OBJECTIVE: To analyze patient characteristics of cancer rehabilitation and outcomes at our hospital. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed 580 patients, who underwent cancer rehabilitation at our hospital and rehabilitation outcome after therapy were investigated. The relationship between the initial Barthel index and discharge outcomes was investigated, with a special focus on cancer patients with bone metastasis. The Barthel index and performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) before and after rehabilitation were analyzed, and threshold value of home discharge was calculated from a receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). General criteria for home discharge from our hospital included independence in performing basic activities of daily living such as bathing, feeding, and toileting or availability of home support from a family member/caregiver. RESULTS: The outcomes after rehabilitation among all the patients were as follows: discharge home 59%, death 13%, and others 27%. Statistical differences were observed between the initial and final values of the Barthel index in patients with bone metastasis, who could be discharged home (p=0.012). ROC analysis of the initial Barthel index for predicting home discharge revealed a threshold value of 60, sensitivity of 0.76, and specificity of 0.72. CONCLUSION: The patients with bone metastasis had a lower rate of home discharge and a higher rate of mortality than all the study patients who underwent cancer rehabilitation at our hospital. It is proposed that at the time of initiation of rehabilitation for patients with bone metastasis, an initial Barthel index lower than 60 might predict a worse outcome than home discharge.
Activities of Daily Living ; Asian Continental Ancestry Group* ; Baths ; Humans ; Mortality ; Neoplasm Metastasis* ; Rehabilitation ; Retrospective Studies ; ROC Curve ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Treatment Outcome

The Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery launched the clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract cancers (cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, and ampullary cancer) in 2007, then published the 2nd version in 2014. In this 3rd version, clinical questions (CQs) were proposed on six topics. The recommendation, grade for recommendation, and statement for each CQ were discussed and finalized by an evidence-based approach. Recommendations were graded as grade 1 (strong) or grade 2 (weak) according to the concepts of the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation system. The 31 CQs covered the six topics: (1) prophylactic treatment, (2) diagnosis, (3) biliary drainage, (4) surgical treatment, (5) chemotherapy, and (6) radiation therapy. In the 31 CQs, 14 recommendations were rated strong and 14 recommendations weak. The remaining three CQs had no recommendation. Each CQ includes a statement of how the recommendations were graded. This latest guideline provides recommendations for important clinical aspects based on evidence. Future collaboration with the cancer registry will be key for assessing the guidelines and establishing new evidence.