The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) is a well-known self-reporting tool for symptom assessment in palliative care. Research has shown that patients experience difficulties in the scoring and interpretation, which may lead to suboptimal treatment. The aims were to examine how palliative care cancer patients interpreted and responded to the ESAS. Eleven patients (3 F/8 M), median age 65 (34–95) with mixed diagnoses were interviewed by means of cognitive interviewing, immediately after having completed the ESAS. The highest mean scores were found with tiredness (6.3) and oral dryness (5.7). The results showed that sources of error were related to interpretation of symptoms and differences in the understanding and use of the response format. The depression and anxiety symptoms were perceived as difficult to interpret, while the appetite item was particularly prone to misunderstandings. Contextual factors, such as mood and time of the day, influenced the answers. Lack of information and feedback from staff influenced the scores. Some patients stated that they scored at random because they did not understand why and how the ESAS was used. The patients’ interpretation must be considered in order to minimize errors. The ESAS should always be reviewed with the patients after completion to improve symptom management, thereby strengthening the usability of the ESAS.

Patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancers often receive chemotherapy near the end of life (EoL), raising concerns about overtreatment. The PALLiON trial, a cluster-randomized trial, assessed the impact of a complex intervention on frequency of EoL treatment; the intervention involved palliative care referrals and the use of PROMs. The present secondary analysis evaluated the prognostic value of baseline performance status (PS), albumin (alb), C-reactive protein (CRP), and body mass index (BMI) for overall survival, comparing pancreatic (PAN, n = 189) vs. other gastrointestinal cancer patients (GI, n = 286). Baseline PS, alb, CRP, mGPS (modified Glasgow prognostic score), and BMI were analyzed using Cox regression. Adjusted for age, sex, and hospital size, PS ≥ 2 and alb < 35 g/L predicted shorter survival in both PAN and GI cancers, while CRP > 10 predicted shorter survival only in GI cancers. In PAN, PS ≥ 2 predicted a 78.4% higher probability of shorter survival, and mGPS 2 predicted a 68.7% higher probability. In GI, mGPS 2 predicted a 70.8% higher probability, whereas PS was not significant. BMI did not improve predictive models. PS ≥ 2 and low albumin are strong predictors of short survival in PAN, whereas increased CRP and low albumin (mGPS 2) are predictors in GI.

Few studies have examined cognitive function in long-term survivors with brain metastases (BM). The aim of this study was to assess performance-based cognitive function and compare it with normative samples. Patients with ≥2-year survival after a first-time BM diagnosis completed neuropsychological tests assessing the following neurocognitive domains: processing speed, executive functioning, mental flexibility, visual learning and memory, verbal learning and memory, attention, and working memory. Test scores were converted into standardized z-scores using normative sample means and standard deviations (SD). The proportions of patients with an individual z-score of ≤−1 and ≤−1.5 SD below the normative sample means were calculated to indicate subclinical and clinically significant impairment. Forty-one patients (median age 58, 24 women) completed assessments at a median of 32 months (min–max: 26–47) after the BM diagnosis. On a group level, patients performed poorer than normative samples in tests within all domains except verbal learning and memory. The deviation was most pronounced in a subtest assessing mental flexibility. The proportion of patients with subclinical or clinically significant impairment ranged from 29% to 59% and 7% to 51% between domains, respectively. Seventy-three percent had at least subclinical and 59% had clinically significant impairment in at least 1 domain. Long-term survivors with BM performed poorer than normative samples within nearly all neurocognitive domains, particularly executive functioning and mental flexibility. This domain is important for daily living and social functioning, and clinicians should provide information about the implications of BM and tailor patient care to optimize functioning and quality of life.