Recent randomized controlled trials have shown that routine perioperative palliative care does not improve outcomes for patients undergoing curative-intent cancer surgery. No, that wasn't a typo. Regardless of how the data were analyzed, the findings remained consistent: perioperative palliative care DID NOT improve outcomes in the only two randomized controlled trials conducted in this area—the SCOPE and PERIOP-PC trials.

Null trials like these often receive less attention in academic and clinical settings, but they can be profoundly practice-changing. Consider the Shannon Carson study on palliative care for chronically critically ill patients. While some have argued it "wasn't a palliative care study," I've always regarded it as one of the most significant studies for understanding not what works—but what doesn't—for palliative care in specific patient populations.

The same holds true for the SCOPE and PERIOP-PC trials. Both were null, but their findings are deeply relevant to clinical practice. That's why we invited the lead authors, Rebecca Aslakson (PERIOP-PC) and Myrick "Ricky" Shinall (SCOPE), to share insights into what they did in their studies and why they think they got the results that they did.

One key takeaway for me from this discussion was the idea that patients undergoing curative-intent surgery might simply be too early in their cancer trajectory to derive meaningful benefits from palliative care, and maybe the focus should be more on geriatrics. I especially appreciated the closing discussion about the future of research in this area: if routine perioperative palliative care doesn't improve outcomes, what should the next generation of studies focus on?

Eric Widera

Studies we talk about during the podcast

The Role of Specialty Palliative Care in Cancer Surgery: Rebecca Aslakson & Myrick Shinall

GeriPal - A Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine Podcast