Background: In a patient-centred model of care, referral to early palliative care (EPC) depends on both the prognosis and the complexity of care needs. The PALCOM scale is a 5-domain multidimensional assessment tool developed to identify the level of complexity of palliative care needs of cancer patients. The aim of this study was to validate the PALCOM scale. Patient and methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study of cancer patients to compare the PALCOM scale and expert empirical assessment (EA) of the complexity of palliative care needs. The EA had to categorise patients according to their complexity, considering that medium to high levels required priority attention from specialist EPC teams, while those with low levels could be managed by non-specialist teams. Systematically collected multidimensional variables were recorded in an electronic report form and stratified by level of complexity and rating system (PALCOM scale versus EA). The correlation rank (Kendall’s tau test) and accuracy test (F1-score) between the two rating systems were analysed. ROC curve analysis was used to determine the predictive power of the PALCOM scale. Results: A total of 283 advanced cancer patients were included. There were no significant differences in the frequency of the levels of complexity between the EA and the PALCOM scale (low 22.3–23.7%; medium 57.2–59.0%; high 20.5–17.3%). The prevalence of high symptom burden, severe pain, functional impairment, socio-familial risk, existential/spiritual problems, 6-month mortality and in-hospital death was significantly higher (p < 0.001) at the high complexity levels in both scoring systems. Comparative analysis showed a high correlation rank and accuracy between the two scoring systems (Kendall’s tau test 0.81, F1 score 0.84). The predictive ability of the PALCOM scale was confirmed by an area under the curve in the ROC analysis of 0.907 for high and 0.902 for low complexity. Conclusions: In a patient-centred care model, the identification of complexity is a key point to appropriate referral and management of shared care with EPC teams. The PALCOM scale is a high precision tool for determining the level of complexity of palliative care needs.

Malignant pericardial effusion (MPE) is a life-threatening condition in patients with cancer, with common recurrences after simple pericardiocentesis. Consequently, the intrapericardial instillation of sclerosing or cytotoxic agents has been explored, with limited evidence from small studies with different methodologies. We undertook an observational, retrospective, single-centre study, including all patients diagnosed with a solid neoplasm and clinically significant and/or recurrent, cytology-confirmed MPE, treated with Intrapericardial Instillation of Cisplatin (IPIC), between 2009 and 2022. Patients with hematological malignancies were excluded. The procedure followed a multidisciplinary approach and a standardized protocol. Variables collected included baseline patient characteristics, neoplasm details, MPE impact, adverse events (AEs) from procedures (pericardiocentesis and IPIC) and outcomes (time to MPE recurrence and survival). This study adhered to the STROBE guidelines. A total of 41 patients were included, 51% female, with a median age of 61 (51–69) years. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was the predominant primary tumour (78%) and in 44% of the cohort, MPE was identified at cancer diagnosis. Most patients (90.2%) presented symptoms related to MPE at diagnosis, and 88% had cardiac tamponade on echocardiography. IPIC was administered a median of four times. IPIC-related AEs occurred in 10 patients (24.4%), with transient atrial fibrillation (AF) being the most frequent one. Two patients (4.9%) experienced MPE recurrence within 30 days after IPIC. The median survival time from MPE diagnosis was 161 days (5.4 months; IQR 73–455 days). IPIC appears to be a feasible, effective and safe option for reducing the risk of MPE recurrence, mainly in NSCLC.