrich A, Wilde S, Müller V, et al. Acceptance and benefits of two different strategies to timely integrate specialist palliative care into routine cancer care: a randomized pilot study. Oncol Res Treat. 2022;45:118‐129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Vanbutsele G, Pardon K, van Belle S, et al. Early and systematic integration of palliative care in multidisciplinary oncology care: a randomized controlled trial. Palliat Med. 2018;32:8‐9. [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Wallen GR, Baker K, Stolar M, et al. Palliative care outcomes in surgical oncology patients with advanced malignancies: a mixed methods approach. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:405‐415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Woo SM, Song MK, Lee M, et al. Effect of early management on pain and depression in patients with Pancreatobiliary cancer: a randomized clinical trial. Cancer. 2019;11:11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Zhuang H, Ma Y, Wang L, Zhang H. Effect of early palliative care on quality of life in patients with non‐small‐cell lung cancer. Curr Oncol. 2018;25:e54‐e58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Zimmermann C, Swami N, Krzyzanowska M, et al. Early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: a cluster‐randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383:1721‐1730. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Zimmermann C, Pope A, Hannon B, et al. Phase II trial of symptom screening with targeted early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;20:361‐370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Yorganci E, Evans CJ, Johnson H, et al. Understanding usual care in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions: a multi‐method approach. Palliat Med. 2020;34:667‐679. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Hui D, Bruera E. Models of integration of oncology and palliative care. Ann Palliat Med. 2015;4:89‐98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Stegmann ME, Geerse OP, van Zuylen L, Nekhlyudov L, Brandenbarg D. Improving care for patients living with prolonged incurable cancer. Cancer. 2021;13:13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Gärtner J, Daun M, Wolf J, von Bergwelt‐Baildon M, Hallek M. Early palliative care: pro, but please be precise! Oncol Res Treat. 2019;42:11‐18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Hui D, Bruera E. Integrating palliative care into the trajectory of cancer care. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13:159‐171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Basch E, Barbera L, Kerrigan CL, Velikova G. Implementation of patient‐reported outcomes in routine medical care. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018;38:122‐134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Greenhalgh J, Gooding K, Gibbons E, et al. How do patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support clinician‐patient communication and patient care? A realist synthesis. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018;2:42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Kaasa S, Loge JH, Aapro M, et al. Integration of oncology and palliative care: a Lancet Oncology Commission. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:e588‐e653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Minvielle E, Di Palma M, Mir O, et al. The use of patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer care: a realistic strategy. Ann Oncol. 2022;33:357‐359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Nicholls SG, Zwarenstein M, Taljaard M. The importance of describing as well as defining usual care. Am J Bioeth. 2020;20:56‐58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Barratt H, Campbell M, Moore L, et al. Randomised controlled trials of complex interventions and large‐scale transformation of services. In: Raine R, Fitzpatrick R, Barratt H, et al., eds. Challenges, Solutions and Future Directions in the Evaluation of Service Innovations in Health Care and Public Health. NIHR Journals Library; 2016. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. De Silva MJ, Breuer E, Lee L, et al. Theory of change: a theory‐driven approach to enhance the Medical Research Council's framework for complex interventions. Trials. 2014;15:267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Data S1.

Click here for additional data file. (111.8KB, pdf)

Data Availability Statement

The data from this review can be obtained upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Articles from Cancer Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES