Impact of an outpatient interdisciplinary team (IDT) consultation on symptom clusters in advanced cancer patients seen at a supportive care outpatient clinic (OSC) in a tertiary cancer center.

S. Yennurajalingam,D. Urbauer,R. Chacko,D. Hui,Y. Amin,A. Evans,C. Orihuela,K. Casper,V. Poulter,B. Coldman,E. Bruera
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.27.15_suppl.e20542
IF: 45.3
2009-05-20
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:e20542 Background: Advanced cancer patients develop severe physical and psychosocial symptom clusters. There is limited data on the impact of an outpatient interdisciplinary team (IDT) consultation lead by palliative care specialists on symptom clusters. Cluster composition and consistence, response rate and predictors of response are unknown. METHODS 914 consecutive patients with advanced cancer presenting in the OSC from Jan 2003 to Oct 2008 with a complete Edmonton symptom assessment scale at the initial and follow-up visit (median 14 days, range 1-4 wks), and CAGE status (alcohol screening) were reviewed. Wilcoxon ranked sign test was used to determine whether symptoms changed over time. Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to determine clusters of symptoms at baseline and at follow-up. The number of factors calculated was determined based upon the number of eigen values that were greater than one. RESULTS Median age was 59 yrs, female were 46%. The most common primary cancer was Lung (19%). Baseline and follow-up visit scores (mean, SD) were: fatigue 5.7 (2.1) and 5.2 (2.2, p<0.0001), pain 4.9 (2.6) and 4.1 (2.6 p<0.0001), nausea 1.8 (2.4) and 1.7 (2.3, p=0.1), depression 2.6 (2.5) and 2.2(2.4,p<0.0001), anxiety 2.9 (2.7) and 2.4 (2.4, p<0.0001), drowsiness 3.2 (2.8) and 3.2 (2.6, p=0.7), dyspnea 2.6 (2.7) and 2.4 (2.6), p=0.0027), appetite 4.2(2.7) and 3.9 (2.7, p<0.0001), sleep 4.2 (2.6) and 3.8 (2.6, p<0.0001) and well being 4.3 (2.5) and 3.9 (2.3, p<0.0001). During the follow- up the symptom clusters varied from a 3 factor to a 2 factor model, reflecting the impact of the IDT on symptom burden. CAGE positive and CAGE negative patients had a significantly different symptom cluster model. CONCLUSIONS Cluster composition differs when patients are assessed and managed by an IDT and among patients who screen positive for alcoholism. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?