Older adults with cancer frequently experience high symptom burden, psychological distress, and reduced quality of life. Integrating palliative nursing interventions into routine oncology care has the potential to improve these outcomes, yet evidence examining their measurable effects remains limited. This study aimed to examine the effects of integrated palliative nursing interventions on quality of life, psychological outcomes, and symptom burden among older adults with cancer.

A quasi-experimental one-group pre-test–post-test design was conducted at King Khaled Hospital, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia, including 80 older adults (≥60 years) with confirmed cancer diagnosis. Participants received a structured 6-week integrated palliative nursing intervention comprising 12 sessions (2 sessions/week) addressing physical, psychological, social, functional, and spiritual needs. Outcome measures included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) for quality of life, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Distress Thermometer for psychological outcomes, and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) for symptom burden. Pre- and post-intervention assessments were conducted, and data were analyzed using paired t-tests, Pearson correlations, and multiple linear regression.

All 80 participants completed the study, and no attrition was observed during the 6-week intervention period. Post-intervention, participants demonstrated significant improvements in overall quality of life (FACT-G total: 39.65 ± 5.51 → 66.41 ± 6.25, p < .001) and all subscales. Distress scores (NCCN) decreased from 21.93 ± 2.49 to 6.99 ± 2.37 (p < .001), and total symptom burden (ESAS) declined from 63.56 ± 6.31 to 41.09 ± 6.88 (p < .001). Regression analysis identified baseline scores as significant predictors of post-intervention outcomes: pre-intervention FACT-G scores and cancer type for quality of life [R2 = 0.660, F (8, 71) = 17.199, p < .001), pre-intervention NCCN scores for distress (R2 = 0.219, F (8, 71) = 2.487, p = .019), and pre-intervention ESAS scores for symptom burden (R2 = 0.757, F (8, 71) = 27.697, p < .001). These results indicated that baseline status strongly predicts post-intervention outcomes, while demographic and clinical variables had minimal impact.

Structured integrated palliative nursing interventions significantly enhance quality of life and reduce psychological distress and symptom burden in older adults with cancer. Incorporating multidimensional, patient-centered palliative care within routine oncology practice can improve clinical outcomes, with baseline status serving as an important determinant of intervention effectiveness.

The primary intent of cancer treatment is either curative, prolongation of patient life, or to improve patient quality of life; however, treatments are associated with various side effects that may impact patient wellbeing. Thus, understanding the patients’ wellbeing from the patient’s perspective is essential as it could help enable the provision of the necessary support for patients throughout their cancer journey.

We analysed Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) questionnaire responses completed by 19,288 patients over 201,839 visits to our Cancer Centre. As part of their routine and standard of care, patients completing the questionnaire are asked to score 6 physical and 2 psychological symptoms as well as overall wellbeing using an 11-point numerical rating scale ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 means complete absence of the symptom or best overall wellbeing and 10 means worst possible symptom or worst overall wellbeing. We used the ESAS responses to characterise the relationship between the overall wellbeing score and concurrent symptoms scored by cancer patients.

Patients reported tiredness and nausea as the physical symptom causing the most and least distress respectively. Patients that reported severe (7–10) wellbeing also scored high mean scores for tiredness (6·2 ± 2·7), drowsiness (4·7 ± 3·1) and lack of appetite (4·4 ± 3·4). Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis suggests higher odds for patients to report moderate-to-severe (4–10) wellbeing when they report moderate-to-severe concurrent symptoms compared to none-to-mild concurrent symptoms.

Our findings suggest that patients’ overall wellbeing as reported by the ESAS system is influenced by a number of concurrent symptoms. Tiredness was found to impact patients’ overall wellbeing to a greater extent than other concurrent symptoms. The sum of physical or psychological symptom scores was stronger indicators of a patient’s overall wellbeing compared to the scores of individual symptoms.

In recent years, there has been a growing interest to enhance patients’ symptom management during routine cancer care using patient-reported outcome measures. The goal of this study is to analyse patients’ responses to the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) to determine whether patient-reported outcomes could help characterise those patients with the highest supportive care needs and symptom burden in order to help provide targeted support for patients.

In this study, we analysed ESAS questionnaire responses completed by patients as part of their routine care and considered part of patients’ standard of care. Statistical analyses were performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics version 26.0. Descriptive statistics are used to summarise patient demographics, disease characteristics and patient-reported symptom severity and prevalence.

The overall mean age is 65.2 ± 12.8 years comprising 43.8% male and 56.2% female patients. The five common primary disease sites are breast (26.2%), haematology (21.1%), gastrointestinal (15.3%), genitourinary (12.7%) and lung (12.0%) cancers. The mean severity for each symptom is all mild (score: 1–3). The three most common reported symptoms causing distress are tiredness, poor overall wellbeing and anxiety, and the least reported symptom is nausea.

Systematic self-reporting of patients’ symptoms is important to improve symptom management, timely facilitation of appropriate intervention, patient experience, and patient and family satisfaction. The awareness of disease site, gender and age-related symptom variations should help in the design and provision of appropriate symptom-directed, tumour-specific and patient-focused interventions to meet patients’ immediate needs.

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.