Background: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) is a validated instrument whose use has been standardized in the Ontario cancer system to measure symptoms among ambulatory cancer patients. The objective was to examine the effect of ESAS exposure on overall survival. We hypothesized, a priori, that patients exposed to ESAS would have higher rates of overall survival than those who were not exposed.Methods: This was a retrospective matched cohort study of adults diagnosed with cancer between 2007 and 2015. Patients were considered exposed if they were screened with ESAS at least once during the study period. Their first ESAS screening date defined the index date. Each exposed patient was matched randomly to a cancer patient without ESAS using a combination of hard matching (4 variables) and propensity score matching (14 variables). Kaplan‐Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression were used to evaluate the impact of ESAS exposure on survival.Results: There were 128,893 pairs well matched on all baseline characteristics. The probability of survival within the first 5 years was higher among those exposed to ESAS compared to those who were not (81.9% vs. 76.4% at 1 year, 68.3% vs. 66.1% at 3 years, 61.9% vs. 61.4% at 5 years, P‐value < .0001). In the multivariable Cox regression model, ESAS was significantly associated with a decreased mortality risk (HR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.47‐0.49).Conclusions: Our results show that ESAS exposure is associated with improved survival in cancer patients. This provides real world evidence of the impact of routine symptom assessment in cancer care.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the impact of early versus not-early palliative care among cancer decedents on end-of-life health care costs.METHODS: Using linked administrative databases, we created a retrospective cohort of cancer decedents between 2004 and 2014 in Ontario, Canada. We identified those who received early palliative care (palliative care service used in the hospital or community 12 to 6 months before death [exposure]). We used propensity score matching to identify a control group of not-early palliative care, hard matched on age, sex, cancer type, and stage at diagnosis. We examined differences in average health system costs (including hospital, emergency department, physician, and home care costs) between groups in the last month of life.RESULTS: We identified 144,306 cancer decedents, of which 37% received early palliative care. After matching, we created 36,238 pairs of decedents who received early and not-early (control) palliative care; there were balanced distributions of age, sex, cancer type (24% lung cancer), and stage (25% stage III and IV). Overall, 56.3% of early group versus 66.7% of control group used inpatient care in the last month ( P < .001). Considering inpatient hospital costs in the last month of life, the early group used an average (±standard deviation) of $7,105 (±$10,710) versus the control group of $9,370 (±$13,685; P < .001). Overall average costs (±standard deviation) in the last month of life for patients in the early versus control group was $12,753 (±$10,868) versus $14,147 (±$14,288; P < .001).CONCLUSION: Receiving early palliative care reduced average health system costs in the last month of life, especially via avoided hospitalizations.

Background: The use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in routine clinical care can help ensure symptoms are identified, acknowledged and addressed. In 2007, the provincial cancer agency, Cancer Care Ontario, began to implement routine symptom screening with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) for ambulatory cancer patients. Having had a decade of experience with ESAS, the program developed a strategic interest in implementing new and/or additional measures. This article describes the development of a streamlined PROM selection and implementation evaluation process with core considerations. Methods: Development of the PROM selection and implementation evaluation process involved analysis of quantitative and qualitative data as well as consensus building through a multi-stakeholder workshop. Core PROM selection considerations were developed through a literature scan, review and refinement by a panel of methodological experts and patient advisors, and testing via a test case. Core PROM implementation evaluation considerations were developed through analysis of PROM evaluation frameworks, and review and refinement by a committee of provincial implementation leads. Results: Core PROM selection considerations were identified under three overarching themes: symptom coverage, usability and psychometric properties. The symptom coverage category assesses each PROM to determine how well the PROM items address the most prevalent and burdensome symptoms in the target patient population. The usability category aims to assess each measure on characteristics key to successful implementation in the clinical setting. The psychometric properties category assesses each PROM to ensure the data collected is credible, meaningful and interpretable. A scoring system was developed to rate PROM performance by assigning a grade of “weak”, “average” or “good” for each category. The process results in a summary matrix which illustrates the overall assessment of each PROM. Implementation evaluation considerations were identified under three overarching concepts: acceptability, outcomes, and sustainability. A consensus building exercise resulted in the further identification of patient, provider, and clinic specific indicators for each consideration. Conclusion: To address the need for a systematic, evidence-based approach to selection, implementation and evaluation of PROMs in the clinical setting, Cancer Care Ontario defined a process with embedded core considerations to facilitate decision-making and encourage standardization.

Purpose: To describe the trajectory of physical symptoms among cancer decedents who were receiving home care in the six months before death. Patients and Methods: An observational cohort study of cancer decedents in Ontario, Canada, who received home care services between 2007 and 2014. To be included, decedents had to use at least one home care service in the last six months of life. Outcomes were the presence of pain and several other physical symptoms at each week before death. Results: Our cohort included 27,295 cancer decedents (30,368 assessments). Forty-seven percent were female and 56% were age 75 years or older. The prevalence of all physical symptoms increased as one approached death, particularly in the last month of life. In the last weeks of life, 69% of patients reported having moderate–severe pain; however, only 20% reported that the pain was not controlled. Loss of appetite (63%), shortness of breath (59%), high health instability (50%), and self-reported poor health (44%) were also highly prevalent in the last week of life. Multivariate regression showed that caregiver distress, high health instability, social decline, uncontrolled pain, and signs of depression all worsened the odds of having a physical symptom in the last 3 months of life. Conclusion: In this large home care cancer cohort, trajectories of physical symptoms worsened close to death. While presence of moderate–severe pain was common, it was also reported as mostly controlled. Covariates, such as caregiver distress and social decline, were associated with having more physical symptoms at end of life.