A Patient-Specific Fracture Risk Assessment Tool for Femoral Bone Metastases:Using the Bone Strength (BOS) Score in Clinical Practice

Patients with femoral metastases are at risk of fracturing bones. It is important to prevent fractures in order to maintain mobility and quality of life. The BOne Strength (BOS) score is based on a computed tomography (CT)-based patient-specific finite element (FE) computer model that objectively calculates bone strength. In this pilot study, the added clinical value of the BOS score towards treatment-related decision making was assessed. In December 2019, the BOS score was implemented in four radiotherapy centers. The BOS scores and fracture risks of individual patients were calculated and returned to the physician to assist in treatment decisions. The physicians filled out a questionnaire, which was qualitatively analyzed. A follow-up to identify fractures and/or death was performed after six months. Until June 2021, 42 BOS scores were delivered (20 high, 9 moderate, and 13 low fracture risk). In 48%, the BOS score led to an adaptation of treatment plans. Physicians indicated that the BOS score provided objective insight into fracture risk, was reassuring for physicians and patients, and improved multidisciplinary discussions and shared decision making. In conclusion, the BOS score is an objective tool to assess fracture risk in femoral bone metastases and aids physicians and patients in making a more informed decision regarding the most appropriate treatment.</p

Advance Care Planning in the Netherlands

The Dutch health care system fosters a strong public health sector offering accessible generalist care including generalist palliative care. General practitioners are well positioned to conduct ACP, for example, to continue or initiate conversations after hospitalization. However, research shows that ACP conversations are often ad hoc and in frail patients, ACP is often only initiated when admitted to a nursing home by elderly care physicians who are on the staff. Tools that raise awareness of triggers to initiate ACP, screening tools, information brochures, checklists and training have been developed and implemented with funding by national programs which currently focus on implementation projects rather than or in addition to, research. The programs commonly require educational deliverables, patient and public involvement and addressing diversity in patient groups. A major challenge is how to implement ACP systematically and continuously across sectors and disciplines in a way that supports a proactive yet person-centered approach rather than an approach with an exclusive focus on medical procedures. Digital solutions can support continuity of care and communication about care plans. Solutions should fit a culture that prefers trust-based, informal deliberative approaches. This may be supported by involving disciplines other than medicine, such as nursing and spiritual caregiving, and public health approaches.</p

Dexamethasone for the prevention of a pain flare after palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases:a multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial

Background: Radiotherapy has a good effect in palliation of painful bone metastases, with a pain response rate of more than 60%. However, shortly after treatment, in approximately 40% of patients a temporary pain flare occurs, which is defined as a two-point increase of the worst pain score on an 11-point rating scale compared to baseline, without a decrease in analgesic intake, or a 25% increase in analgesic intake without a decrease in worst pain score, compared to baseline. A pain flare has a negative impact on daily functioning and mood of patients. It is thought to be caused by periostial edema after radiotherapy. Dexamethasone might diminish this edema and thereby reduce the incidence of pain flare. Two non-randomized studies suggest that dexamethasone reduces the incidence of a pain flare by 50%. The aim of this trial is to study the effectiveness of dexamethasone to prevent a pain flare after palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases and to determine the optimal dose schedule. Methods and design: This study is a three-armed, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial. We aim to include 411 patients with uncomplicated painful bone metastases from any type of primary solid tumor who receive short schedule radiotherapy (all conventional treatment schedules from one to six fractions). Arm 1 consists of daily placebo for four days, arm 2 starts with 8 mg dexamethasone before the (first) radiotherapy and three days placebo thereafter. Arm 3 consists of four days 8 mg dexamethasone. The primary endpoint is the occurrence of a pain flare. Secondary endpoints are pain, quality of life and side-effects of dexamethasone versus placebo. Patients complete a questionnaire (Brief Pain Inventory with two added questions about side-effects of medication, the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and QLQ-BM22 for quality of life) at baseline, daily for two weeks and lastly at four weeks. Discussion: This study will show whether dexamethasone is effective in preventing a pain flare after palliative radiotherapy for painful bone metastases and, if so, to determine the optimal dose

Reduction in potentially inappropriate end-of-life hospital care for cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic:A retrospective population-based study

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted cancer diagnosis and treatment. However, little is known about end-of-life cancer care during the pandemic. Aim: To investigate potentially inappropriate end-of-life hospital care for cancer patients before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: Retrospective population-based cohort study using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch National Hospital Care Registration. Potentially inappropriate care in the last month of life (chemotherapy administration, &gt;1 emergency room contact, &gt;1 hospitalization, hospitalization &gt;14 days, intensive care unit admission or hospital death) was compared between four COVID-19 periods and corresponding periods in 2018/2019. Participants: A total of 112,919 cancer patients (⩾18 years) who died between January 2018 and May 2021 were included. Results: Fewer patients received potentially inappropriate end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to previous years, especially during the first COVID-19 peak (22.4% vs 26.0%). Regression analysis showed lower odds of potentially inappropriate end-of-life care during all COVID-19 periods (between OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.74–0.88 and OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.87–0.97) after adjustment for age, sex and cancer type. For the individual indicators, fewer patients experienced multiple or long hospitalizations, intensive care unit admission or hospital death during the pandemic. Conclusions:Cancer patients received less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because several factors may have contributed, it is unclear whether this reflects better quality care. However, these findings raise important questions about what pandemic-induced changes in care practices can help provide appropriate end-of-life care for future patients in the context of increasing patient numbers and limited resources.</p

Reduction in potentially inappropriate end-of-life hospital care for cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic:A retrospective population-based study

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted cancer diagnosis and treatment. However, little is known about end-of-life cancer care during the pandemic. Aim: To investigate potentially inappropriate end-of-life hospital care for cancer patients before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: Retrospective population-based cohort study using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch National Hospital Care Registration. Potentially inappropriate care in the last month of life (chemotherapy administration, &gt;1 emergency room contact, &gt;1 hospitalization, hospitalization &gt;14 days, intensive care unit admission or hospital death) was compared between four COVID-19 periods and corresponding periods in 2018/2019. Participants: A total of 112,919 cancer patients (⩾18 years) who died between January 2018 and May 2021 were included. Results: Fewer patients received potentially inappropriate end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to previous years, especially during the first COVID-19 peak (22.4% vs 26.0%). Regression analysis showed lower odds of potentially inappropriate end-of-life care during all COVID-19 periods (between OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.74–0.88 and OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.87–0.97) after adjustment for age, sex and cancer type. For the individual indicators, fewer patients experienced multiple or long hospitalizations, intensive care unit admission or hospital death during the pandemic. Conclusions: Cancer patients received less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because several factors may have contributed, it is unclear whether this reflects better quality care. However, these findings raise important questions about what pandemic-induced changes in care practices can help provide appropriate end-of-life care for future patients in the context of increasing patient numbers and limited resources.</p

Reduction in potentially inappropriate end-of-life hospital care for cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic:A retrospective population-based study

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted cancer diagnosis and treatment. However, little is known about end-of-life cancer care during the pandemic. Aim: To investigate potentially inappropriate end-of-life hospital care for cancer patients before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: Retrospective population-based cohort study using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch National Hospital Care Registration. Potentially inappropriate care in the last month of life (chemotherapy administration, &gt;1 emergency room contact, &gt;1 hospitalization, hospitalization &gt;14 days, intensive care unit admission or hospital death) was compared between four COVID-19 periods and corresponding periods in 2018/2019. Participants: A total of 112,919 cancer patients (⩾18 years) who died between January 2018 and May 2021 were included. Results: Fewer patients received potentially inappropriate end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to previous years, especially during the first COVID-19 peak (22.4% vs 26.0%). Regression analysis showed lower odds of potentially inappropriate end-of-life care during all COVID-19 periods (between OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.74–0.88 and OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.87–0.97) after adjustment for age, sex and cancer type. For the individual indicators, fewer patients experienced multiple or long hospitalizations, intensive care unit admission or hospital death during the pandemic. Conclusions:Cancer patients received less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because several factors may have contributed, it is unclear whether this reflects better quality care. However, these findings raise important questions about what pandemic-induced changes in care practices can help provide appropriate end-of-life care for future patients in the context of increasing patient numbers and limited resources.</p

Screening for psychological distress before radiotherapy for painful bone metastases may be useful to identify patients with high levels of distress

Background: Psychological distress (PD) has a major impact on quality of life. We studied the incidence of PD before and after radiotherapy for painful bone metastases. Furthermore, we aimed to identify factors predictive for PD.Methods: Between 1996 and 1998, the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study included 1157 patients with painful bone metastases. Patients were randomized between two fractionation schedules. The study showed a pain response of 74% in both groups. Patients filled out weekly questionnaires for 13 weeks, then monthly for two years. The questionnaires included a subscale for PD on the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. We used generalized estimating equations and multivariable logistic regression analyses.Results: At baseline, 290 patients (27%) had a high level of PD. For the entire group, the level of PD remained constant over time. The majority of patients with a low level of PD at baseline remained at a low level during follow-up. In patients with a high level of PD at baseline, the mean level of PD decreased after treatment and stabilized around the cutoff level. Female patients, higher age, worse performance, lower pain score and worse self-reported QoL were associated with an increased chance of PD, although the model showed moderate discriminative power.Conclusions: A substantial proportion of patients had a high level of PD before and after radiotherapy for painful bone metastases. Most patients who reported high levels of PD when referred for palliative radiotherapy remained at high levels thereafter. Therefore, screening of PD prior to treatment seems appropriate, in order to select patients requiring intervention.</p

External validation of a model to predict the survival of patients presenting with a spinal epidural metastasis

The surgical treatment of spinal metastases is evolving. The major problem is the selection of patients who may benefit from surgical treatment. One of the criteria is an expected survival of at least 3 months. A prediction model has been previously developed. The present study has been performed in order to validate externally the model and to demonstrate that this model can be generalized to other institutions and other countries than the Netherlands. Data of 356 patients from five centers in Germany, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands who were treated for metastatic epidural spinal cord compression were collected. Hazard ratios in the test population corresponded with those of the developmental population. However, the observed and the expected survival were different. Analysis revealed that the baseline hazard function was significantly different. This tempted us to combine the data and develop a new prediction model. Estimating iteratively, a baseline hazard was composed. An adapted prediction model is presented. External validation of a prediction model revealed a difference in expected survival, although the relative contribution of the specific hazard ratios was the same as in the developmental population. This study emphasized the need to check the baseline hazard function in external validation. A new model has been developed using an estimated baseline hazar

The association between palliative care team consultation and hospital costs for patients with advanced cancer: An observational study in 12 Dutch hospitals

Background: Early palliative care team consultation has been shown to reduce costs of hospital care. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between palliative care team (PCT) consultation and the content and costs of hospital care in patients with advanced cancer. Material and Methods: A prospective, observational study was conducted in 12 Dutch hospitals.

Barriers and facilitators that hospital clinicians perceive to discuss the personal values, wishes, and needs of patients in palliative care: a mixed-methods systematic review

Background: The exploration and monitoring of the personal values, wishes, and needs (VWN) of patients in the palliative phase by hospital clinicians is essential for guiding appropriate palliative care. Objective: To explore the barriers and facilitators concerning communication with patients in the palliative phase about their VWN as perceived by hospital clinicians. Design: A mixed-methods systematic review following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for mixed-method systematic reviews and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021216693). Data sources and methods: Eight databases, including PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL, were searched without time restrictions. The search string was built using the search Palliative cAre Literature rEview iTeraTive mEthod (PALETTE) framework. Eligible studies focused on (1) hospital clinicians and (2) perceived barriers and facilitators regarding the exploration and monitoring of the VWN of adult patients in the palliative phase. Two researchers independently selected articles and evaluated the quality. Findings were synthesized using a convergent integrated approach. Results: In total, 29 studies were included: 14 quantitative, 13 qualitative, and 2 mixed methods. Five synthesized findings were identified: (1) the clinician’s professional manners, (2) the image formed of the patient and loved ones, (3) the human aspect of being a clinician, (4) the multidisciplinary collaboration, and (5) the contextual preconditions. Most studies seemed focused on communication about treatment decision making. Conclusion: A patient-centered approach seems lacking when clinicians discuss the patient’s VWN, since most studies focused on treatment decision making rather than on the exploration and monitoring of the multidimensional well-being of patients. This review emphasizes the need for the development and integration of a systematic approach to explore and monitor the patients’ VWN to improve appropriate palliative care in hospitals