The evidence base demonstrating the benefits of an early focus on palliative care for patients with serious cancers, including advanced lung cancer, is substantial. Early involvement of specialty-trained palliative care clinicians in the care of patients with advanced lung cancer improves patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life, and health care delivery, including hospice utilization. Since the time that many of these palliative care trials were conducted, the paradigm of cancer care for many cancers, including lung cancer, has changed dramatically. The majority of patients with advanced lung cancer are now treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapies, both of which have had a significant impact on patient's experience and outcomes. With this changing landscape of lung cancer therapeutics, patients are facing new and different challenges, including dealing with novel side effect profiles and coping with greater uncertainty regarding their prognosis. Patients who are living longer with their advanced cancer also struggle with how to address survivorship issues, such as sexual health and exercise, and decision making about end-of-life care. Although palliative care clinicians remain well-suited to address these care needs, they may need to learn new skills to support patients treated with novel therapies. Additionally, as the experience of patients with advanced lung cancer is becoming more varied and individualized, palliative care research interventions and clinical programs should also be delivered in a patient-centered manner to best meet patient's needs and improve their outcomes. Tailored and technology-based palliative care interventions are promising strategies for delivering patient-centered palliative care.

12000 Background: Studies show that early PC (EPC) integrated with oncology care from the time of diagnosis of advanced cancer improves patient and caregiver outcomes. However, this care model has not been widely implemented given the shortage of PC clinicians and challenges in providing PC visits throughout the course of cancer treatment, especially as novel therapeutics prolong survival in this population. Therefore, to deliver more patient-centered and less resource-intensive PC, we evaluated a stepped PC (SPC) model in patients with advanced lung cancer. Methods: Between 2/12/18 and 12/15/22, we enrolled patients with advanced lung cancer, diagnosed in the past 12 weeks and an ECOG PS = 0-2 to a multi-site randomized trial of SPC versus EPC. All patients assigned to SPC started on Step 1, with an initial PC visit within four weeks of enrollment and subsequent PC visits scheduled only at the time of a change in cancer treatment or after a hospitalization. Patients on Step 1 also completed a measure of quality of life (QOL; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung [FACT-L]) every six weeks for up to 18 months from enrollment, and those with a greater than or equal to a 10-point decrease in their score from baseline were stepped up to meet with the PC clinician every four weeks (Step 2). Patients assigned to EPC had PC visits every four weeks from enrollment. The primary aim was to evaluate the non-inferiority of the effect of SPC versus EPC on QOL as measured by the FACT-L at week 24, using regression modeling. For the secondary outcomes, we conducted a superiority analysis of the number of PC visits between groups and non-inferiority analyses of patient-reported end-of-life (EOL) communication with clinicians and days enrolled in hospice, controlling for multiple comparisons with a False Discovery Rate of 0.15. Results: The sample (N = 507) included mostly patients with NSCLC (78.3%; mean age = 66.48 years; 51.4% female; 84.2% White). QOL scores at week 24 for patients assigned to SPC were non-inferior to those receiving EPC (adjusted means: 100.62 versus 97.75, p < 0.0001 for non-inferiority). Sixty-six patients (26.4%) assigned to SPC transitioned to Step 2 by 24 weeks. The mean number of PC visits by week 24 was lower for SPC versus EPC patients (adjusted means 2.44 v. 4.70, p < 0.0001). While the rate of EOL communication was non-inferior for SPC versus EPC (adjusted proportions: 0.30 v. 0.33, p = 0.09), non-inferiority was not demonstrated for days in hospice (adjusted means SPC = 19.72 v. EPC = 34.64, p = 0.9). Conclusions: A stepped care model, with PC visits scheduled only at key points in patients’ cancer trajectories and using a decrement in QOL to trigger more intensive PC exposure, results in significantly fewer PC visits without sacrificing the benefits for patients’ QOL. While SPC was associated with fewer days in hospice, this novel model holds promise as a more scalable way to deliver early PC to enhance patient-reported outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT03337399 .

BACKGROUND:Patients with advanced cancer often experience immense cancer pain that negatively impacts their quality of life. Interventions to address cancer-related pain are limited. METHODS:We conducted a randomized trial of a digital therapeutic app (ePAL) for patients with advanced cancer receiving care in a specialty palliative care clinic at a tertiary care hospital. Patients were randomized to ePAL or usual care. ePAL included 1) active pain monitoring; 2) artificial intelligence algorithm to triage patient symptoms; and 3) patient education to address barriers to pain management. Participants were instructed to use ePAL over eight weeks. Patient-reported pain symptoms were assessed at baseline, Week-4, and Week-8 (primary endpoint) using the Brief Pain Inventory. Secondary outcomes include pain-related hospitalizations by Week-8. RESULTS:We enrolled 112 patients who were randomly assigned to ePAL (N = 56) or usual care (N = 56). Patients utilized ePAL on average 2.1 times per week to report pain symptoms, and 47.6% reported their pain at least once per week over eight weeks. Patients randomized to ePAL reported lower pain scores at Week-4 (mean: 3.16 vs. 4.28, P = 0.010) and week-8 (mean:2.99 vs. 4.05, P = 0.017), compared to those receiving usual care. Participants randomized to ePAL were less likely to experience a pain-related hospitalization compared to those in the usual care group (7.1% vs. 23.2% P = 0.018) CONCLUSIONS: ePAL was associated with lower patient-reported pain and fewer pain-related hospitalizations compared to usual care in patients with advanced cancer. This study demonstrates the promise of digital therapeutics for improving patients' symptoms while reducing burdensome hospitalizations.

Importance Numerous studies show that early palliative care improves quality of life and other key outcomes in patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers, although most lack access to this evidence-based model of care. Objective To evaluate whether delivering early palliative care via secure video vs in-person visits has an equivalent effect on quality of life in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, multisite, comparative effectiveness trial from June 14, 2018, to May 4, 2023, at 22 US cancer centers among 1250 patients within 12 weeks of diagnosis of advanced NSCLC and 548 caregivers. Intervention Participants were randomized to meet with a specialty-trained palliative care clinician every 4 weeks either via video visit or in person in the outpatient clinic from the time of enrollment and throughout the course of disease. The video visit group had an initial in-person visit to establish rapport, followed by subsequent virtual visits. Main Outcomes and Measures Equivalence of the effect of video visit vs in-person early palliative care on quality of life at week 24 per the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung questionnaire (equivalence margin of ±4 points; score range: 0-136, with higher scores indicating better quality of life). Participants completed study questionnaires at enrollment and at weeks 12, 24, 36, and 48. Results By 24 weeks, participants (mean age, 65.5 years; 54.0% women; 82.7% White) had a mean of 4.7 (video) and 4.9 (in-person) early palliative care encounters. Patient-reported quality-of-life scores were equivalent between groups (video mean, 99.7 vs in-person mean, 97.7; difference, 2.0 [90% CI, 0.1-3.9]; P = .04 for equivalence). Rate of caregiver participation in visits was lower for video vs in-person early palliative care (36.6% vs 49.7%; P &lt; .001). Study groups did not differ in caregiver quality of life, patient coping, or patient and caregiver satisfaction with care, mood symptoms, or prognostic perceptions. Conclusions and Relevance The delivery of early palliative care virtually vs in person demonstrated equivalent effects on quality of life in patients with advanced NSCLC, underscoring the considerable potential for improving access to this evidence-based care model through telehealth delivery. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03375489

Context. Palliative care (PC) clinicians faced many challenges delivering outpatient care during the coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Objectives. We described trends for in-person and video visit PC delivery challenges before and during the COVID-19 pan-demic in the U.S. Methods. We performed a secondary data analysis of patient characteristics and PC clinician surveys from a multisite ran-domized controlled trial at 20 academic cancer centers. Patients newly diagnosed with advanced lung cancer (N = 653) were ran-domly assigned to receive either early in-person or telehealth PC and had at least monthly PC clinician visits. PC clinicians completed surveys documenting PC delivery challenges after each encounter. We categorized patients into 3 subgroups accord-ing to their PC visit dates relative to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.-pre-COVID-19 (all visits before March 1, 2020), pre/post-COVID-19 (>= 1 visit before and after March 1, 2020), and post-COVID-19 (all visits after March 1, 2020). We per-formed Pearson's chi-squared, Fisher's exact, and Kruskal-Wallis tests to examine associations. Results. We analyzed 2329 surveys for video visits and 2176 surveys for in-person visits. For video visits, the pre-COVID-19 sub-group (25.8% [46/178]) had the most technical difficulties followed by the pre/post-COVID-19 subgroup (17.2% [307/1784]) and then the post-COVID-19 subgroup (11.4% [42/367]) (P = 0.0001). For in-person visits, challenges related to absent patients' family members occurred most often in the post-COVID-19 subgroup (6.2% [16/259]) followed by the pre/post-COVID-19 subgroup (3.6% [50/1374]) and then the pre-COVID-19 subgroup (2.2% [12/543]) (P = 0.02). Conclusion. Technical difficulties related to PC video visits improved, whereas in-person visit challenges related to absent patients' family members worsened during the pandemic. J Pain Symptom Manage 2022;64:577-587. (c) 2022 American Acad-emy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

247 Background: Despite the importance of having a clear understanding of the likely outcome of cancer to inform medical decision-making, about one third of patients with advanced lung cancer report inaccurate perceptions of their prognosis. To identify factors associated with lower and higher prognostic understanding, we examined the relationships among patients’ perceptions of prognosis and their demographic characteristics, quality of life (QOL), and mood symptoms. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from patients enrolled in two multisite palliative care trials. Eligible participants included adults with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, or mesothelioma diagnosed in the past 12 weeks and an ECOG Performance Status <3 across 23 cancer centers in the US. At baseline, patients self-reported their current health status and understanding of whether their cancer is curable. Patients’ prognostic understanding was categorized into three levels: “high” if patients reported that their illness was terminal and incurable, “medium” if patients reported that their illness was either terminal or incurable, and “low” if patients reported that their illness was neither terminal nor incurable. To assess QOL and depression symptoms, patients completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), respectively. Linear regression models adjusting for patient demographic factors were used to examine the associations among prognostic understanding, QOL, and depression symptoms. Results: The sample included 1430 patients with advanced lung cancer (Mean age = 65.50 years; 52.5% female; 4.0% Asian, 10.6% Black, 81.8% White; 65.9% married). Patient-reported prognostic understanding varied as follows: high (45.1%), medium (32.7%), and low (22.2%). Patients who were older (p =.015), male (p <.001), Black or Asian (p =.015), or married (p =.012) had lower prognostic understanding. Adjusting for demographic factors, patients with higher prognostic understanding reported worse QOL (FACT-L: B = -5.392, SE = 0.71, p <.001) and depression symptoms (PHQ-9: B = 0.99, SE = 0.19, p < 0.001) versus those with lower prognostic understanding. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of patients with newly diagnosed advanced lung cancer have low prognostic understanding. Those with high prognostic understanding report worse QOL and depression symptoms, which may be due to patients relating their poor health status to their prognosis. Furthermore, patient age, gender, race, and relationship status are salient correlates of prognostic understanding. Tailored interventions are needed to improve illness understanding and address the related supportive care needs of patients with advanced lung cancer, especially those at risk for low prognostic understanding.

BACKGROUNDStudies show that early, integrated palliative care (PC) improves quality of life (QoL) and end-of-life (EoL) care for patients with poor-prognosis cancers. However, the optimal strategy for delivering PC for those with advanced cancers who have longer disease trajectories, such as metastatic breast cancer (MBC), remains unknown. We tested the effect of a PC intervention on the documentation of EoL care discussions, patient-reported outcomes, and hospice utilization in this population.PATIENTS AND METHODSPatients with MBC and clinical indicators of poor prognosis (n=120) were randomly assigned to receive an outpatient PC intervention (n=61) or usual care (n=59) between May 2, 2016, and December 26, 2018, at an academic cancer center. The intervention entailed 5 structured PC visits focusing on symptom management, coping, prognostic awareness, decision-making, and EoL planning. The primary outcome was documentation of EoL care discussions in the electronic health record (EHR). Secondary outcomes included patient-report of discussions with clinicians about EoL care, QoL, and mood symptoms at 6, 12, 18, and 24 weeks after baseline and hospice utilization.RESULTSThe rate of EoL care discussions documented in the EHR was higher among intervention patients versus those receiving usual care (67.2% vs 40.7%; P=.006), including a higher completion rate of a Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment form (39.3% vs 13.6%; P=.002). Intervention patients were also more likely to report discussing their EoL care wishes with their doctor (odds ratio [OR], 3.10; 95% CI, 1.21-7.94; P=.019) and to receive hospice services (OR, 4.03; 95% CI, 1.10-14.73; P=.035) compared with usual care patients. Study groups did not differ in patient-reported QoL or mood symptoms.CONCLUSIONSThis PC intervention significantly improved rates of discussion and documentation regarding EoL care and delivery of hospice services among patients with MBC, demonstrating that PC can be tailored to address the supportive care needs of patients with longer disease trajectories. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02730858.

Palliative care has been shown to help patients live well with serious illness, but the specific psychological factors that contribute to this benefit remain investigational. Although support of patient coping has emerged as a likely factor, it is unclear how palliative care helps patients to cope with serious illness. The therapeutic relationship has been proposed as a key element in beneficial patient outcomes, possibly undergirding effective patient and family coping. Understanding the distress of our patients with psychological depth requires the input of varied clinicians and thinkers. The complex conceptual model we developed draws upon the contributions of medicine, nursing, psychology, spiritual care, and social work disciplines. To elucidate these issues, we convened an interdisciplinary seminar of content experts to explore the psychological components of palliative care practice. "Healing Beyond the Cure: Exploring the Psychodynamic Aspects of Palliative Care" was held in May 2019 at Harvard University's Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. Over two days, the working group explored these essential elements of successful palliative care encounters through lecture and open discussion. This special report describes the key psychological aspects of palliative care that we believe underlie optimal adaptive coping in palliative care patients. We also outline key areas for further development in palliative care research, education, and clinical practice. The discussion held at this meeting became the basis for a planned series of articles on the psychological elements of palliative care that will be published in the Journal of Palliative Medicine on a monthly basis during the fall and winter of 2021-2022.

1008 Background: Studies have demonstrated the benefits of early, integrated palliative care in improving quality of life (QOL) and end-of-life (EOL) care for patients with poor prognosis cancers. However, the optimal timing and outcomes of delivering palliative care for those with advanced cancers that have longer disease trajectories, such as metastatic breast cancer (MBC), remains unknown. We tested the effect of a collaborative palliative and oncology care model on communication about EOL care in patients with MBC. Methods: Patients with MBC and clinical indicators of poor prognosis (N=120) were randomized to receive collaborative palliative and oncology care or usual care between 05/02/2016 and 12/26/2018. The intervention entailed five structured palliative care visits, including a joint visit with oncology when possible, which focused on symptom management, coping, prognostic awareness, decision-making, and planning for EOL. The primary outcome was documentation of EOL care discussions in the electronic health record. Patients also completed questionnaires at baseline and 6, 12, 18, and 24 weeks regarding communication with clinicians about EOL care, QOL, and mood symptoms. Results: The sample included only women (100.0%) who mostly identified as white (87.5%), with a mean age of 56.91 years (SD=11.24). The rate of EOL care discussions documented in the health record was higher among intervention patients versus those receiving usual care (67.2% vs 40.7%, p=0.006), including a higher completion rate of a Medical Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment form (39.3% vs 13.6%, p=0.002). Intervention patients were also more likely to report discussing their EOL care wishes with their doctor compared to usual care patients (OR=3.10, 95% CI: 1.21, 7.94, p=0.019). Study groups did not differ in reported QOL or mood symptoms. Conclusions: This novel collaborative palliative care intervention significantly improved communication and documentation regarding EOL care for women with MBC. Further work is needed to examine the effect of this care model on healthcare utilization at the end of life.

Context. Individuals caring for patients with advanced cancer (caregivers) experience psychological distress during the patient's illness course. However, data on the prevalence of bereaved caregivers' psychological distress and its relationship with the quality of patient's end of life (EOL) care are limited. Objectives. To describe rates of depression and anxiety symptoms in bereaved caregivers of patients with advanced cancer and to understand the relationship between these outcomes and patient distress at the EOL. Methods. We conducted a secondary analysis of 168 caregivers enrolled in a supportive care trial for patients with incurable lung and gastrointestinal cancers and their caregivers. We used the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale to assess caregivers' depression and anxiety symptoms at three months after the patient's death. Caregivers also rated the patient's physical and psychological distress in the last week of life on a 10-point scale three months after the patient death. We used linear regression adjusting for caregiver age, sex, randomization, and cancer type to explore the relationship between bereaved caregivers' depression and anxiety symptoms and their ratings of physical and psychological distress in patients at the EOL. Results. Of the 168 bereaved caregivers, 30.4% (n = 51) and 43.4% (n = 73) reported clinically significant depression and anxiety symptoms, respectively. Caregiver ratings of worse physical (B = 0.32; P = 0.009) and psychological (B = 0.50; P < 0.001) distress experienced by the patient at the EOL were associated with worse depression symptoms in bereaved caregivers. Only caregiver rating of worse psychological distress experienced by the patient at the EOL (B = 0.42; P < 0.001) was associated with worse bereaved caregivers' anxiety symptoms. Conclusion. Many bereaved caregivers of patients with advanced cancer experience symptoms of depression and anxiety, which are associated with their perceptions of distress in their loved ones at the EOL. (C) 2020 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction: Early palliative care (PC) integrated with oncology care improves quality of life (QOL), depression symptoms, illness understanding, and end-of-life (EOL) care for patients with advanced lung cancer. The aims of this trial are to compare the effect of delivering early integrated PC through telehealth versus in-person on patient and caregiver outcomes. We hypothesize that both modalities for delivering early PC would be equivalent for improving patient QOL, communication about EOL care preferences with their oncologist, and length of stay in hospice. Methods: For this comparative effectiveness trial, we will enroll and randomize 1250 adult patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), who are not being treated with curative intent, to receive either early integrated telehealth or in-person PC at 20 cancer centers throughout the United States. Patients may also invite a family caregiver to participate in the study. Patients and their caregivers in both study groups meet at least every four weeks with a PC clinician from within 12 weeks of patient diagnosis of advanced NSCLC until death. Participants complete measures of QOL, mood, and quality of communication with oncologists at baseline before randomization and at 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks. Information on health care utilization, including length of stay in hospice, will be collected from patients' health records. To test equivalence in outcomes between study groups, we will compute analysis of covariance and mixed linear models, controlling for baseline scores and study site. Study Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement: To ensure that this comparative effectiveness trial and findings are as patient centered and meaningful as possible, we have incorporated a robust patient and stakeholder engagement plan. Our stakeholder partners include (1) patients/families, (2) PC clinicians, (3) telehealth experts and clinician users, (4) representatives from health care systems and medical insurance providers, and (5) health care policy makers and advocates. These stakeholders will inform and provide feedback about every phase of study implementation.

BACKGROUND:Growing evidence demonstrates the benefits of early, integrated palliative care (PC) for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. Yet, data are lacking on the communication patterns within this model of care.OBJECTIVE:The goals of this study were to describe the content of patient-clinician discussions among patients receiving PC and to compare differences in discussion content between oncologists and PC clinicians.DESIGN:We conducted a qualitative observational analysis.SETTING/SUBJECTS:We included patients with incurable lung and esophageal cancer enrolled in a randomized trial of early, integrated PC versus usual oncology care. We analyzed 68 audio-recorded clinic visits (34 oncologist visits; 34 PC clinician visits) immediately after patients' (N = 19) first and second cancer progressions. We examined themes of clinician communication, comparing the content and frequency of discussions between oncologists and PC clinicians.RESULTS:Although both oncology and PC clinicians discussed symptom management, medical understanding, and treatment decision making with patients at nearly all postprogression visits, PC clinicians tended to assess patient understanding of the treatment process and prognosis more often than oncologists. PC clinicians addressed patient coping, caregiver experiences and needs, and advance care planning more frequently than oncologists.CONCLUSION:PC clinicians play a distinct, complementary role to oncologists in providing care for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. PC clinicians tend to assess and elaborate on patient understanding of prognosis and treatment and emphasize effective coping, caregiver needs, and advance care planning. These results illuminate the communication elements by which early, integrated PC may improve patient and caregiver outcomes.

Purpose We evaluated the impact of early integrated palliative care (PC) in patients with newly diagnosed lung and GI cancer. Patients and Methods We randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed incurable lung or noncolorectal GI cancer to receive either early integrated PC and oncology care (n = 175) or usual care (n = 175) between May 2011 and July 2015. Patients who were assigned to the intervention met with a PC clinician at least once per month until death, whereas those who received usual care consulted a PC clinician upon request. The primary end point was change in quality of life (QOL) from baseline to week 12, per scoring by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General scale. Secondary end points included change in QOL from baseline to week 24, change in depression per the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and differences in end-of-life communication. Results Intervention patients ( v usual care) reported greater improvement in QOL from baseline to week 24 (1.59 v -3.40; P = .010) but not week 12 (0.39 v -1.13; P = .339). Intervention patients also reported lower depression at week 24, controlling for baseline scores (adjusted mean difference, -1.17; 95% CI, -2.33 to -0.01; P = .048). Intervention effects varied by cancer type, such that intervention patients with lung cancer reported improvements in QOL and depression at 12 and 24 weeks, whereas usual care patients with lung cancer reported deterioration. Patients with GI cancers in both study groups reported improvements in QOL and mood by week 12. Intervention patients versus usual care patients were more likely to discuss their wishes with their oncologist if they were dying (30.2% v 14.5%; P = .004). Conclusion For patients with newly diagnosed incurable cancers, early integrated PC improved QOL and other salient outcomes, with differential effects by cancer type. Early integrated PC may be most effective if targeted to the specific needs of each patient population.

Background. The family and friends (caregivers) of patients with advanced cancer often experience tremendous distress. Although early integrated palliative care (PC) has been shown to improve patient-reported quality of life (QOL) and mood, its effects on caregivers' outcomes is currently unknown. Materials and Methods. We conducted a randomized trial of early PC integrated with oncology care versus oncology care alone for patients who were newly diagnosed with incurable lung and noncolorectal gastrointestinal cancers and their caregivers. The early PC intervention focused on addressing the needs of both patients and their caregivers. Eligible caregivers were family or friends who would likely accompany patients to clinic visits. The intervention entailed at least monthly patient visits with PC from the time of diagnosis. Caregivers were encouraged, but not required, to attend the palliative care visits. We used the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Medical Health Outcomes Survey Short-Form to assess caregiver mood and QOL. Results. Two hundred seventy-five caregivers (intervention n = 137; control n = 138) of the 350 patients participated. The intervention led to improvement in caregivers' total distress (HADS-total adjusted mean difference = 21.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.76 to -0.15, p = .029), depression subscale (HADS-depression adjusted mean difference = -0.71, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.05, p = .036), but not anxiety subscale or QOL at week 12. There were no differences in caregivers' outcomes at week 24. A terminal decline analysis showed significant intervention effects on caregivers' total distress (HADS-total), with effects on both the anxiety and depression sub-scales at 3 and 6 months before patient death. Conclusion. Early involvement of PC for patients with newly diagnosed lung and gastrointestinal cancers leads to improvement in caregivers' psychological symptoms. This work demonstrates that the benefits of early, integrated PC models in oncology care extend beyond patient outcomes and positively impact the experience of caregivers.

104 Background: Early palliative care (PC) improves outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and in patients identified by clinicians as having poor prognosis, advanced cancer. We evaluated the impact of early, integrated palliative and oncology care in patients with newly diagnosed lung and gastrointestinal (GI) cancer. Methods: Between 5/2/11 and 7/20/15, we randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed incurable lung (NSCLC, small cell, mesothelioma) or GI (pancreas, hepatobiliary, gastric, esophageal) cancer to PC integrated with oncology care (monthly visits with PC) or usual oncology care. We used the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) to assess quality of life (QOL) and the Patient Health Questionniare-9 (PHQ-9) for mood at baseline, weeks 12 and 24. We also assessed patients’ coping styles (Brief COPE), perceptions of likelihood of cure and communication about end-of-life (EOL) preferences. To evaluate intervention effects on patient-reported outcomes, we performed chi square tests and linear regression, controlling for baseline values and clinical factors. Results: We randomized 350 patients (175 per group), including 191 lung and 159 GI cancer patients. Patients assigned to early PC had higher QOL (B = 5.36, 95% CI: 2.04 to 8.69, p = 0.002) and less depression on the PHQ-9 (B = -1.17, 95% CI: -2.33 to -0.01, p = 0.048) at 24 weeks, but not at 12 weeks. Also at 24 weeks, the intervention group was significantly more likely to report using active and engaged coping styles compared to the usual care group (B = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.23 to 1.96, p = 0.013). Similar proportions of patients at 24 weeks reported that their cancer was unlikely to be cured (36/105 [33.6%] in PC and 43/115 [37.4%] in usual care) but more patients assigned to early PC reported they discussed their EOL preferences (35/116 [30.2%] versus 17/117 [14.5%], p = 0.004). Change in QOL over time differed between the lung and GI cancer cohorts. Conclusions: Early PC improved QOL, mood, coping, and the frequency of EOL discussions in patients with newly diagnosed lung and GI cancer. The benefits of the integrated care model extend to other populations with advanced disease and include improved communication about EOL care. Clinical trial information: NCT01401907.

Continuity outpatient palliative care practice is characterized by long relationships between patients, families, and palliative care clinicians and by periods of relative stability when the disease and resultant symptoms are less active. Compared to inpatient palliative care, outpatient practice requires a greater focus on encouraging healthy coping and on helping patients to live well with serious illness. This paper discusses the opportunities to promote adaptive coping in the delivery of outpatient palliative care.

Background: There is good evidence for the efficacy of inpatient palliative care in improving clinical care, patient and provider satisfaction, quality of life, and health care utilization. However, the evidence for the efficacy of nonhospice outpatient palliative care is less well known and has not been comprehensively reviewed. Objective: To review and assess the evidence of the impact of outpatient palliative care. Methods: Our study was a review of published, peer-reviewed outcomes research, including both observational studies and controlled trials of nonhospice outpatient palliative care services. We assessed patient, family caregiver, and clinician satisfaction; clinical outcomes including symptom management, quality of life, and mortality; and heath care utilization outcomes including readmission rates, hospice use, and cost. Results: Four well-designed randomized interventions as well as a growing body of nonrandomized studies indicate that outpatient palliative care services can: 1) improve patient satisfaction, 2) improve symptom control and quality of life, 3) reduce health care utilization, and 4) lengthen survival in a population of lung cancer patients. Conclusions: The available evidence supports the ongoing expansion of innovative outpatient palliative care service models throughout the care continuum to all patients with serious illness.