Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 830

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 458 of the 458 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Integration of oncology and palliative care: a Lancet Oncology Commission

Open access
Kaasa, Stein, Loge, Jon H, Aapro, Matti, Albreht, Tit, Anderson, Rebecca, Bruera, Eduardo, Brunelli, Cinzia, Caraceni, Augusto, Cervantes, Andrés, Currow, David C, Deliens, Luc, Fallon, Marie, Gómez-Batiste, Xavier, Grotmol, Kjersti S, Hannon, Breffni, Haugen, Dagny F, Higginson, Irene J, Hjermstad, Marianne J, Hui, David, Jordan, Karin, Kurita, Geana P, Larkin, Philip J, Miccinesi, Guido, Nauck, Friedemann, Pribakovic, Rade, Rodin, Gary, Sjøgren, Per, Stone, Patrick, Zimmermann, Camilla, Lundeby, Tonje·2018·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

Full integration of oncology and palliative care relies on the specific knowledge and skills of two modes of care: the tumour-directed approach, the main focus of which is on treating the disease; and the host-directed approach, which focuses on the patient with the disease. This Commission addresses how to combine these two paradigms to achieve the best outcome of patient care. Randomised clinical trials on integration of oncology and palliative care point to health gains: improved survival and symptom control, less anxiety and depression, reduced use of futile chemotherapy at the end of life, improved family satisfaction and quality of life, and improved use of health-care resources. Early delivery of patient-directed care by specialist palliative care teams alongside tumour-directed treatment promotes patient-centred care. Systematic assessment and use of patient-reported outcomes and active patient involvement in the decisions about cancer care result in better symptom control, improved physical and mental health, and better use of health-care resources. The absence of international agreements on the content and standards of the organisation, education, and research of palliative care in oncology are major barriers to successful integration. Other barriers include the common misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care only, stigmatisation of death and dying, and insufficient infrastructure and funding. The absence of established priorities might also hinder integration more widely. This Commission proposes the use of standardised care pathways and multidisciplinary teams to promote integration of oncology and palliative care, and calls for changes at the system level to coordinate the activities of professionals, and for the development and implementation of new and improved education programmes, with the overall goal of improving patient care. Integration raises new research questions, all of which contribute to improved clinical care. When and how should palliative care be delivered? What is the optimal model for integrated care? What is the biological and clinical effect of living with advanced cancer for years after diagnosis? Successful integration must challenge the dualistic perspective of either the tumour or the host, and instead focus on a merged approach that places the patient's perspective at the centre. To succeed, integration must be anchored by management and policy makers at all levels of health care, followed by adequate resource allocation, a willingness to prioritise goals and needs, and sustained enthusiasm to help generate support for better integration. This integrated model must be reflected in international and national cancer plans, and be followed by developments of new care models, education and research programmes, all of which should be adapted to the specific cultural contexts within which they are situated. Patient-centred care should be an integrated part of oncology care independent of patient prognosis and treatment intention. To achieve this goal it must be based on changes in professional cultures and priorities in health care.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30415-7

Cites

458 of 458 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 458 references

Cited by

See all 830

Metadata

Authors
Kaasa, S., Loge, J. H., Aapro, M., Albreht, T., Anderson, R., Bruera, E., Brunelli, C., Caraceni, A., Cervantes, A., Currow, D. C., Deliens, L., Fallon, M., Gómez-Batiste, X., Grotmol, K. S., Hannon, B., Haugen, D. F., Higginson, I. J., Hjermstad, M. J., Hui, D., Jordan, K., Kurita, G. P., Larkin, P. J., Miccinesi, G., Nauck, F., Pribakovic, R., Rodin, G., Sjøgren, P., Stone, P., Zimmermann, C., & Lundeby, T.
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-11
Volume
19
Issue
11
Pages
e588-e653
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2896015079
Cited by
830
References
458
FWCI
57.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Integration of oncology and palliative care: a Lancet Oncology Commission. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30415-7
The paper
Kaasa, S., Loge, J. H., Aapro, M., Albreht, T., Anderson, R., Bruera, E., Brunelli, C., Caraceni, A., Cervantes, A., Currow, D. C., Deliens, L., Fallon, M., Gómez-Batiste, X., Grotmol, K. S., Hannon, B., Haugen, D. F., Higginson, I. J., Hjermstad, M. J., Hui, D., . . . Lundeby, T. (2018). Integration of oncology and palliative care: a Lancet Oncology Commission. The Lancet Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30415-7

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.