Levels of Evidence Table

SymptomManagement and Supportive Care

Referral Criteria for Outpatient Palliative Cancer Care:

A Systematic Review DAVID HUI,a,* YEE-CHOON MENG,a,c,* SEBASTIAN BRUERA,a YIMIN GENG,b RON HUTCHINS,b MASANORI MORI,d FLORIAN STRASSER,e

EDUARDO BRUERAa aDepartment of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine and bResearch Medical Library, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston,Texas, USA; cDepartment of Palliative Care,Tan Tock SengHospital, Singapore; dDepartment of PalliativeMedicine, Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, Japan; eOncological Palliative Medicine, Hematology-Oncology, Cantonal Hospital, St. Gallen, Switzerland *Contributed equally. Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article.

Key Words. Access x Health systems x Neoplasms x Outpatients x Palliative care x Referral x Standards

ABSTRACT

Background. Outpatient palliative care clinics facilitate early referral and are associated with improved outcomes in cancer patients. However, appropriate candidates for outpatient palliative care referral and optimal timing remain unclear.We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify criteria that are considered when an outpatient palliative cancer care referral is initiated. Methods.We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1948–2013 citations) and Ovid Embase (1947–2015 citations) for articles related to outpatient palliative cancer care. Two researchers indepen- dently reviewed each citation for inclusion and extracted the referral criteria. The interrater agreement was high (k5 0.96). Results. Of the 186 publications in our initial search, 21 were included in the final sample.We identified 20 unique referral criteria. Among these, 6 were recurrent themes, which in- cluded physical symptoms (n 5 13 [62%]), cancer trajectory

(n 5 13 [62%]), prognosis (n 5 7 [33%]), performance status (n5 7 [33%]), psychosocial distress (n5 6 [29%]), and end-of- life care planning (n 5 5 [24%]). We found significant varia- tions among the articles regarding the definition of advanced cancer and the assessment tools for symptom/distress screening. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (n5 7 [33%]) and the distress thermometer (n5 2 [10%]) were used most often. Furthermore, there was a lack of consensus in the cutoffs in symptom assessment tools and timing for outpa- tient palliative care referral. Conclusion.This systematic review identified 20 criteria in- cluding 6 recurrent themes for outpatient cancer palliative care referral. It highlights the significant heterogeneity regard- ing the timing and process for referral and the need for fur- ther research to develop standardized referral criteria. The Oncologist 2016;21:895–901

Implications for Practice: Outpatient palliative care clinics improve patient outcomes; however, it remains unclear who is appropriate for referral and what is the optimal timing. A better understanding of the referral criteria would help (a) referring clinicians to identify appropriate patients for palliative care interventions, (b) administrators to assess their programs with set benchmarks forquality improvement, (c) researchers to standardize inclusion criteria, and (d) policymakers todevelop clinical care pathways and allocate appropriate resources. This systematic review identified 20 criteria including 6 recurrent themes for outpatient palliative cancer care referral. It represents the first step toward developing standardized referral criteria.

INTRODUCTION

Over the past few years, there has been an increasing call for greater integrationofpalliativecareandoncology,withmultiple organizations, such as the Institute of Medicine, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, promoting early palliative care referral for cancer patients [1–3]. Becausemost oncologypatients are seen

in the ambulatory setting, outpatient palliative care is partic- ularly appropriate to facilitate early access [4]. Outpatient palliative care clinics are increasingly available, with 59% of National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and 22% of non-NCI-designated cancer centers reporting their presence [5]. Multiple randomized controlled trials and cohort

Correspondence: David Hui, M.D., Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, Unit 1414, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77030, USA. Telephone: 713-606-3376; E-Mail: [email protected] Received January 5, 2016; accepted for publication February 18, 2016. ©AlphaMed Press 1083-7159/2016/$20.00/0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1634/ theoncologist.2016-0006

TheOncologist 2016;21:895–901 www.TheOncologist.com ©AlphaMed Press 2016

CM E

studies found that introduction of outpatient palliative care fromthetimeofdiagnosis is associatedwith improvedqualityof life, symptomburden, patient satisfaction, and even prolonged survival compared with routine oncological care [6–9]. Out- patient palliative care referral is also associatedwith significant improvement in end-of-life care outcomes compared with inpatient palliative care consultation [10].

Currently, the volume and timing of referral to outpatient palliative care for cancer patients varywidely [11].This is partly attributed to the lack of standardized referral criteria for outpatient palliative care, coupled with variable oncologists’ attitudes and beliefs about palliative care and differences in availability and resources of the palliative care service. A better understanding of the criteria when initiating an outpatient palliative care referral would help (a) referring clinicians to identify potentially eligible patients for palliative care inter- ventions, (b) administrators to assess their programs with clear benchmarks for quality improvement purposes, (c) re- searchers to standardize the design for future trials involving outpatient palliative care, and (d) policymakers to develop clinical care pathways and to allocate appropriate resources toward development of palliative care programs. We con- ducted a systematic review of the literature to identify criteria that are considered when an outpatient cancer palliative care referral is initiated. This represents the first step toward developing a standardized set of referral criteria.

METHODS

Literature Search The institutional review board atMD Anderson Cancer Center provided approval to proceed without the need for full committeereview.OnDecember18,2013,ourclinical librarian searched all the citations on Ovid MEDLINE from 1948 to 2013 and Ovid Embase from 1947 to 2013. We subsequently updated this search of both databases onOctober 25, 2015, to include the latest publications. Our search strategy consisted of Medical Subject Headings and text word or text phrase for “neoplasms,” “palliative care,” or “supportive care” and “outpatient”or “ambulatory”or “clinic.”Weincludedalloriginal studies, reviews, systematic reviews, guidelines, editorials, commentaries, and letters and excluded duplicates, non- English articles, dissertations, and conference abstracts.

After the initial search, two investigators (D.H., S.B.) in- dependently reviewedthetitleandabstractofeachcitationfor inclusion. Publications were included for further review if either of the two investigators coded that article as related to referral criteria for palliative care. This approach was taken to maximize inclusion. The interrater agreement was high (k5 0.96; p, .001).

Data Collection We retrieved the full text of each article of interest and excluded any publications not relevant to outpatient pallia- tive care referral. A few articles provided palliative care refer- ral criteria but did not specifically state whether they were for outpatient or inpatient.We included these articles as well.

Subsequently,weexaminedeacharticleindetailandextracted the referral criteria. One investigator reviewed all articles for consistency (D.H.). Any disagreements were discussed to

arrive at a consensus. If a referral criterion was described by at least five articles (e.g., performance status), it was considered as a major category. This qualitative systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline for reporting where applicable [12].

Statistical Analysis We used frequencies and percentages to summarize the data. The k statistic was used to assess interrater reliability. The Statistical Package for theSocial Sciences (SPSS, version16.0; IBM, Armonk, NY, http://www.ibm.com) was used. A p value of,.05 was considered to represent a statistically significant difference.

RESULTS

Literature Search Our literature search identified 186 articles. Ninety-six were excluded because they represented duplicates, conference abstracts, or non-English articles. A total of 90 articles were reviewed, and 21 (23%) were included in the final sample (Fig. 1). The characteristics of the articles are summarized in Table1.AmajorityofthestudieswerefromNorthAmerica(n516 [76%]) and were published after 2010 (n5 14 [67%]). All except one of the publications were specific to oncology (n5 20 [95%]).

Criteria for Referral Six major categories for referral criteria were identified (Table 2), including physical symptoms (n5 13 [62%]), cancer diagnosis (n513[62%]),prognosis (n57[33%]),performance status (n5 7 [33%]), psychosocial distress (n5 6 [29%]), and end-of-life care planning (n5 6 [29%]).

Cancer Diagnosis/Trajectory Although the diagnosis of an advanced cancer was the most commonly cited criterion, only 2 articles (n5 2 [9.5%]) [6, 13] specifically stated a time interval (i.e., within 8 weeks of diagnosis of metastatic lung carcinoma). The definition of ad- vanced cancer varied among the 13 studies. Advanced disease was defined as metastatic disease in all 13 articles and also as locally advanced disease in 5 articles. Three studies (n 5 3 [14.3%]) [1, 14, 15] further qualified that advanced cancer should be in the absence of curative treatment. Zimmerman etal. stated that advancedbreast andprostate cancer shouldbe hormonal refractory [9]. Gaertner et al. provided specific criteria for defining advanced cancer for 19 different tumor types [16].

Prognosis Prognosis was the third most common criterion quoted for palliative care referral. As shown in Table 3, the prognostic criteria for referral varied widely among the 7 articles. None of thearticlessuggestedastandardizedtool forprognostication.

Physical Symptoms Thirteen (61.9%) articles cited symptom management as reason for referral. Only 9 articles mentioned the validated tools for symptomassessment in theoncology setting,with 7 articles suggesting using the Edmonton Symptom Assess- ment Scale (ESAS) (Table 4). Only 2 studies provided a cutoff for symptom severity before initiating a palliative care referral [17, 18].

©AlphaMed Press 2016 TheOncologist®

896 Outpatient Palliative Care Referral Criteria

CM E

Performance Status Seven articles (33.3%) cited performance status as one of the referral criteria.The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline used a Karnofsky Performance Scale score of #50%and/oran EasternOncology CooperationGroup (ECOG) score of $3 as cutoffs [1]. Another 4 articles used ECOG performance status (cutoffs of 0–2 for 3; 1 study did not mention cutoff) [6, 9, 13, 19], and 2 other articles used the Palliative

Performance Scale (PPS) (1 article mentioned cutoff PPS score of,60%; the other article did not specify the cutoff) [20, 21].

Psychosocial Distress Six (28.6%) articles quoted psychosocial distress as an indicator for referral, but only 2 (9.5%) articles indicated the tools for dis- tress screening—both with the NCCN distress thermometer. NCCN guidelines recommended a distress score of 4 of 10 [1], whereas Morita et al. recommended a cutoff score of 6 or greater [17].

End-of-Life Care Planning Fivearticlesquotedend-of-life careplanningasanother reason for referral. However, these publications provided little fur- ther details on what encompassed end-of-life care planning.

Other Criteria We identified 14 other criteria that were mentioned less commonly. These included patient request [1, 17, 19, 22], initiation of intravenous or tumor-specific chemotherapy [14–16], family concerns [1, 19], serious comorbidities [1, 19],andmultiplehospitalizations [1,20].Theremainingcriteria were only suggested by the NCCN guideline once, including history of drug abuse, communication barriers, financial limitations, impaired cognitive function, frequent emergency visits, complicated intensive care unit admission, multiple allergy, request for hastened death, and caregiver stress.

DISCUSSION

We systematically reviewed outpatient palliative care referral criteria, and we identified 20 unique criteria. Among these, there were 6 common themes for referral: 2 time-based

Figure 1. Study flowchart.

Table 1. Publication characteristics

Variable Articles, n (%)

Article type

Original studies 8 (38.1)

Guidelines 6 (28.6)

Descriptive outpatient studies 4 (19.0)

Surveys 3 (14.3)

Continent of origin

North America 16 (76.2)

Europe 4 (19.0)

Asia 1 (4.8)

Year of publication

Before 2005 2 (9.5)

2005–2010 5 (23.8)

After 2010 14 (66.7)

Disease characteristics

Cancer only 20 (95.2)

Cancer and noncancer 1 (4.8)

www.TheOncologist.com ©AlphaMed Press 2016

Hui, Meng, Bruera et al. 897

CM E

criteria (cancer diagnosis/trajectory and prognosis) and 4 needs-based criteria (physical symptoms, performance status, end-of-life care planning, and psychosocial distress). We found no universally accepted criteria for which patients should be referred and when they should be referred. Findings from this studycan informthedevelopmentofconsensus-based referral criteria toward optimizing outpatient palliative care access.

Having a diagnosis of advanced cancer was clearly an important criterion for outpatient palliative care referral.

Interestingly, the definition for advanced cancer varied widely among the articles. Thus, our study highlights the need to establish an operational definition for this commonly used term. Another important aspect relates to when patients with advanced cancer should be referred. Only a few stated that referral should occur shortly after cancer diagnosis [6]. For in- stance, the landmark randomized controlled trial from Temel et al. suggested that patients should be referred to palliative care within 8 weeks from the time of diagnosis of metastatic non-small

Table 2. Criteria for palliative care referral

Study, year [reference] Cancer diagnosis Prognosis

Physical symptoms

Performance status

Psychosocial distress

End-of-life careplanning

Strasser et al., 2004 [39] 1 1

Rabow et al., 2004 [40] 1

Riechelmann et al., 2007 [18] 1 1

Morita et al., 2008 [17] 1 1

Follwell et al., 2009 [41] 1 1

Temel et al., 2010 [6] 1 1

Gaertner et al., 2010 [14] 1

Glare et al., 2011 [19] 1 1 1 1 1 1

Kamal et al., 2011 [20] 1 1 1 1

Jacobsen et al., 2011 [13] 1 1

Gaertner et al., 2011 [15] 1

Gaertner et al., 2011 [16] 1

Smith et al., 2012 [2] 1 1

Wentlandt et al., 2012 [29] 1 1 1 1

Watanabe et al., 2013 [42] 1

Schenker et al., 2013 [43] 1

Sutradhar et al., 2013 [21] 1

Zimmermann et al., 2014 [9] 1 1 1

Leftkowits et al., 2014 [22] 1 1 1

Wentlandt et al., 2014 [44] 1 1 1 1

National Comprehensive Care Network guideline, 2015 [1]

1 1 1 1 1 1

Total, n (%) 13 (61.9) 7 (33.3) 13 (61.9) 7 (33.3) 6 (28.6) 5 (23.8)

Plus signs indicate that study used the criterion; blank cells indicate that study did not use the criterion.

Table 3. Prognostic criteria for palliative care referral

Study, year [reference] Prognostic criteria for referral

Rabow et al., 2004 [40] 1–5 yr

Glare and Chow, 2014 [45] ,12 mo

Kamal et al., 2011 [20] ,6 mo (81% of patients referred)

Wentlandt et al., 2012 [29] .1 yr (0.5% of oncologists would refer)

6 mo–1 yr (12.7% of oncologists would refer)

1–6 mo (83.3% of oncologists would refer)

,1 mo (3.4% of oncologists would refer)

Zimmermann et al., 2014 [9] 6–24 mo

Wentlandt et al., 2014 [44] 1–6 mo (83.5% of pediatric oncologists would refer)

6 mo–1 yr (12.7% of pediatric oncologists would refer)

,1 mo (3.3% of pediatric oncologists would refer)

.1 yr (0.6% of pediatric oncologists would refer)

National Comprehensive Care Network guideline, 2015 [1] ,6 months

©AlphaMed Press 2016 TheOncologist®

898 Outpatient Palliative Care Referral Criteria

CM E

cell lungcancer, regardlessofprognosisorneed[6,13].Compared with patients who received only usual oncology care, those ran- domly assigned to receive concurrent early palliative care had improved outcomes; this finding highlights that palliative care involvementmay be beneficial regardless of care needs. Despite theenthusiastic support forearly specialist palliative care referral in clinical guidelines concurrent with primary palliative care delivered by oncology teams, referral is often initiated on the basis of patient needs instead of where the patient is along the disease trajectory in actual clinical practice. This discrepancy occurs partly because (a) existing palliative care programs often do not often have the necessary infrastructure to accommodate universal early referrals and (b) need-based referral is more in- tuitive to referring oncologists. Randomized trials are ultimately needed to directly compare both short- and long-term patient outcomes related to universal referral from the time of diagnosis of advanced cancer versus more selective referral based on patient needs. Our group is also conducting an international Delphi study to address the issue of who should be referred, bal- ancing the limitations in existingevidence and clinical realities.

Despite the enthusiastic support for early specialist palliative care referral in clinical guidelines concurrent with primary palliative care delivered by oncology teams, referral is often initiatedon thebasis of patient needs instead of where the patient is along the disease trajectory in actual clinical practice.

Because prognosis varies widely among different cancer diagnoses, some investigators have proposed that the tim- ing of referral should be disease specific. Gaertner et al. have published their institutional guidelines on disease-specific timing for integrating palliative care [16]; however, these criteria havenot yetbeen fully validatedorwidelyendorsed.Because life expectancy and palliative care needs vary widely, even among patientswith the same cancer type (e.g., triple-negativebreast

cancer has amore aggressive disease course than other types of breastcancer),thedecisionforpalliativecarereferral likelyneeds to be further personalized.

Prognosis is another commonly cited time-based criterion for outpatient referral. Similar to the advanced cancer diagnosis criterion, the optimal timing for referral based on prognosis has not been clearly defined. The main challenge with application of this criterion is that clinicians often overestimate survival with clinician prediction of survival and rarely use prognostic tools to augment their accuracy [23]. This could result in fewer eligible patients being referred. Encouragingly, the probabilistic ques- tionand the“surprise”questionhaverecentlybeenshowntobe moreaccurate thanthetemporalquestion[24].Thesequestions may be particularly useful as triggers for palliative care referral (e.g.,“What is the probability that the patient would be alive in 1 year?” If the clinician answered “30% or less,” the patient may be referred). Furthermore, novel bedside prognostic tools, such as phase angle, may improve the prognostic accuracy further [25].

Patients with physical or psychological distress are clearly candidates for palliative care referral. Successful application of these as referral criteria requires close collaboration between the oncology and palliative care teams to conduct routine symptom screening with validated questionnaire(s), a mech- anism to trigger referral based on predefined cutoffs, and quality improvement programs to optimize the referral process. As shown in this study, the tools for distress screening have not been standardized. ESAS and the distress thermom- eter are two simplebedside tools that havebeenvalidatedand adopted by several institutions [26, 27]. A randomized con- trolled trial that compared three types of distress screening (minimal screening vs. full screening vs. full screening plus psychosocial referral) found no difference in the level of dis- tress at 3 months; however, patients in the full screening plus psychosocial referral group had lower distress scores andmore referrals compared with the minimal screening group [28]. Moreover, psychosocial referral was associated with greater reductions in depression and anxiety. Ultimately, the cutoffs

Table 4. Tools for assessment of physical symptoms

Study, year [reference] Validated tool Recommended cutoff Comments

Strasser et al., 2004 [39] ESAS Not stated

Riechelmann et al., 2007 [18] ESAS $6/10

Morita et al., 2008 [17] MDASI $5/10

Follwell et al., 2009 [41] ESAS Not stated

Glare et al., 2014 [45] Not stated Not stated 10-item symptom screening questions (includes malignant bowel obstruction)

Kamal et al., 2011 [20] QDACT Not stated Focused on main symptoms of pain, dyspnea, constipation, depression, and fatigue

Smith et al., 2012 [2] Not stated Not stated Descriptive

Wentlandt et al., 2012 [29] ESAS Not stated

Schenker et al., 2013 [43] Not stated Not stated Descriptive

Watanabe et al., 2013 [42] ESAS Not stated

Leftkowits et al., 2014 [22] ESAS Not stated

Wentlandt et al., 2014 [44] ESAS Not stated

National Comprehensive Care Network guideline, 2015 [1]

Not stated Not stated 10-item symptom screening questions (includes malignant bowel obstruction)

Abbreviations: ESAS, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System; MDASI, MD Anderson Symptom Inventory; QDACT, Quality Data Collection Tool.

www.TheOncologist.com ©AlphaMed Press 2016

Hui, Meng, Bruera et al. 899

CM E

for referral may need to be individualized for each institution, depending on the tools used, the local availability of specialist palliativecare,andthe levelofprimarypalliativecaredeliveryby the oncology team [29–31]. Finally, for patients with pre- dominantly psychological distress, there should be communi- cation among the oncology team, palliative care, psychiatry, psychology, and social work services to coordinate the most appropriate team for management of these issues.

Performance status is also commonly considered as a re- ferral criterion because it not only is a measure of daily function and care needs but also is strongly associatedwith prognosis and treatment eligibility [32–36]. Although randomized controlled trials supporting early palliative care included only patients with performance status of 0–1 [6, 9], it remains unclear whether an “enrichment” strategy that includes only patients who have greatercareneedsbutnotthosealreadyattheend-of-life (i.e., last 6months) would result in greater benefits [21].Thus, the optimal cutoff remains to be defined. Furthermore, the accuracy of performance status assessment has been questioned. A recent study at MD Anderson Cancer Center reported significant dis- crepancies between palliative care specialists and oncologists in theirECOGperformancestatus ratings [37].Thus, further research is needed to examine how performance status could be used to trigger referrals.

End-of-life care planning represents another category for referral. This encompasses a wide range of issues, such as discussing advance care plans, enhancing illness understanding and prognostic awareness, exploring further treatment options, establishing goals of care, and transitioning to hospice care. End- of-life discussions and early palliative care referral are both associated with improved quality of end-of-life care [38]. Out- patient palliative care clinics canplay aparticularly important role in facilitating these important discussions over time and help- ing patients refine their goals of care [10]. However, the optimal timing and nature of these interventions need to be further studied. For example, the need for hospice referral may not be an appropriate criterion for outpatient palliative care referral because patients should ideally be seen by the palliative care teammuchearlier in thedisease trajectory thanwhenhospice is needed.Moreresearchalsoneedstobeconductedtodetermine how the need for end-of-life care planning can be operational- ized as a trigger for referral, and similar to psychological dis- tress, which team would be best to address each need.

End-of-life discussions and early palliative care re- ferral are both associated with improved quality of end-of-life care. Outpatient palliative care clinics can play a particularly important role in facilitating these important discussions over time and helping patients refine their goals of care.

One important consideration is whether these criteria shouldbeusedaloneor inconjunctionwitheachother. Indeed, among the 21 articles, 17 (81%) mentioned 2 or more criteria for referral (Table 2). For example, the diagnosis of advanced cancer may be a necessary criterion for referral but may be insufficienttotriggerareferralonitsown.Glareetal.developeda screening tool based on the NCCN guideline to identify patients

who may benefit from an outpatient palliative care referral. Advanced cancer diagnosis, performance status, prognosis, and symptom distress were assigned different weights, and all contributed to a composite score that ranged from 0 to 13; a scoreof4ormoreindicatedaneedforpalliativecarereferral [19]. This scoring system requires additional time for screening and needs to be further validated in different institutions.

Oursystematic reviewhas several limitations. First,despite our updated search, we identified only 21 articles, suggesting that more research on outpatient palliative care and referral criteria should be conducted. Second, a minority of the articles (e.g., the NCCN guideline) did not indicate whether the criteria were specifically designed foroutpatient palliative care onlyor forboth inpatientandoutpatient services.Thus,thismayresult in some degree of contamination because referral criteria for inpatients may be different. Third, we included the eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials of early outpatient palliative care as referral criteria, although they may not be specifically designed for this purpose. Finally, we focused only on the oncology population. Referral criteria for patients in other disease groups may be different.

CONCLUSION Outpatient clinics are increasingly being recognized for their critical role in facilitating early palliative care access. Our systematic review highlighted the lack of consensus in the literature on which patients should be referred in the am- bulatory setting. We found general agreement that cancer diagnosis, prognosis, physical symptoms, performance status, psychosocial distress, and end-of-life care planning needs should be considered when appropriate candidates are being identified. At the same time, more work is clearly needed to define the most appropriate assessment tools and optimal cutoffs for routine screening and referral. Referral criteria also need to be tailored to the local institution and to maximize outpatient palliative care access. Importantly, the use of standardized referral criteria should complement, instead of replace, clinical judgment to facilitate appropriate referrals.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

D.H. is supported in part by an American Cancer Society Mentored Research Scholar Grant in Applied and Clinical Research (MRSG-14-1418-01-CCE) and a National Institutes of Health grant (R21CA186000-01A1).

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Conception/Design: David Hui, Yimin Geng, Ron Hutchins, Masanori Mori, Florian Strasser, Eduardo Bruera

Provision of study material or patients: David Hui Collection and/or assembly of data: David Hui, Yee-Choon Meng, Sebastian Bruera, Yimin Geng, Ron Hutchins

Data analysis and interpretation:DavidHui,Yee-ChoonMeng, EduardoBruera Manuscript writing: David Hui, Yee-Choon Meng, Eduardo Bruera Final approval of manuscript: David Hui, Yee-Choon Meng, Sebastian Bruera, Yimin Geng, Ron Hutchins, Masanori Mori, Florian Strasser, Eduardo Bruera

DISCLOSURES

Florian Strasser: Sunstone, ONO, Danone, Helsinn, Vifor, Prime Oncology (C/A), Helsinn (RF).The other authors indicated no financial relationships. (C/A) Consulting/advisory relationship; (RF) Research funding; (E) Employment; (ET) Expert

testimony; (H) Honoraria received; (OI) Ownership interests; (IP) Intellectual property rights/

inventor/patent holder; (SAB) Scientific advisory board

©AlphaMed Press 2016 TheOncologist®

900 Outpatient Palliative Care Referral Criteria

CM E

REFERENCES

1. Levy MH, Smith T, Alvarez-Perez A et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: palliative care. 2015. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/ physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp. Accessed March 29, 2016.

2. SmithTJ,TeminS,AlesiERetal.AmericanSociety of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: The integration of palliative care into standard oncology care. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:880–887.

3. Pizzo PA, Walker DM, Bomba PA et al. Dying in America: Improving Quality and Honoring Indi- vidual Preferences Near the End of Life. Washington, DC: Insitute of Medicine, 2015.

4. Hui D, Bruera E. Integrating palliative care into the trajectory of cancer care. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2016;13:159–171.

5. Hui D, Elsayem A, De la CruzM et al. Availability and integration of palliative care at US cancer centers. JAMA 2010;303:1054–1061.

6.Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A et al. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non- small-cell lungcancer.NEngl JMed2010;363:733–742.

7. 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. JAMA2009;302:741–749.

8.Yennurajalingam S, Urbauer DL, Casper KL et al. Impact of a palliative care consultation team on cancer-related symptoms in advanced cancer pa- tients referred to an outpatient supportive care clinic. J Pain SymptomManage 2011;41:49–56.

9. ZimmermannC,SwamiN,KrzyzanowskaMetal. Early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: A cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lan- cet 2014;383:1721–1730.

10. Hui D, Kim SH, Roquemore J et al. Impact of timing and setting of palliative care referral on quality of end-of-life care in cancer patients. Cancer 2014;120:1743–1749.

11. HuiD, KimSH, Kwon JH etal. Access topalliative care among patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center.The Oncologist 2012;17:1574–1580.

12.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta- analyses: The PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1006–1012.

13. Jacobsen J, Jackson V, Dahlin C et al. Compo- nentsofearlyoutpatientpalliative careconsultation in patients with metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer. J Palliat Med 2011;14:459–464.

14. Gaertner J,Wolf J, Scheicht D et al. Implement- ing WHO recommendations for palliative care into routine lung cancer therapy: A feasibility project. J Palliat Med 2010;13:727–732.

15. Gaertner J, Wuerstlein R, Klein U et al. Inte- grating palliative medicine into comprehensive breast cancer therapy - a pilot project. Breast Care (Basel) 2011;6:215–220.

16. Gaertner J,Wolf J, HallekMetal. Standardizing integration of palliative care into comprehensive

cancer therapy–a disease specific approach. Sup- port Care Cancer 2011;19:1037–1043.

17.Morita T, Fujimoto K, NambaM et al. Palliative care needs of cancer outpatients receiving chemo- therapy: An audit of a clinical screening project. Support Care Cancer 2008;16:101–107.

18. Riechelmann RP, Krzyzanowska MK, O’Carroll A et al. Symptom and medication profiles among cancer patients attending a palliative care clinic. Support Care Cancer 2007;15:1407–1412.

19. Glare PA, Semple D, Stabler SM et al. Palliative care in the outpatient oncology setting: Evaluation of a practical set of referral criteria. J Oncol Pract 2011;7:366–370.

20. Kamal AH, Bull J, Kavalieratos D et al. Palliative care needs of patients with cancer living in the community. J Oncol Pract 2011;7:382–388.

21. Sutradhar R, Seow H, Earle C et al. Modeling the longitudinal transitionsof performance status in cancer outpatients: Time to discuss palliative care. J Pain SymptomManage 2013;45:726–734.

22. Lefkowits C, W Rabow M, E Sherman A et al. Predictors of high symptom burden in gynecologic oncology outpatients: Who should be referred to outpatientpalliative care?GynecolOncol 2014;132: 698–702.

23. Glare P, Virik K, Jones M et al. A systematic review of physicians’ survival predictions in termi- nally ill cancer patients. BMJ 2003;327:195–198.

24. Hui D, Kilgore K, Nguyen L et al.The accuracyof probabilistic versus temporal clinician prediction of survival for patients with advanced cancer: A pre- liminary report.TheOncologist 2011;16:1642–1648.

25. Hui D, Bansal S, Morgado M et al. Phase angle for prognostication of survival in patients with ad- vanced cancer: Preliminary findings. Cancer 2014;120: 2207–2214.

26. Bruera E, Kuehn N, Miller MJ et al. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): A simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. J Palliat Care 1991;7:6–9.

27. NCCNpractice guidelines for themanagement of psychosocial distress. Oncology (Williston Park) 1999;13:113–147.

28. Carlson LE, Groff SL, Maciejewski O et al. Screening for distress in lung and breast cancer outpatients: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:4884–4891.

29.Wentlandt K, KrzyzanowskaMK, SwamiNet al. Referral practices of oncologists to specialized palliative care. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:4380–4386.

30.Morrison RS, Augustin R, Souvanna P et al. America’s care of serious illness: A state-by-state report card onaccess topalliative care in our nation’s hospitals. J Palliat Med 2011;14:1094–1096.

31.Ward AM, Agar M, Koczwara B. Collaborating or co-existing: a survey of attitudes of medical oncologists toward specialist palliative care. Palliat Med 2009;23:698–707.

32. Chuang RB, HuWY, Chiu TY et al. Prediction of survival in terminal cancer patients in Taiwan: Constructing a prognostic scale. J Pain Symptom Manage 2004;28:115–122.

33.Maltoni M, Pirovano M, Scarpi E et al. Pre- diction of survival of patients terminally ill with cancer. Results of an Italianprospectivemulticentric study. Cancer 1995;75:2613–2622.

34. Lau F, Maida V, Downing M et al. Use of the Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) for end-of-life prognostication in a palliative medicine consultation service. J Pain SymptomManage 2009;37:965–972.

35. BuccheriG, FerrignoD,TamburiniM. Karnofsky and ECOGperformance status scoring in lung cancer: A prospective, longitudinal study of 536 patients from a single institution. Eur J Cancer 1996;32A: 1135–1141.

36. Jang RW, Caraiscos VB, Swami N et al. Simple prognosticmodel for patientswith advanced cancer basedonperformance status. JOncolPract2014;10: e335–e341.

37. Kim YJ, Hui D, Zhang Y et al. Differences in performance status assessment among palliative care specialists, nurses, and medical oncologists. J Pain SymptomManage 2015;49:1050–1058.e2.

38.Wright AA, Zhang B, Ray A et al. Associations betweenend-of-lifediscussions,patientmentalhealth, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment. JAMA 2008;300:1665–1673.

39. Strasser F, SweeneyC,Willey J etal. Impact of a half-day multidisciplinary symptom control and palliative care outpatient clinic in a comprehensive cancer center on recommendations, symptom intensity, and patient satisfaction: A retrospec- tive descriptive study. J Pain Symptom Manage 2004;27:481–491.

40. Rabow MW, Dibble SL, Pantilat SZ et al. The comprehensive care team: A controlled trial of outpatient palliative medicine consultation. Arch Intern Med 2004;164:83–91.

41. Follwell M, Burman D, Le LW et al. Phase II studyof an outpatient palliative care intervention in patients with metastatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:206–213.

42.Watanabe SM, Fairchild A, Pituskin E et al. Improving access to specialist multidisciplinary palliative care consultation for rural cancer patients by videoconferencing: report of a pilot project. Support Care Cancer 2013;21:1201–1207.

43. Schenker Y, Crowley-MatokaM, Dohan D et al. Oncologist factors that influence referrals to sub- specialty palliative care clinics. J Oncol Pract 2014; 10:e37–e44.

44.Wentlandt K, KrzyzanowskaMK, SwamiNet al. Referral practices of pediatric oncologists to spe- cialized palliative care. Support Care Cancer 2014; 22:2315–2322.

45. GlarePA,ChowK.Validationofasimplescreening tool for identifying unmet palliative care needs in patients with cancer. J Oncol Pract 2014;11:e81–e86.

CME This article is available for continuing medical education credit at CME.TheOncologist.com.

www.TheOncologist.com ©AlphaMed Press 2016

Hui, Meng, Bruera et al. 901

CM E

Copyright of Oncologist is the property of AlphaMed Company, Inc., dba AlphaMed Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.