Early Incorporation to Palliative Care (EPC) in Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The PACO Randomized Clinical Trial

Silvia Allende,Jenny G Turcott,Emma Verástegui,Oscar Rodríguez-Mayoral,Diana Flores-Estrada,Dana Aline Pérez Camargo,Maritza Ramos-Ramírez,Jorge-Negueb Martínez-Hernández,Luis F Oñate-Ocaña,Pamela Soberanis Pina,Andrés F Cardona,Oscar Arrieta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae050

2024-04-01

The Oncologist

Abstract:Abstract Background Patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience a considerable disease burden, evident in symptomatic and psychological spheres. Advanced cancer represents a complex scenario for patients and the healthcare team. Early palliative care (EPC) has been proven as a clinically meaningful strategy in this context by several randomized trials but not in a resource-limited setting. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of EPC compared with standard oncological care (SOC) in patients with metastatic NSCLC in Mexico. Materials and Methods A prospective, randomized clinical trial was conducted at Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia in Mexico. All patients had histologically confirmed metastatic NSCLC without previous treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive SOC or SOC + EPC. The EPC group was introduced to the palliative care team at baseline after randomization, which was integrated by psychologists, bachelor’s in nutrition, specialized nurses, and physicians. Patients randomized to this arm had programmed visits to meet with the team at baseline and through the 2nd, 4th-, and 6th cycles thereafter. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary outcomes included quality of life (QoL), anxiety and depression, and symptom intensity. They were assessed using the instruments EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) (clinicaltrials.gov [NCT01631565]). Questionnaires were completed at baseline, at 2nd, 4th, and 6th cycles of treatment. Results Between March 2012 and June 2015, 201 patients were assessed for eligibility and 146 were enrolled and allocated to receive EPC (73) or SOC (73). Median OS for patients in the EPC vs SOC arm was 18.1 months (95% CI, 7.9-28.4) and 10.5 months (95% CI, 4.7-16.2) (P = .029). Having a poor performance status (HR 1.7 [1.2-2.5]; P = .004) and allocation to the control group (HR 1.5 [1.03-2.3]; P = .034) were independently associated with a worse OS. Those patients with a global QoL > 70 at baseline had a better OS if they were In the EPC arm (38.7 months (95% CI, 9.9-67.6) vs SOC 21.4 months (95% CI, 12.4-30.3)). Mean QoL had a numerical improvement in patients allocated to EPC after 6 cycles of follow-up, nonetheless this difference was not statistically significant (55.1 ± 23.7 vs 56.9 ± 25.3; P = .753). There were no significant differences in anxiety and depression at all study points. Conclusions EPC is associated with a significant improvement in OS, although, we observed that the greatest benefit of providing EPC was observed in those with a global QoL > 70 at baseline. This study did not identify significant changes in terms of QoL or symptom burden between the study groups after follow-up. Evidence robustly suggests that EPC should be considered part of the multidisciplinary treatment of metastatic NSCLC patients since diagnosis. According to our study, EPC can be implemented in low- or middle-income countries (LMIC).

oncology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is whether early palliative care (EPC) can improve the overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced non - small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a resource - limited environment, and at the same time evaluate its impact on patients' quality of life (QoL), anxiety, depression and symptom intensity. Specifically, the research aims to:

1. **Evaluate the effect of EPC**: Compared with standard oncological care (SOC), whether EPC can significantly improve the overall survival rate of patients with advanced NSCLC.
2. **Explore the feasibility of EPC in a resource - limited environment**: Study whether EPC can be implemented in low - or middle - income countries (LMIC) and whether it is effective.
3. **Analyze the impact of EPC on specific subgroups**: Especially for patients with a higher baseline global quality of life (GQoL) score, whether EPC can bring greater survival benefits.

The research background points out that although progress has been made in cancer treatment in recent years, the 5 - year survival rate of patients with advanced NSCLC is still very low, and these patients often face a heavy symptom burden and a decline in quality of life. Therefore, the research team hopes to verify through this randomized controlled trial whether EPC can bring significant clinical benefits in the resource - limited environment of Mexico, especially in terms of survival rate. This will not only help to improve the survival time of patients, but also provide important evidence to support the necessity and feasibility of promoting EPC in similar environments.