Haun Markus W, Estel Stephanie, Rücker Gerta, Friederich Hans-Christoph, Villalobos Matthias, Thomas Michael, Hartmann Mechthild
Department of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany, D-69120.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 12;6(6):CD011129. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011129.pub2.
Incurable cancer, which often constitutes an enormous challenge for patients, their families, and medical professionals, profoundly affects the patient's physical and psychosocial well-being. In standard cancer care, palliative measures generally are initiated when it is evident that disease-modifying treatments have been unsuccessful, no treatments can be offered, or death is anticipated. In contrast, early palliative care is initiated much earlier in the disease trajectory and closer to the diagnosis of incurable cancer.
To compare effects of early palliative care interventions versus treatment as usual/standard cancer care on health-related quality of life, depression, symptom intensity, and survival among adults with a diagnosis of advanced cancer.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, OpenGrey (a database for grey literature), and three clinical trial registers to October 2016. We checked reference lists, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) on professional palliative care services that provided or co-ordinated comprehensive care for adults at early advanced stages of cancer.
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and collected information on adverse events. For quantitative synthesis, we combined respective results on our primary outcomes of health-related quality of life, survival (death hazard ratio), depression, and symptom intensity across studies in meta-analyses using an inverse variance random-effects model. We expressed pooled effects as standardised mean differences (SMDs, or Hedges' adjusted g). We assessed certainty of evidence at the outcome level using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
We included seven randomised and cluster-randomised controlled trials that together recruited 1614 participants. Four studies evaluated interventions delivered by specialised palliative care teams, and the remaining studies assessed models of co-ordinated care. Overall, risk of bias at the study level was mostly low, apart from possible selection bias in three studies and attrition bias in one study, along with insufficient information on blinding of participants and outcome assessment in six studies.Compared with usual/standard cancer care alone, early palliative care significantly improved health-related quality of life at a small effect size (SMD 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.38; participants analysed at post treatment = 1028; evidence of low certainty). As re-expressed in natural units (absolute change in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) score), health-related quality of life scores increased on average by 4.59 (95% CI 2.55 to 6.46) points more among participants given early palliative care than among control participants. Data on survival, available from four studies enrolling a total of 800 participants, did not indicate differences in efficacy (death hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28; evidence of very low certainty). Levels of depressive symptoms among those receiving early palliative care did not differ significantly from levels among those receiving usual/standard cancer care (five studies; SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.03; participants analysed at post treatment = 762; evidence of very low certainty). Results from seven studies that analysed 1054 participants post treatment suggest a small effect for significantly lower symptom intensity in early palliative care compared with the control condition (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.10; evidence of low certainty). The type of model used to provide early palliative care did not affect study results. One RCT reported potential adverse events of early palliative care, such as a higher percentage of participants with severe scores for pain and poor appetite; the remaining six studies did not report adverse events in study publications. For these six studies, principal investigators stated upon request that they had not observed any adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of a small number of trials indicates that early palliative care interventions may have more beneficial effects on quality of life and symptom intensity among patients with advanced cancer than among those given usual/standard cancer care alone. Although we found only small effect sizes, these may be clinically relevant at an advanced disease stage with limited prognosis, at which time further decline in quality of life is very common. At this point, effects on mortality and depression are uncertain. We have to interpret current results with caution owing to very low to low certainty of current evidence and between-study differences regarding participant populations, interventions, and methods. Additional research now under way will present a clearer picture of the effect and specific indication of early palliative care. Upcoming results from several ongoing studies (N = 20) and studies awaiting assessment (N = 10) may increase the certainty of study results and may lead to improved decision making. In perspective, early palliative care is a newly emerging field, and well-conducted studies are needed to explicitly describe the components of early palliative care and control treatments, after blinding of participants and outcome assessors, and to report on possible adverse events.
无法治愈的癌症常常给患者及其家人以及医疗专业人员带来巨大挑战,严重影响患者的身体和心理社会福祉。在标准的癌症治疗中,姑息治疗措施通常在明确疾病改善治疗未成功、无法提供进一步治疗或预计患者死亡时启动。相比之下,早期姑息治疗在疾病进程中更早开始,且更接近无法治愈癌症的诊断时间。
比较早期姑息治疗干预措施与常规治疗/标准癌症治疗对已诊断为晚期癌症的成年人的健康相关生活质量、抑郁、症状强度和生存率的影响。
我们检索了截至2016年10月的Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、Embase、护理学与健康相关文献累积索引(CINAHL)、PsycINFO、OpenGrey(灰色文献数据库)以及三个临床试验注册库。我们检查了参考文献列表,检索了引文,并联系了研究作者以识别其他研究。
关于专业姑息治疗服务的随机对照试验(RCT)和整群随机对照试验(cRCT),这些服务为癌症早晚期的成年人提供或协调综合护理。
我们采用了Cochrane预期的标准方法程序。我们评估了偏倚风险,提取了数据,并收集了不良事件的信息。对于定量合成,我们在荟萃分析中使用逆方差随机效应模型,将各项研究中关于健康相关生活质量、生存率(死亡风险比)、抑郁和症状强度等主要结局的各自结果进行合并。我们将合并效应表示为标准化均数差(SMD,或Hedges调整后的g)。我们使用GRADE(推荐分级评估、制定和评价)在结局层面评估证据的确定性,并创建了一个“结果总结”表。
我们纳入了7项随机和整群随机对照试验,共招募了1614名参与者。4项研究评估了由专业姑息治疗团队提供的干预措施,其余研究评估了协调护理模式。总体而言,研究层面的偏倚风险大多较低,但有3项研究可能存在选择偏倚,1项研究存在失访偏倚,还有6项研究在参与者和结局评估的盲法方面信息不足。与单纯的常规/标准癌症治疗相比,早期姑息治疗在较小效应量下显著改善了健康相关生活质量(SMD 0.27,95%置信区间(CI)0.15至0.3