Jung Hye Kwon

Concepts and definitions for “supportive care,” “best supportive care,” “palliative care,” and “hospice care” in the published literature, dictionaries, and textbooks

PurposeCommonly used terms such as “supportive care,” “best supportive care,” “palliative care,” and “hospice care” were rarely and inconsistently defined in the palliative oncology literature. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to further identify concepts and definitions for these terms.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and CINAHL for published peer-reviewed articles from 1948 to 2011 that conceptualized, defined, or examined these terms. Two researchers independently reviewed each citation for inclusion and then extracted the concepts/definitions when available. Dictionaries/textbooks were also searched.ResultsNine of 32 “SC/BSC,” 25 of 182 “PC,” and 12 of 42 “HC” articles focused on providing a conceptual framework/definition. Common concepts for all three terms were symptom control and quality-of-life for patients with life-limiting illness. “SC” focused more on patients on active treatment compared to other categories (9/9 vs. 8/37) and less often involved interdisciplinary care (4/9 vs. 31/37). In contrast, “HC” focused more on volunteers (6/12 vs. 6/34), bereavement care (9/12 vs. 7/34), and community care (9/12 vs. 6/34). Both “PC” and “SC/BSC” were applicable earlier in the disease trajectory (16/34 vs. 0/9). We found 13, 24, and 17 different definitions for “SC/BSC,” “PC,” and “HC,” respectively. “SC/BSC” was the most variably defined, ranging from symptom management during cancer therapy to survivorship care. Dictionaries/textbooks showed similar findings.ConclusionWe identified defining concepts for “SC/BSC,” “PC,” and “HC” and developed a preliminary conceptual framework unifying these terms along the continuum of care to help build consensus toward standardized definitions.

Access to Palliative Care Among Patients Treated at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

BACKGROUNDnPalliative care (PC) is a critical component of comprehensive cancer care. Previous studies on PC access have mostly examined the timing of PC referral. The proportion of patients who actually receive PC is unclear. We determined the proportion of cancer patients who received PC at our comprehensive cancer center and the predictors of PC referral.nnnMETHODSnWe reviewed the charts of consecutive patients with advanced cancer from the Houston region seen at MD Anderson Cancer Center who died between September 2009 and February 2010. We compared patients who received PC services with those who did not receive PC services before death.nnnRESULTSnIn total, 366 of 816 (45%) decedents had a PC consultation. The median interval between PC consultation and death was 1.4 months (interquartile range, 0.5-4.2 months) and the median number of medical team encounters before PC was 20 (interquartile range, 6-45). On multivariate analysis, older age, being married, and specific cancer types (gynecologic, lung, and head and neck) were significantly associated with a PC referral. Patients with hematologic malignancies had significantly fewer PC referrals (33%), the longest interval between an advanced cancer diagnosis and PC consultation (median, 16 months), the shortest interval between PC consultation and death (median, 0.4 months), and one of the largest numbers of medical team encounters (median, 38) before PC.nnnCONCLUSIONSnWe found that a majority of cancer patients at our cancer center did not access PC before they died. PC referral occurs late in the disease process with many missed opportunities for referral.

Targeted Agent Use in Cancer Patients at the End of Life

CONTEXTnThe use of targeted therapy at the end of life has not been well characterized.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo determine the frequency and predictors of targeted therapy use in the last days of life.nnnMETHODSnAll adult patients residing in the Houston area who died of advanced cancer between September 1, 2009 and February 28, 2010 and had contact with our institution within the last three months of life were included. We collected baseline demographics and data on chemotherapy and targeted agents.nnnRESULTSnEight hundred sixteen patients were included: average age 62 years (range 21-97), female 48% and white 61%. The median interval between the last treatment and death was 47 (interquartile range [IQR] 21-97) days for targeted agents and 57 (IQR 26-118) days for chemotherapeutic agents. Within the last 30 days of life, 116 (14%) patients received targeted agents and 147 (18%) received chemotherapy. Regimens given in the last 30 days of life included a median of one (IQR 1-2) chemotherapeutic or targeted agent and 43 (5%) patients receiving targeted agents had concurrent chemotherapy. The most common targeted agents in the last 30 days of life were erlotinib (nxa0=xa025), bevacizumab (nxa0=xa020), rituximab (nxa0=xa011), gemtuzumab (nxa0=xa08), and temsirolimus (nxa0=xa08). On multivariate analysis, younger age (odds ratio [OR] 0.98 per year, Pxa0=xa00.01), hematologic malignancy (ORxa0=xa06.1, Pxa0<xa00.001), and lung malignancy (ORxa0=xa02.6, Pxa0=xa00.05) were associated with increased targeted agent use in the last 30 days of life.nnnCONCLUSIONnTargeted agents were used as often as chemotherapy at the end of life, particularly among younger patients and those with hematologic malignancies. Guidelines on targeted therapy use at the end of life are needed.

Changes in Symptom Intensity Among Cancer Patients Receiving Outpatient Palliative Care

CONTEXTnSymptom changes are usually reported using summary statistics such as mean and/or median, which may obscure the treatment effect.nnnOBJECTIVESnThe main objective of this retrospective study was to determine the magnitude of symptom changes as assessed by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) after outpatient palliative care at the first follow-up visit.nnnMETHODSnWe reviewed 1612 consecutive patients with cancer who were referred to the outpatient Supportive Care Center and who completed the ESAS at the initial and first follow-up visits between January 2003 and December 2010. All patients received interdisciplinary care led by the palliative care specialists following an institutional protocol.nnnRESULTSnThe distribution of the magnitude of symptom changes was stratified by baseline intensities. Patterns were similar for different ESAS items. At the follow-up visit (median: 15 days later), 52-74% of patients showed a decrease of one or more points in the ESAS score. However, 48-80% of patients with moderate/severe intensity at baseline complained of symptoms with an ESAS score of four or more after outpatient palliative care. Symptoms with absent/mild intensity worsened, ranging from a mean of -3.04 to 0.12 at the first follow-up visit, whereas symptoms with moderate/severe intensity improved from -0.2 to 3.86 (P<0.001).nnnCONCLUSIONnA considerable proportion of patients with moderate or severe intensity at baseline still had symptoms with an ESAS score of four or more. Patients with absent/mild intensities at baseline complained of symptom exacerbation at the first follow-up visit. Various strategies are needed to optimize symptom control in advanced cancer.

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

BACKGROUNDnOpioid 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.nnnMETHODSnMedical 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.nnnRESULTSnOpioid 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.nnnCONCLUSIONnOpioid 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.

Validation of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System in Korean Patients With Cancer

CONTEXTnThe Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) is a brief, widely adopted, multidimensional questionnaire to evaluate patient-reported symptoms.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo develop a Korean version of the ESAS (K-ESAS) and to perform a psychometric analysis in Korean patients with advanced cancer.nnnMETHODSnWe tested the K-ESAS in two pilot studies with 15 patients each. We assessed internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and concurrent validity in 163 Korean patients, who completed the K-ESAS along with the Korean versions of the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (K-MDASI) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (K-HADS) twice. A total of 38 patients completed the questionnaires again seven days later to assess responsiveness.nnnRESULTSnThe K-ESAS scores had good internal consistency, with a Cronbachs alpha coefficient of 0.88, indicating that no questions had undue influence on the score. Pearson correlation coefficients for K-ESAS symptom scores between baseline and after two to four hours ranged from 0.72 (95% CI 0.64-0.79) to 0.87 (95% CI 0.82-0.90), indicating strong test-retest reliability. For concurrent validity, Pearson correlation coefficients between K-ESAS symptom scores and corresponding K-MDASI symptom scores ranged from 0.70 (95% CI 0.62-0.77) to 0.83 (95% CI 0.77-0.87), indicating good concurrent validity. For the K-HADS, concurrent validity was good for anxiety (r=0.73, 95% CI 0.65-0.79) but moderate for depression (r=0.4, 95% CI 0.26-0.52). For responsiveness, changes in K-ESAS scores after seven days were moderately correlated with changes in K-MDASI scores but weakly correlated with changes in K-HADS scores.nnnCONCLUSIONnThe K-ESAS is a valid and reliable tool for measuring multidimensional symptoms in Korean patients with cancer.

Frequency, Predictors, and Medical Record Documentation of Chemical Coping Among Advanced Cancer Patients

BACKGROUNDnIn this prospective study, we determined the frequency of opioid-related chemical coping among advanced cancer patients, as diagnosed by palliative medicine specialists. We also determined predictors for chemical coping and the concordance between the physicians diagnosis and documentation in the medical records.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnPalliative medicine specialists evaluated and diagnosed consecutive patients seen for chemical coping. The proportion of patients identified as chemically coping was compared with the proportion documented in the medical records. Demographic data; cancer diagnosis; history of smoking; substance abuse; psychiatric disease; morphine equivalent daily dosage; Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire scores; and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System scores were also collected.nnnRESULTSnA total of 432 patients were evaluated. Overall, 76 patients (18%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 14%-21%) were diagnosed as chemically coping. Documentation of chemical coping in the medical records was reported for only 15 patients (4%; 95% CI: 2%-6%). CAGE positivity (odds ratio [OR]: 2.89), younger age (OR: 0.97 per year), better performance status (OR: 0.68 per point), pain (OR: 1.20 per point), and well-being (OR: 1.28 per point) were found to be significant predictors of chemical coping by protocol definition. After recursive partitioning, 21 of 50 patients (42%) who were CAGE positive and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2 were diagnosed as chemically coping.nnnCONCLUSIONnApproximately 18% of palliative care patients seen were diagnosed as chemically coping by palliative medicine specialists. The frequency of documentation in the medical records was significantly lower. Better and safer ways for physicians to assess and report chemical coping are needed.nnnIMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEnCancer pain is a multidimensional symptom for which opioids are the mainstay of treatment. However, opioids can have a double effect resulting in drug-seeking behaviors. Chemical coping occurs when a patient uses opioids in a nonprescribed way to cope with various stressful events. This can lead to misuse of opioids and complications including neurotoxicities, respiratory depression, and death. Proper diagnosis and documentation is needed to ensure proper management of pain and to avoid unnecessary harm. The findings of this study suggest that ∼18% of advanced cancer patients seen by a palliative care service were diagnosed as chemical coping, but only 4% were documented in the medical records.

Chemical coping versus pseudoaddiction in patients with cancer pain

OBJECTIVEnThe 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.nnnMETHODnDuring the period from December 26 to December 30, 2011, the medical records of two patients with opioid-related aberrant behaviors were reviewed.nnnRESULTSnWe described two patients with a significant cancer history and different comorbidities who presented with different aberrant drug-related behaviors and opioid requirements.nnnSIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTSnOpioid-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.

Consistency of symptom clusters among advanced cancer patients seen at an outpatient supportive care clinic in a tertiary cancer center

OBJECTIVEnAdvanced cancer patients often develop severe physical and psychological symptom clusters (SCs), but limited data exist on their consistency or severity after an outpatient interdisciplinary team consultation led by palliative care specialists. The primary aim of the study was to determine the consistency and severity of SCs in advanced cancer patients in this setting.nnnMETHODnA total of 1373 patients with advanced cancer who were referred to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Centers Outpatient Supportive Care Center between January 2003 and October 2008 with a complete Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS; 0-10 scale) occurred at initial and first follow-up visit were reviewed (median 14 days, range 1-4 weeks). We used a Wilcoxon signed-rank test to determine whether symptoms changed over time, and a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation to determine SCs at baseline and at first follow-up. The number of factors calculated was determined based upon the number of eigenvalues.nnnRESULTSnThe patients ratings of the following symptoms (mean, SD) at the initial and follow-up visits, respectively, were: fatigue 6.2 (2.3) and 5.7 (2.5, p < 0.0001), pain 5.4 (2.9) and 4.6 (3, p < 0.0001), nausea 2.2 (2.8) and 2.0 (2.6, p < 0.0001), depression 3.0 (2.9) and 2.5 (2.7, p < 0.0001), anxiety 3.4 (3.0) and 2.8 (2.8, p < 0.0001), drowsiness 4.8 (3.1) and 4.4 (3.1, p < 0.0001), dyspnea 3.0 (2.9) and 2.7 (2.8), p < 0.0001), loss of appetite 4.2 (2.7) and 3.9 (2.7, p < 0.0001), sleep disturbances 4.2 (2.6) and 3.8 (2.6, P < 0.0001), and well-being 4.3 (2.5) and 3.9 (2.3, p < 0.0001). Cluster composition differentiated into physical (fatigue, pain, nausea, drowsiness, dyspnea, and loss of appetite) and psychological (anxiety and depression) components at the initial visit, and these two SCs were consistent upon follow-up.nnnSIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTSnWe conclude that SCs remain constant between baseline and near-term follow-up but that the severity of those symptoms lessened during that interval. This knowledge may allow palliative care teams to provide more targeted and higher-quality care, but further studies are needed.

Clinical characteristics of cancer patients referred early to supportive and palliative care

BACKGROUNDnPalliative care is evolving from end-of-life care to care provided earlier in the disease trajectory. We compared clinical characteristics between patients referred late in the course of their disease (late referrals, LRs) with patients referred earlier (early referrals, ERs).nnnMETHODnSix hundred and ninety-five patients referred to the Supportive Care Center (SCC) with follow-up within 30 days were enrolled. One hundred ERs (expected survival ≥ 2 years or receiving treatment for curative intent, 14.4%) were compared with a random sample of 100/595 consecutive LRs (all others).nnnRESULTSnERs were younger (54.4 versus 59.5, p=0.009), more likely to have head and neck cancer (67% versus 6%, p<0.0001), alcoholism (15% versus 4%, p=0.014), and shorter disease duration until first palliative care consultation (3.8 months versus 16.2 months, p<0.0001). They were also more likely to be referred by radiation oncologists (49% versus 3%, p<0.0001), be referred for treatment-related side effects (70% versus 9%, p<0.0001), and receive more anticancer treatment (74% versus 48%, p=0.0002). Head and neck cancer and reason for referral were independent predictors for ERs (p<0.0001) in multivariate analysis. Baseline Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) symptoms were similar between ERs and LRs. Both groups exhibited improved ESAS scores at follow-up; LRs experienced greater improvement in the symptom distress score (-5.5 versus -3, p=0.007). The median total number of medical visits was higher in ERs (p<0.001); however, the median number of visits per month was higher in LRs (p<0.001).nnnCONCLUSIONSnERs had different patient characteristics than LRs, and although ERs experience distress similar to that of LRs, their needs and outcomes differ.