Akhila Reddy

Reduction of Cancer-Related Fatigue With Dexamethasone: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial in Patients With Advanced Cancer

PURPOSE Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most common symptom in patients with advanced cancer. The primary objective of this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to compare the effect of dexamethasone and placebo on CRF. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced cancer with ≥ three CRF-related symptoms (ie, fatigue, pain, nausea, loss of appetite, depression, anxiety, or sleep disturbance) ≥ 4 of 10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to either dexamethasone 4 mg or placebo orally twice per day for 14 days. The primary end point was change in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness-Fatigue (FACIT-F) subscale from baseline to day 15. Secondary outcomes included anorexia, anxiety, depression, and symptom distress scores. RESULTS A total of 84 patients were evaluable (dexamethasone, 43; placebo, 41). Mean (± standard deviation) improvement in the FACIT-F subscale at day 15 was significantly higher in the dexamethasone than in the placebo group (9 [± 10.3] v 3.1 [± 9.59]; P = .008). The improvement in FACIT-F total quality-of-life scores was also significantly better for the dexamethasone group at day 15 (P = .03). The mean differences in the ESAS physical distress scores at day 15 were significantly better for the dexamethasone group (P = .013, respectively). No differences were observed for ESAS overall symptom distress (P = .22) or psychological distress score (P = .76). Frequency of adverse effects was not significantly different between groups (41 of 62 v 44 of 58; P = .14). CONCLUSION Dexamethasone is more effective than placebo in improving CRF and quality of life in patients with advanced cancer.

Differences in attitudes and beliefs toward end-of-life care between hematologic and solid tumor oncology specialists

BACKGROUND Patients with hematologic malignancies often receive aggressive care at the end-of-life. To better understand the end-of-life decision-making process among oncology specialists, we compared the cancer treatment recommendations, and attitudes and beliefs toward palliative care between hematologic and solid tumor specialists. PATIENTS AND METHODS We randomly surveyed 120 hematologic and 120 solid tumor oncology specialists at our institution. Respondents completed a survey examining various aspects of end-of-life care, including palliative systemic therapy using standardized case vignettes and palliative care proficiency. RESULTS Of 240 clinicians, 182 (76%) clinicians responded. Compared with solid tumor specialists, hematologic specialists were more likely to favor prescribing systemic therapy with moderate toxicity and no survival benefit for patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 4 and an expected survival of 1 month (median preference 4 versus 1, in which 1 = strong against treatment and 7 = strongly recommend treatment, P < 0.0001). This decision was highly polarized. Hematologic specialists felt less comfortable discussing death and dying (72% versus 88%, P = 0.007) and hospice referrals (81% versus 93%, P = 0.02), and were more likely to feel a sense of failure with disease progression (46% versus 31%, P = 0.04). On multivariate analysis, hematologic specialty [odds ratio (OR) 2.77, P = 0.002] and comfort level with prescribing treatment to ECOG 4 patients (OR 3.79, P = 0.02) were associated with the decision to treat in the last month of life. CONCLUSIONS We found significant differences in attitudes and beliefs toward end-of-life care between hematologic and solid tumor specialists, and identified opportunities to standardize end-of-life care.

Frequency, Outcome, and Predictors of Success Within 6 Weeks of an Opioid Rotation Among Outpatients with Cancer Receiving Strong Opioids

BACKGROUND Opioid rotation is used to treat uncontrolled pain and/or opioid-related adverse effects. Our aim was to determine the frequency, indications, outcomes, and predictors of successful opioid rotation in outpatients with cancer. METHODS Medical records of consecutive outpatients with cancer who received strong opioids and returned for follow-up visit within ≤6 weeks to our supportive care center from January to December 2008 were reviewed. Data on patient characteristics, symptoms, opioid use, indications for opioid rotation, outcomes, and morphine equivalent daily dose were collected. Successful opioid rotation was defined as a two-point or 30% reduction in the symptom score or the resolution of opioid-induced neurotoxicity and continuation of the new opioid at follow-up. RESULTS Opioid rotation was performed in 120 of 385 patients (31%). The median patient age was 55 years. There were 6/120 patients with missing data. Of the 114 evaluable patients, 68 (60%) were men, 81 (71%) were white, 27 (24%) had gastrointestinal cancer, and 90 (80%) had advanced-stage disease. The median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score was 1 (interquartile range: 1-2) and the median time between opioid rotation and follow-up was 14 days (interquartile range: 7-21 days). The most common indications for opioid rotation were uncontrolled pain (95/114; 83%) and opioid-induced neurotoxicity (13/114; 12%). A total of 35 patients (31%) had partial opioid rotation. The median improvements in pain and symptom distress score were -2 (interquartile range: -4 to 0; p < .001) and -5 (interquartile range: -14 to 7; p = .004), respectively. The morphine equivalent daily dose did not change significantly after opioid rotation (p = .156). A total of 65% of patients (74/114) had successful opioid rotation. There were no clinically significant independent predictors for successful opioid rotation. CONCLUSION Opioid rotation was conducted in 31% of outpatients with cancer, with a 65% success rate. The most frequent reason for opioid rotation was uncontrolled pain. There were no independent predictors for successful opioid rotation.

Patterns of Storage, Use, and Disposal of Opioids Among Cancer Outpatients

PURPOSE Improper storage, use, and disposal of prescribed opioids can lead to diversion or accidental poisoning. Our objective was to determine the patterns of storage, utilization, and disposal of opioids among cancer outpatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS We surveyed 300 adult cancer outpatients receiving opioids in our supportive care center and collected information regarding opioid use, storage, and disposal, along with scores on the CAGE (cut down, annoyed, guilty, eye-opener) alcoholism screening questionnaire. Unsafe use was defined as sharing or losing opioids; unsafe storage was defined as storing opioids in plain sight. RESULTS The median age was 57 years. CAGE was positive in 58 of 300 patients (19%), and 26 (9%) had a history of illicit drug use. Fifty-six (19%) stored opioids in plain sight, 208 (69%) kept opioids hidden but unlocked, and only 28 (9%) locked their opioids. CAGE-positive patients (p = .007) and those with a history of illicit drug use (p = .0002) or smoking (p = .03) were more likely to lock their opioids. Seventy-eight (26%) reported unsafe use by sharing (9%) or losing (17%) their opioids. Patients who were never married or single (odds ratio: 2.92; 95% confidence interval: 1.48-5.77; p = .006), were CAGE positive (40% vs. 21%; p = .003), or had a history of illicit drug use (42% vs. 23%; p = .031) were more likely to use opioids unsafely. Overall, 223 of 300 patients (74%) were unaware of proper opioid disposal methods, and 138 (46%) had unused opioids at home. CONCLUSION A large proportion of cancer patients improperly and unsafely use, store, and dispose of opioids, highlighting the need for establishment of easily accessed patient education and drug take-back programs.

Chemical coping versus pseudoaddiction in patients with cancer pain

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this case series was to describe patients with aberrant drug-related behaviors and similar patterns of dose escalation in whom interdisciplinary assessment revealed different bases for their dose increases. METHOD During the period from December 26 to December 30, 2011, the medical records of two patients with opioid-related aberrant behaviors were reviewed. RESULTS We described two patients with a significant cancer history and different comorbidities who presented with different aberrant drug-related behaviors and opioid requirements. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS Opioid-related aberrant behaviors can be interpreted in different ways, and two of the more common syndromes in cancer patients are chemical coping and pseudoaddiction. In advanced cancer patients, the boundaries between these conditions are not as clear, and diagnosis is often made retrospectively. Furthermore, there have been relatively limited studies describing these two syndromes. Thus, they continue to pose a diagnostic and treatment challenge that requires different approaches for effective management of symptoms. The key characteristic between the two syndromes is that the behaviors displayed in chemical coping are motivated by obtaining opioids to relieve psychosocial distress, while in pseudoaddiction these behaviors are motivated by uncontrolled nociceptive input. Close monitoring of the pain syndromes, aberrant behaviors, and opioid requirements over several visits is usually necessary to distinguish the two syndromes.

Association Between Tobacco Use, Symptom Expression, and Alcohol and Illicit Drug Use in Advanced Cancer Patients

CONTEXT Limited knowledge exists examining the association between smoking status, symptom expression, and alcohol or illicit drug use. OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to clarify these associations in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed 560 charts and identified 300 consecutive advanced cancer patients who completed a comprehensive smoking questionnaire. Data including the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, Cut down/Annoyed/Guilty/Eye opener (CAGE) alcoholism screening questionnaire, illicit drug use history, and daily opioid requirements-morphine equivalent daily dose-were collected. RESULTS Among 300 patients, 119 (40%) were never smokers, 148 (49%) former smokers, and 33 (11%) current smokers. The most common malignancies were gastrointestinal (28%) and lung (20%). Current smokers were more likely to be single (P < 0.01) and significantly younger than former smokers (P < 0.001) but did not differ in age from never smokers. Never smokers were more likely to be female (P < 0.001). Current smokers reported significantly higher pain expression than former and never smokers (median 7 vs. 5.5 vs. 5, respectively, P = 0.02), higher CAGE positivity (42% vs. 21% vs. 3%, P < 0.001) and were more likely to have a history of illicit drug use (33% vs. 16% vs. 3%, P < 0.001). The morphine equivalent daily dose was not significantly different according to smoking status. CONCLUSION In advanced cancer, patients who were former or current smokers were significantly more likely to have a history of CAGE positivity and illicit drug use compared with never smokers. Current smokers expressed significantly higher pain. A smoking history may be a marker of an increased risk of opioid misuse.

Effect of Lorazepam With Haloperidol vs Haloperidol Alone on Agitated Delirium in Patients With Advanced Cancer Receiving Palliative Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance The use of benzodiazepines to control agitation in delirium in the last days of life is controversial. Objective To compare the effect of lorazepam vs placebo as an adjuvant to haloperidol for persistent agitation in patients with delirium in the setting of advanced cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants Single-center, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial conducted at an acute palliative care unit at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas, enrolling 93 patients with advanced cancer and agitated delirium despite scheduled haloperidol from February 11, 2014, to June 30, 2016, with data collection completed in October 2016. Interventions Lorazepam (3 mg) intravenously (n = 47) or placebo (n = 43) in addition to haloperidol (2 mg) intravenously upon the onset of an agitation episode. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was change in Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score (range, −5 [unarousable] to 4 [very agitated or combative]) from baseline to 8 hours after treatment administration. Secondary end points were rescue neuroleptic use, delirium recall, comfort (perceived by caregivers and nurses), communication capacity, delirium severity, adverse effects, discharge outcomes, and overall survival. Results Among 90 randomized patients (mean age, 62 years; women, 42 [47%]), 58 (64%) received the study medication and 52 (90%) completed the trial. Lorazepam + haloperidol resulted in a significantly greater reduction of RASS score at 8 hours (−4.1 points) than placebo + haloperidol (−2.3 points) (mean difference, −1.9 points [95% CI, −2.8 to −0.9]; P < .001). The lorazepam + haloperidol group required less median rescue neuroleptics (2.0 mg) than the placebo + haloperidol group (4.0 mg) (median difference, −1.0 mg [95% CI, −2.0 to 0]; P = .009) and was perceived to be more comfortable by both blinded caregivers and nurses (caregivers: 84% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 37% for the placebo + haloperidol group; mean difference, 47% [95% CI, 14% to 73%], P = .007; nurses: 77% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 30% for the placebo + haloperidol group; mean difference, 47% [95% CI, 17% to 71%], P = .005). No significant between-group differences were found in delirium-related distress and survival. The most common adverse effect was hypokinesia (3 patients in the lorazepam + haloperidol group [19%] and 4 patients in the placebo + haloperidol group [27%]). Conclusions and Relevance In this preliminary trial of hospitalized patients with agitated delirium in the setting of advanced cancer, the addition of lorazepam to haloperidol compared with haloperidol alone resulted in a significantly greater reduction in agitation at 8 hours. Further research is needed to assess generalizability and adverse effects. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01949662

A successful palliative care intervention for cancer pain refractory to intrathecal analgesia.

Intrathecal delivery of opioid medications has been increasingly used to treat cancer pain that is refractory to conventional oral opioid therapy. We present a patient with complex and refractory cancer pain who failed both oral and intrathecal opioid therapy but responded to the interdisciplinary palliative care intervention in the acute palliative care unit. His morphine equivalent daily dose decreased by 94% over a 10-day period, and he had better pain control and improved function. This case highlights the importance of addressing and treating the psychosocial distress that contributes to the total pain expression.

The Impact of an Educational Program on Patient Practices for Safe Use, Storage, and Disposal of Opioids at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

BACKGROUND Improper use, storage, and disposal of prescribed opioids can lead to diversion or accidental poisoning. Our previous study showed a large proportion of cancer patients have unsafe opioid practices. Our objective was to determine whether an improvement occurred in the patterns of use, storage, and disposal of opioids among cancer outpatients after the implementation of a patient educational program. PATIENTS AND METHODS Our palliative care (PC) clinic provides every patient with educational material (EM) on safe opioid use, storage, and disposal every time they receive an opioid prescription. We prospectively assessed 300 adult cancer outpatients receiving opioids in our PC clinic, who had received the EM, and compared them with 300 patients who had not received the EM. The previously used surveys pertaining to opioid use, storage, and disposal were administered, and demographic information was collected. Sharing or losing their opioids was defined as unsafe use. RESULTS Patients who received EM were more aware of the proper opioid disposal methods (76% vs. 28%; p ≤ .0001), less likely to share their opioids with someone else (3% vs. 8%; p = .0311), less likely to practice unsafe use of opioids (18% vs. 25%; p = .0344), and more likely to be aware the danger of their opioids when taken by others (p = .0099). Patients who received the EM were less likely to have unused medication at home (38% vs. 47%; p = .0497) and more likely to keep their medications in a safe place (hidden, 75% vs. 70%; locked, 14% vs. 10%; p = .0025). CONCLUSION The use of EM on opioid safety for patients with advanced cancer was associated with improved patient-reported safe opioid use, storage, and disposal. The Oncologist 2017;22:115-121Implications for Practice: Prescription opioid abuse is a fast-growing epidemic that has become more prominent recently, even in the cancer pain population. A previous study reported that 26% of cancer outpatients seen in the supportive care center either lose their pain medications or share their pain medications with someone else. This study demonstrates that the implementation of an opioid educational program and distribution of educational material on opioid safety brings about an improvement in opioid storage, use, and disposal practices in patients being prescribed opioids for cancer-related pain. Our study highlights the importance of consistent and thorough opioid education at every instance in which opioids are prescribed.

High-Dose Asian Ginseng (Panax Ginseng) for Cancer-Related Fatigue A Preliminary Report

Introduction and Objective. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most common and severe symptom in patients with cancer. The number and efficacy of available treatments for CRF are limited. The objective of this preliminary study was to assess the safety of high-dose Panax ginseng (PG) for CRF. Methods. In this prospective, open-label study, 30 patients with CRF (≥4/10) received high-dose PG at 800 mg orally daily for 29 days. Frequency and type of side effects were determined by the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0. Scores on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue (FACIT-F) scale, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were assessed at baseline, day 15, and day 29. Global Symptom Evaluation (GSE) was assessed at day 29. Results. Of the 30 patients enrolled, 24 (80%) were evaluable. The median age was 58 years; 50% were females, and 84% were white. No severe (≥grade 3) adverse events related to the study drug were reported. Of the 24 evaluable patients, 21 (87%) had an improved (by ≥3 points) FACIT-F score by day 15. The mean ESAS score (standard deviation) for well-being improved from 4.67 (2.04) to 3.50 (2.34) (P = .01374), and mean score for appetite improved from 4.29 (2.79) to 2.96 (2.46) (P = .0097). GSE score of PG for fatigue was ≥3 in 15/24 patients (63%) with median improvement of 5. Conclusion. PG is safe and improves CRF fatigue as well as overall quality of life, appetite, and sleep at night. Randomized controlled trials of PG for CRF are justified.