TY - JOUR
T1 - PALLIA 10 score in phase I cancer studies
AU - Ouali, Kaïssa
AU - Mateus, Christine
AU - Laparra, Arianne
AU - Romano, Patricia Martin
AU - Sampetrean, Anda
AU - Vuagnat, Perrine
AU - Varga, Andrea
AU - Champiat, Stephane
AU - Verlingue, Loic
AU - Geraud, Arthur
AU - Marabelle, Aurélien
AU - Hollebecque, Antoine
AU - Gazzah, Anas
AU - Bahleda, Rastilav
AU - Vinay, Sophie Postel
AU - Michot, Jean Marie
AU - Bernard-Tessier, Alice
AU - Bayle, Arnaud
AU - Ribrag, Vincent
AU - Soria, Jean Charles
AU - Scotte, Florian
AU - Massard, Christophe
AU - Pavliuc, Elena
AU - Baldini, Capucine
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024.
PY - 2024/12/19
Y1 - 2024/12/19
N2 - Objective Phase I clinical trials usually include patients with advanced disease who have failed standard therapies and should benefit from early palliative care. We try to assess whether PALLIA 10, a score developed in France to help identify patients who might benefit from a palliative care referral, could be used in a phase I department trial. Methods We assessed PALLIA 10 score and other prognostic factors in patients enrolled in phase I trials at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center prospectively during two periods of time (cohort 1 (C1) and 2 (C2)). A double-blind assessment of the PALLIA 10 score was done in C2 by a palliative care specialist and a nurse. Results From 1 July 2018 to 1 November 2018 (C1) and from 1 December 2020 to 16 April 2021 (C2), 86 patients were assessed in C1 and 302 in C2. Median PALLIA 10 was very low in both cohorts (median 1, range 1–5 in C1 and 1–8 in C2). On C1 and C2, 12% and 5% of patients had a dedicated palliative consultation. In C2, assessment of PALLIA 10 score was significantly different between palliative care physician (median 5, range 3–8), phase I physician (median 1, range 1–6) and phase I nurse (median 3, range 1–8) (p<0.001). Conclusion Median PALLIA 10 score was low when assessed by the phase I physician, which suggests the need for a better tool and appropriate clinician’s education to implement early palliative care in clinical practice and trials.
AB - Objective Phase I clinical trials usually include patients with advanced disease who have failed standard therapies and should benefit from early palliative care. We try to assess whether PALLIA 10, a score developed in France to help identify patients who might benefit from a palliative care referral, could be used in a phase I department trial. Methods We assessed PALLIA 10 score and other prognostic factors in patients enrolled in phase I trials at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center prospectively during two periods of time (cohort 1 (C1) and 2 (C2)). A double-blind assessment of the PALLIA 10 score was done in C2 by a palliative care specialist and a nurse. Results From 1 July 2018 to 1 November 2018 (C1) and from 1 December 2020 to 16 April 2021 (C2), 86 patients were assessed in C1 and 302 in C2. Median PALLIA 10 was very low in both cohorts (median 1, range 1–5 in C1 and 1–8 in C2). On C1 and C2, 12% and 5% of patients had a dedicated palliative consultation. In C2, assessment of PALLIA 10 score was significantly different between palliative care physician (median 5, range 3–8), phase I physician (median 1, range 1–6) and phase I nurse (median 3, range 1–8) (p<0.001). Conclusion Median PALLIA 10 score was low when assessed by the phase I physician, which suggests the need for a better tool and appropriate clinician’s education to implement early palliative care in clinical practice and trials.
KW - Supportive care
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85137674913&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/spcare-2022-003601
DO - 10.1136/spcare-2022-003601
M3 - Article
C2 - 36041820
AN - SCOPUS:85137674913
SN - 2045-435X
VL - 14
SP - e2679-e2685
JO - BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care
JF - BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care
IS - E3
ER -