BACKGROUND: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) is a validated tool for physical symptom assessment in palliative care practice which evaluates symptoms through a numeric scale from 0 to 10. The use of symptom improvement as a prognostic factor is controversial. To this purpose, a pilot study in advanced cancer patients now undergoing only palliative care was conducted. METHODS: Patients were considered eligible if no longer able to receive any anticancer treatment; they were scheduled to undergo ESAS assessment at the hospitalization and hospital discharge time points. Symptoms' scores were divided into three severity classes: mild, moderate and severe. Differences across symptoms' classes between hospitalization and hospital discharge time points were analysed with the paired-data McNemar test, according to tumour types. RESULTS: ESAS assessment was administered to 68 patients with gastrointestinal (39 patients) and non-small cell lung cancer (29 patients); median age was 69 years; Karnofsky Performance Status was 50 in 27 (39.7%) patients and >50 in 41 (60.3%) patients. Palliative Prognostic Score was A for 26 (38.2%) patients, B for 37 (54.4%) patients and C for 5 (7.4%) patients. A statistically significant reduction of severe severity class rates was observed. Symptom improvement correlates with survival improvement: Palliative Prognostic Score (hazard ratio (HR) 2.95, 95% CI 1.35-6.41, p = 0.006) and anorexia (HR 3.21, 95% 1.33-7.72, p = 0.009) appear to be prognostic factors for survival at the multivariate analysis for gastrointestinal cancer patients; asthenia is the only significant variable (HR 5.11, 95% CI 1.86-14.03, p = 0.002) for non-small cell lung cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom improvement according to ESAS after palliative care treatment represents an important prognostic for survival in patients no longer suitable to receive any anticancer active therapies.
BACKGROUND: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) is a validated tool for physical symptom assessment in palliative care practice which evaluates symptoms through a numeric scale from 0 to 10. The use of symptom improvement as a prognostic factor is controversial. To this purpose, a pilot study in advanced cancerpatients now undergoing only palliative care was conducted. METHODS:Patients were considered eligible if no longer able to receive any anticancer treatment; they were scheduled to undergo ESAS assessment at the hospitalization and hospital discharge time points. Symptoms' scores were divided into three severity classes: mild, moderate and severe. Differences across symptoms' classes between hospitalization and hospital discharge time points were analysed with the paired-data McNemar test, according to tumour types. RESULTS: ESAS assessment was administered to 68 patients with gastrointestinal (39 patients) and non-small cell lung cancer (29 patients); median age was 69 years; Karnofsky Performance Status was 50 in 27 (39.7%) patients and >50 in 41 (60.3%) patients. Palliative Prognostic Score was A for 26 (38.2%) patients, B for 37 (54.4%) patients and C for 5 (7.4%) patients. A statistically significant reduction of severe severity class rates was observed. Symptom improvement correlates with survival improvement: Palliative Prognostic Score (hazard ratio (HR) 2.95, 95% CI 1.35-6.41, p = 0.006) and anorexia (HR 3.21, 95% 1.33-7.72, p = 0.009) appear to be prognostic factors for survival at the multivariate analysis for gastrointestinal cancerpatients; asthenia is the only significant variable (HR 5.11, 95% CI 1.86-14.03, p = 0.002) for non-small cell lung cancerpatients. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom improvement according to ESAS after palliative care treatment represents an important prognostic for survival in patients no longer suitable to receive any anticancer active therapies.
Authors: M Pirovano; M Maltoni; O Nanni; M Marinari; M Indelli; G Zaninetta; V Petrella; S Barni; E Zecca; E Scarpi; R Labianca; D Amadori; G Luporini Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Davide Tassinari; Luigi Montanari; Marco Maltoni; Michela Ballardini; Alessandra Piancastelli; Marco Musi; Giampiero Porzio; Vincenzo Minotti; Augusto Caraceni; Barbara Poggi; Anna Stella; Federica Aielli; Emanuela Scarpi Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2007-07-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Fabrice Denis; Louise Viger; Alexandre Charron; Eric Voog; Christophe Letellier Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-09-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Fabrice Denis; Louise Viger; Alexandre Charron; Eric Voog; Olivier Dupuis; Yoann Pointreau; Christophe Letellier Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-01-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Maria Nabal; Mar Bescos; Miquel Barcons; Pilar Torrubia; Javier Trujillano; Antonio Requena Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Eva K Masel; Patrick Huber; Sophie Schur; Katharina A Kierner; Romina Nemecek; Herbert H Watzke Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-01-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Roberta Grande; Clara Natoli; Fabrizio Ciancola; Donatello Gemma; Arianna Pellegrino; Ida Pavese; Carlo Garufi; Luigi Di Lauro; Domenico Corsi; Diego Signorelli; Isabella Sperduti; Giada Cortese; Emanuela Risi; Federica Morano; Domenico Sergi; Carlo Signorelli; Enzo Maria Ruggeri; Germano Zampa; Marco Russano; Teresa Gamucci Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 3.240