Scientific societies recommend early interaction between oncologic and supportive care, but there is still a lack of systematic evaluations regarding symptoms from the perspective of oncologists.

The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the PERSONS score, in both “simultaneous care” and “supportive care” settings using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) as a comparator.

From November 2017 to April 2018, 67 and 110 consecutive patients were enrolled in outpatient and home care cohorts, respectively. The final study population comprised 163 patients. There were no significant changes over time in the total PERSONS scores and total ESAS scale. The intra-interviewer reliability (ICC2,1) and inter-interviewer reliability (ICC2,k) showed good reproducibility (test-retest) in each group of patients: 0.60 (0.49–0.70) and 0.82 (0.75–0.87), respectively, for the home care patients and 0.73 (0.62–0.81) and 0.89 (0.83–0.93), respectively, for the outpatient cohort. There were high correlations between PERSONS and ESAS, both at the baseline and final assessments. The mean PERSONS and ESAS scores between the home care patients and outpatients were not different at the baseline and final assessments. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve for the PERSONS total score revealed good diagnostic ability. Area under the curve (AUC) was 0.825 and 0.805 for improvement and deterioration, respectively.

The PERSONS score is an easy to apply tool for symptom assessment. Importantly, the PERSONS score showed high concordance with the established ESAS scale and, therefore, provides an alternative for everyday use in supportive care assessment.

Cancer patients and family members can feel abandoned by their oncologist at the transition to end-of-life (eoL) care. In this study, we evaluated the level of satisfaction of family caregivers when the oncology team assisted the patient until death.

Two oncology units were reorganized to ensure continuity of care; oncologists trained in palliative care medicine assisted patients until death. Relatives who assisted the patient at home or at an inpatient hospice underwent a semi-structured phone interview >1 month after the patient's death. Satisfaction was measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from very dissatisfied (score 0) to very satisfied (score 100).

Relatives of 65 patients were contacted, 55 accepted the interview. Patients were followed at home (41) or at an inpatient hospice (14), for 1–24 weeks (median 3 weeks). A specific question on the relevance of the oncologist having a role in EoL care produced a score of 82. The overall satisfaction score was higher than in our previous study in which a continuity of care model was not adopted, with a score improvement from 55/100 to 84/100 (p < 0.001).

A care program where the oncologist is involved in EoL management improved the satisfaction of caregivers of cancer patients. When a longstanding and trusting relationship has been established, the connection between the patient and the oncologist should not be lost.