Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Homcology: home chemotherapy delivery in a simultaneous care project for frail advanced cancer patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Homcology is a project that represents both an opportunity for patients who may benefit from chemotherapy so far, but present physical and social problems that prevent day-hospital access, and a model of “no-profit” contribution to the Public Health System. Our medical oncology department conducted the project from May 2014 to January 2019. We included frail patients (G-8 < 14), with advanced disease, treated with oral, subcutaneous, or parenteral biological agents, with limitations to day-hospital access, comorbidities, and at least 6-month life expectancy. A multidisciplinary team included three oncologists, four nurses, an anesthetist, a psychologist, and a physiotherapist. Satisfaction was evaluated with FAMCARE scale. A total of 188 patients (median age of 73 years, 38–87) were enrolled. Ninety percent of patients presented with metastatic disease and a median G-8 score of 8.8 (3–13.5). All of them received anticancer treatment and concomitant supportive care; 24 patients received two or more lines of treatment. The median duration of taking care was 175 days (7–1200). A median number of 254 (195–325) nursing and 164 (139–190) medical visits were performed a year, with an average of 1.9 and 1.2 visits a month per patient respectively. The median number of in-line patients was 20 (17–25). Hospitalization occurred in 18% of cases. One-third of them died at home. The others were referred to hospice. Our experience shows that the integration of home cancer treatment and supportive care is effective. Hospitalization rate is lower than data reported in the literature. Results need to be confirmed in prospective pharmacoeconomics studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Ward E, Thun M (2010) Declining death rates reflect progress against cancer. PLoS One 5(3):e9584

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bordonaro S, Romano F, Lanteri E (2014) Effect of a structured, active, home-based cancer-treatment program for the management of patients on oral chemotherapy. Patient Prefer Adherence 8:917–923

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pernas S, Tolaney SM, Winer EP, Goel S (2018) CDK4/6 inhibition in breast cancer: current practice and future directions. Ther Adv Med Oncol 10:1–15

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhong H, Chan G, Hu Y, Hu H, Ouyang D (2018) A comprehensive map of FDA-approved pharmaceutical products. Pharmaceutics 10:263

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Payne SA (1992) A study of quality of life in cancer patients receiving palliative chemotherapy. Soc Sci Med 35(12):1505–1509

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Neill VJ, Twelves CJ (2002) Oral cancer treatment: developments in chemotherapy and beyond. Br J Cancer 87:933–937

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. De Portu S, Mantovani LG, Ravaioli A et al (2010) Cost analysis of capecitabine vs 5-fluorouracil-based treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer patients. J Chemother 22(2):125–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cammà C, Cabibbo G, Petta S, WEF study group; SOFIA study group et al (2013) Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib treatment in field practice for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 57(3):1046–1054

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Conte PF, Giovannelli S (2005) Oral vinorelbine in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 7:S25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Twelves C, Wong A, Nowacki MP, Abt M, Burris H, Carrato A et al (2005) Capecitabine as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer. N Engl J Med 352:2696–2704

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Cella D, Reeves J, Hawkins R, Guo J, Nathan P, Staehler M, de Souza P, Merchan JR, Boleti E, Fife K, Jin J, Jones R, Uemura H, de Giorgi U, Harmenberg U, Wang J, Sternberg CN, Deen K, McCann L, Hackshaw MD, Crescenzo R, Pandite LN, Choueiri TK (2013) Pazopanib versus Sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 369:722–731

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Khalaf DJ, Annala M, Taavitsainen S, Finch DL, Oja C, Vergidis J, Zulfiqar M, Sunderland K, Azad AA, Kollmannsberger CK, Eigl BJ, Noonan K, Wadhwa D, Attwell A, Keith B, Ellard SL, le L, Gleave ME, Wyatt AW, Chi KN (2019) Optimal sequencing of enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 2, cross-over trial. Lancer Oncol 20:1730–1739

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Soria JC, Ohe Y, Vansteenkiste J, Reungwetwattana T, Chewaskulyong B, Lee H et al (2018) Osimertinib in untreated EGFR-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 378:113–125

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Robert C, Grob JJ, Stroyakovskiy D, Karaszewska B, Hauschild A, Levchenko E, Chiarion Sileni V, Schachter J, Garbe C, Bondarenko I, Gogas H, Mandalá M, Haanen JBAG, Lebbé C, Mackiewicz A, Rutkowski P, Nathan PD, Ribas A, Davies MA, Flaherty KT, Burgess P, Tan M, Gasal E, Voi M, Schadendorf D, Long GV (2019) Five-year outcome with dabrafenib plus trametinib in metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 381:626–636

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu G, Franssen E, Fitch MI, Warner E (1997) Patient preferences for oral versus intravenous palliative chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 15:110–115

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Freytes CO (2000) Indications and complications of intravenous devices for chemotherapy. Curr Opin Oncol 12(4):303–307

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Partridge AH, Avorn J, Wang PS, Winer EP (2002) Adherence to therapy with oral antineoplastic agents. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(9):652–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tralongo P, Ferraù F, Borsellino N, Verderame F, Caruso M, Giuffrida D, Butera A, Gebbia V (2011) Cancer patient-centered home care: a new model for health care in oncology. Ther Clin Risk Manag 7:387–392

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Rischin D, White MA, Matthews JP, Toner GC, Watty K, Sukowski AJ et al (2000) A randomized crossover trial of chemotherapy in the home: patient preferences and cost analysis. Med J Aust 173:125–127

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bellera C, Rainfray M, Mathoulin-Pélissier S et al (2012) Screening older cancer patients: first evaluation of the G-8 screening tool. Ann Oncol 23:2166–2172

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sewtz C, Muscheites W, Kriesen U et al (2018) Questionnaires measuring quality of life and satisfaction of patients and their relatives in a palliative care setting-German translation of FAMCARE-2 and the palliative care subscale of FACIT-Pal. Ann Palliat Med 2018 Oct 7(4):420–426

  22. World Health Organization (1980) WHO handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. Neoplasma 20:37–46

    Google Scholar 

  23. George J, Shalansky SJ (2007) Predictors of refill non-adherence in patients with heart failure. Br J Clin Pharmacol 63:488–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Simpson SH, Eurich DT, Majumdar SR, Padwal RS, Tsuyuki RT, Varney J, Johnson JA (2006) A meta-analysis of the association between adherence to drug therapy and mortality. BMJ. 333:15–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Weingart SN, Brown E, Bach PB et al (2008) NCCN task force report: oral chemotherapy. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 6(Suppl 3):1–14

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bedell CH (2003) A changing paradigm for cancer treatment: the advent of new oral chemotherapy agents. Clin J Oncol Nurs 7(Suppl 6):5–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Raiti SBF, Di Mari A et al (2012) Active home-based cancer treatment. J Multidiscip Healthc 5:137–143

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Bedell CH (2003) A changing paradigm for cancer treatment: the advent of oral chemotherapy agents. Clin J Oncol Nurs 7(Suppl 6):5–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This project was actively funded by a not-for-profit organization, “Varese per l’Oncologi” ONLUS.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Contribution: C.C. designed the study; C.C., L.B., E.M., and A. G. gathered data; C.C., I.P., M.S., and O.N. drafted the article; and G.T. and G.P. revised it critically for important intellectual content. All authors have approved the submitted version of this paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olga Nigro.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chini, C., Bascialla, L., Giaquinto, A. et al. Homcology: home chemotherapy delivery in a simultaneous care project for frail advanced cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 29, 917–923 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05569-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05569-9

Keywords

Navigation