Dataset Information

Establishment of a research policy for supportive and palliative care in Japan.

ABSTRACT:

Background

While several small groups in Japan have attempted to conduct prospective studies in the field of supportive and palliative care, development of exploratory research into multicentre confirmatory studies has been difficult. The main reason for this is the difference in clinical research methodology in supportive and palliative care compared with medical oncology in terms of the style of multidisciplinary approaches, study design and endpoints. Here, we establish a new research policy for cancer supportive and palliative care in Japan.

Methods

The first draft was developed by a policy working group within the Japanese Supportive, Palliative and Psychosocial Care Study Group. A provisional draft was subsequently developed after review by nine Japanese scientific societies (Japanese Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, Japanese Society of Medical Oncology, Japanese Society of Clinical Oncology, Japanese Society of Palliative Medicine, Japanese Society of Cancer Nursing, Japanese Society of Pharmaceutical Oncology (JASPO), Japan Cancer Association (JCA), Japanese Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology and Japanese Cancer Association) and receipt of public comments. The final research policy in the area of supportive and palliative care in Japan (Ver1.0) was completed in December 2018 and underwent its first revision (Ver1.1) in February, 2020.

Results

The policy includes the following components of clinical research: (i) objective of the research policy in the areas of supportive and palliative care; (ii) definitions of supportive care and palliative care; (iii) characteristics of supportive and palliative care research; (iv) target population for research; (v) research design; (vi) endpoints and assessment measures; (vii) handling of the deaths of subjects and (viii) operational structure and quality management.

Conclusions

We hope that studies conducted according to this policy will play important roles in the future development of the supportive and palliative field.

SUBMITTER: Zenda S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8129624 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe choice between palliative chemotherapy (defined as the use of cytotoxic medications delivered intravenously for the purpose of our study) and supportive care alone is one of the most difficult decisions in pediatric oncology, yet little is known about the preferences of parents and health care professionals. We compared the strength of these preferences by considering children's quality of life and survival time as key attributes. In addition, we identified factors associated with the reported preferences.MethodsWe included parents of children whose cancer had no reasonable chance of being cured and health care professionals in pediatric oncology as participants in our study. We administered separate interviews to parents and to health care professionals. Visual analogue scales were shown to respondents to illustrate the anticipated level of the child's quality of life, the expected duration of survival and the probability of cure (shown only to health care professionals). Respondents were then asked which treatment option they would favour given these baseline attributes. In addition, respondents reported what factors might affect such a decision and ranked all factors identified in order of importance. The primary measure was the desirability score for supportive care alone relative to palliative chemotherapy, as obtained using the threshold technique.ResultsA total of 77 parents and 128 health care professionals participated in our study. Important factors influencing the decision between therapeutic options were child quality-of-life and survival time among both parents and health care professionals. Hope was particularly important to parents. Parents significantly favoured chemotherapy (42/77, 54.5%) compared with health care professionals (20/128, 15.6%; p < 0.0001). The opinions of the physician and child significantly influenced the parents' desire for supportive care; for health care professionals, the opinions of parents and children were significant factors influencing this decision.InterpretationCompared with health care professionals, parents more strongly favour aggressive treatment in the palliative phase and rank hope as a more important factor for making decisions about treatment. Understanding the differences between parents and health care professionals in the relative desirability of supportive care alone may aid in communication and improve end-of-life care for children with cancer.

Project description:In palliative cancer treatment, the choice between palliative chemotherapy and best supportive care may be difficult. In the decision-making process, giving information as well as patients' values and preferences become important issues. Patients, however, may have a treatment preference before they even meet their medical oncologist. An insight into the patient's decision-making process can support clinicians having to inform their patients. Patients (n=207) with metastatic cancer, aged 18 years or older, able to speak Dutch, for whom palliative chemotherapy was a treatment option, were eligible for the study. We assessed the following before they consulted their medical oncologist: (1) socio-demographic characteristics, (2) disease-related variables, (3) quality-of-life indices, (4) attitudes and (5) preferences for treatment, information and participation in decision-making. The actual treatment decision, assessed after it had been made, was the main study outcome. Of 207 eligible patients, 140 patients (68%) participated in the study. At baseline, 68% preferred to undergo chemotherapy rather than wait watchfully. Eventually, 78% chose chemotherapy. Treatment preference (odds ratio (OR)=10.3, confidence interval (CI) 2.8-38.0) and a deferring style of decision-making (OR=4.9, CI 1.4-17.2) best predicted the actual treatment choice. Treatment preference (total explained variance=38.2%) was predicted, in turn, by patients' striving for length of life (29.5%), less striving for quality of life (6.1%) and experienced control over the cause of disease (2.6%). Patients' actual treatment choice was most strongly predicted by their preconsultation treatment preference. Since treatment preference is positively explained by striving for length of life, and negatively by striving for quality of life, it is questionable whether the purpose of palliative treatment is made clear. This, paradoxically, emphasises the need for further attention to the process of information giving and shared decision-making.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to analyze the determinants of patients' choice between palliative chemotherapy and best supportive care (BSC) and to investigate how this choice affects overall survival (OS) and length of hospitalization according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS).MethodsAn oncologist explained the palliative chemotherapy and BSC options to 129 patients with incurable cancer during their first consultation. Data on the ECOG PS, treatment decision, OS, and the length of hospitalization were retrospectively collected over 4 years.ResultsPatients with an ECOG PS of 0-2 chose palliative chemotherapy more often than those with an ECOG PS of 3-4 (P < 0.01). Patients with ≤70 years chose palliative chemotherapy more often than those with > 70 (P < 0.05). And patients with gastric cancer and colon cancer chose palliative chemotherapy more often than those with CUP (carcinoma of unknown primary) (P < 0.05, P < 0.05 respectively). Factors associated with a significantly poorer OS in an adjusted analysis included the ECOG PS and treatment decision (hazard ratios: 0.18 and 0.43; P < 0.001, P < 0.01 respectively). In patients with an ECOG PS of 0-2, palliative chemotherapy was not associated with a longer OS compared with BSC (median OS: 14.5 vs. 6.8 months, respectively; P = 0.144). In patients with an ECOG PS of 3-4, palliative chemotherapy resulted in a significant survival gain compared to with BSC (median OS: 3.8 vs. 1.4 months, respectively; P < 0.05). Strong positive correlations between OS and the length of hospitalization were observed in patients with an ECOG PS of 3-4 who underwent palliative chemotherapy (r2 = 0.683) and the length of hospitalization was approximately one-third of their OS.ConclusionsThe determinants for treatment choice were age, ECOG PS and type of cancer, not sex difference. Oncologists should explain to patients that OS and the length of hospitalization vary according to the ECOG PS when selecting between palliative chemotherapy and BSC.