Paul Glare

Prognostic factors in advanced cancer patients: Evidence-based clinical recommendations - A study by the Steering Committee of the European Association for Palliative Care

PURPOSE To offer evidence-based clinical recommendations concerning prognosis in advanced cancer patients. METHODS A Working Group of the Research Network of the European Association for Palliative Care identified clinically significant topics, reviewed the studies, and assigned the level of evidence. A formal meta-analysis was not feasible because of the heterogeneity of published studies and the lack of minimal standards in reporting results. A systematic electronic literature search within the main available medical literature databases was performed for each of the following four areas identified: clinical prediction of survival (CPS), biologic factors, clinical signs and symptoms and psychosocial variables, and prognostic scores. Only studies on patients with advanced cancer and survival < or = 90 days were included. RESULTS A total of 38 studies were evaluated. Level A evidence-based recommendations of prognostic correlation could be formulated for CPS (albeit with a series of limitations of which clinicians must be aware) and prognostic scores. Recommendations on the use of other prognostic factors, such as performance status, symptoms associated with cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome (weight loss, anorexia, dysphagia, and xerostomia), dyspnea, delirium, and some biologic factors (leukocytosis, lymphocytopenia, and C-reactive protein), reached level B. CONCLUSION Prognostication of life expectancy is a significant clinical commitment for clinicians involved in oncology and palliative care. More accurate prognostication is feasible and can be achieved by combining clinical experience and evidence from the literature. Using and communicating prognostic information should be part of a multidisciplinary palliative care approach.

Truth-telling in discussing prognosis in advanced life-limiting illnesses: a systematic review

Many health professionals (HPs) express discomfort at having to broach the topic of prognosis, including limited life expectancy, and may withhold information or not disclose prognosis. A systematic review was conducted of 46 studies relating to truth-telling in discussing prognosis with patients with progressive, advanced life-limiting illnesses and their caregivers. Relevant studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified by searching computerized databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials) up to November 2004, with handsearching of studies, as well as inclusion of studies satisfying selection criteria reported in 2005 by the authors. The reference lists of identified studies were hand-searched for further relevant studies. Inclusion criteria were studies of any design evaluating communication of prognostic information that included adult patients with an advanced, life-limiting illness; their caregivers; and qualified HPs. Results showed that although the majority of HPs believed that patients and caregivers should be told the truth about the prognosis, in practice, many either avoid discussing the topic or withhold information. Reasons include perceived lack of training, stress, no time to attend to the patients emotional needs, fear of a negative impact on the patient, uncertainty about prognostication, requests from family members to withhold information and a feeling of inadequacy or hopelessness regarding the unavailability of further curative treatment. Studies suggest that patients can discuss the topic without it having a negative impact on them. Differences and similarities in findings from different cultures are explored. Palliative Medicine 2007; 21: 507—517

Systematic review of the efficacy of antiemetics in the treatment of nausea in patients with far-advanced cancer

ObjectivesTo systematically review studies of antiemetics used in the treatment of nausea in patients with far-advanced cancer.Data sourcesRandomized controlled trials (RCT) and uncontrolled studies identified by electronic and hand searching.Review methodsIdentified studies were appraised for quality and effect size.ResultsOf 21 studies included, 2 were systematic reviews, 7 were RCT and 12 were uncontrolled studies or case series. Differences in interventions and outcomes amongst the RCT precluded any quantitative data synthesis and all seven studies were prone to bias. Whereas uncontrolled studies indicated a high response rate to standard regimens (75–93% for both nausea and vomiting), RCT showed much lower response rates to these agents (23–36% for nausea, 18–52% for vomiting). The two methods of antiemetic choice (choice based either on the inferred mechanism or empirical) were equally effective. There is reasonably strong evidence for the use of metoclopramide in cancer-associated dyspepsia and steroids in malignant bowel obstruction. There was conflicting evidence about the efficacy of serotonin antagonists compared with standard treatments (e.g. metoclopramide, dopamine antagonists and dexamethasone). There was little or no evidence of the efficacy of some commonly used and seemingly effective drugs such as haloperidol, cyclizine, and methotrimeprazine.ConclusionEvidence supporting the existing consensus-based guidelines for management of nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer is sparse. Current approaches to treatment based on the neuropharmacology of the emetic pathway may be inappropriate in this setting. Well-designed studies of the impact of “standard” management and novel agents on nausea and vomiting in palliative populations are needed.

Asking questions can help: development and preliminary evaluation of a question prompt list for palliative care patients

Question prompt lists (QPLs) have been shown to be an inexpensive and effective communication tool for patients in oncology consultations. We aimed to develop and pilot a QPL for palliative care (PC) patients. In order to identify suitable questions for inclusion in the QPL, we conducted focus groups and individual interviews with 19 patients, 24 carers and 22 PC health professionals. A further 21 health professionals reviewed the draft document. The draft QPL was piloted in 23 patients. In total, 112 questions were identified and grouped into eight categories. All participants felt that the QPL, in booklet form, could be a useful tool. Out of 23 patients in the pilot study, 22 agreed that the QPL was helpful, contained useful questions, was easy to understand and would be useful in the future. State anxiety (STAI) decreased after receiving the booklet and seeing the doctor in 16 out of 19 patients (overall anxiety decreased by a median of 8, IQR 1–13). Participants in the pilot study endorsed the inclusion of end-of-life issues in the QPL, despite some reservations expressed about this by health professionals in the individual interviews. We have identified a specific QPL that might facilitate useful dialogue between PC patients and their doctor. The QPL has strong support from patients, their carers and relevant health professionals.

Independent prospective validation of the PaP score in terminally ill patients referred to a hospital-based palliative medicine consultation service

The aim of this prospective study was to validate the Palliative Prognostic (PaP) Score in a population of hospitalized patients in Australia in order to determine its applicability in a different setting to that in which it was originally developed. Individual PaP scores were calculated for 100 terminally-ill patients consecutively referred to a palliative medicine consultation service based in a university teaching hospital. The PaP score was able to subdivide this heterogeneous patient population into three groups, the differences being highly statistically significant. Median survivals for the three groups were, respectively, 60 days (95% confidence interval 41-89 days), 34 days (25-40), and 8 days (2-11). The percentage survival at 30 days for the three groups was 66%, 54%, and 5% respectively. These data suggest that the PaP scoring system is a reasonably robust method for prognostication in advanced cancer that appears to be independent of the setting. The short survival of the third group in this study, which is consistent with the presence of a subset of gravely ill patients within the hospital setting who are referred to specialist palliative care services very late in the course of their illness, raises important issues for the care and treatment of these individuals.

Unrecognized constipation in patients with advanced cancer: A recipe for therapeutic disaster

Morphine-induced constipation can lead to therapeutic disasters by several mechanisms. It can be readily prevented by administration of appropriate laxatives, but the importance of this simple intervention is often overlooked. Problems resulting from uncontrolled constipation include not only fecal impaction and spurious diarrhea, but also pseudoobstruction of bowel causing abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting, and serious interference with drug administration and absorption. Cancer pain may also be exacerbated. All of these contribute unnecessarily to morbidity and costs of health care. A case that exemplifies many of these problems is presented and discussed.

Pain in Cancer Survivors

Pain is a common problem in cancer survivors, especially in the first few years after treatment. In the longer term, approximately 5% to 10% of survivors have chronic severe pain that interferes with functioning. The prevalence is much higher in certain subpopulations, such as breast cancer survivors. All cancer treatment modalities have the potential to cause pain. Currently, the approach to managing pain in cancer survivors is similar to that for chronic cancer-related pain, pharmacotherapy being the principal treatment modality. Although it may be appropriate to continue strong opioids in survivors with moderate to severe pain, most pain problems in cancer survivors will not require them. Moreover, because more than 40% of cancer survivors now live longer than 10 years, there is growing concern about the long-term adverse effects of opioids and the risks of misuse, abuse, and overdose in the nonpatient population. As with chronic nonmalignant pain, multimodal interventions that incorporate nonpharmacologic therapies should be part of the treatment strategy for pain in cancer survivors, prescribed with the aim of restoring functionality, not just providing comfort. For patients with complex pain issues, multidisciplinary programs should be used, if available. New or worsening pain in a cancer survivor must be evaluated to determine whether the cause is recurrent disease or a second malignancy. This article focuses on patients with a history of cancer who are beyond the acute diagnosis and treatment phase and on common treatment-related pain etiologies. The benefits and harms of the various pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic options for pain management in this setting are reviewed.

Treating nausea and vomiting in palliative care: a review

Nausea and vomiting are portrayed in the specialist palliative care literature as common and distressing symptoms affecting the majority of patients with advanced cancer and other life-limiting illnesses. However, recent surveys indicate that these symptoms may be less common and bothersome than has previously been reported. The standard palliative care approach to the assessment and treatment of nausea and vomiting is based on determining the cause and then relating this back to the “emetic pathway” before prescribing drugs such as dopamine antagonists, antihistamines, and anticholinergic agents which block neurotransmitters at different sites along the pathway. However, the evidence base for the effectiveness of this approach is meager, and may be in part because relevance of the neuropharmacology of the emetic pathway to palliative care patients is limited. Many palliative care patients are over the age of 65 years, making these agents difficult to use. Greater awareness of drug interactions and QTc prolongation are emerging concerns for all age groups. The selective serotonin receptor antagonists are the safest antiemetics, but are not used first-line in many countries because there is very little scientific rationale or clinical evidence to support their use outside the licensed indications. Cannabinoids may have an increasing role. Advances in interventional gastroenterology are increasing the options for nonpharmacological management. Despite these emerging issues, the approach to nausea and vomiting developed within palliative medicine over the past 40 years remains relevant. It advocates careful clinical evaluation of the symptom and the person suffering it, and an understanding of the clinical pharmacology of medicines that are available for palliating them.

Management of Chronic Pain in Survivors of Adult Cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE To provide evidence-based guidance on the optimum management of chronic pain in adult cancer survivors. METHODS An ASCO-convened expert panel conducted a systematic literature search of studies investigating chronic pain management in cancer survivors. Outcomes of interest included symptom relief, pain intensity, quality of life, functional outcomes, adverse events, misuse or diversion, and risk assessment or mitigation. RESULTS A total of 63 studies met eligibility criteria and compose the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. Studies tended to be heterogeneous in terms of quality, size, and populations. Primary outcomes also varied across the studies, and in most cases, were not directly comparable because of different outcomes, measurements, and instruments used at different time points. Because of a paucity of high-quality evidence, many recommendations are based on expert consensus. RECOMMENDATIONS Clinicians should screen for pain at each encounter. Recurrent disease, second malignancy, or late-onset treatment effects in any patient who reports new-onset pain should be evaluated, treated, and monitored. Clinicians should determine the need for other health professionals to provide comprehensive pain management care in patients with complex needs. Systemic nonopioid analgesics and adjuvant analgesics may be prescribed to relieve chronic pain and/or to improve function. Clinicians may prescribe a trial of opioids in carefully selected patients with cancer who do not respond to more conservative management and who continue to experience distress or functional impairment. Risks of adverse effects of opioids should be assessed. Clinicians should clearly understand terminology such as tolerance, dependence, abuse, and addiction as it relates to the use of opioids and should incorporate universal precautions to minimize abuse, addiction, and adverse consequences. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/chronic-pain-guideline and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.

A framework for generalizability in palliative care.

Palliative medicine has only recently joined the ranks of evidence-based medical subspecialties. Palliative medicine is a rapidly evolving field, which is quickly moving to redress its historical paucity of high-quality research evidence. This burgeoning evidence base can help support the application of evidence-based principles in palliative and hospice clinical care and service delivery. New knowledge is generally taken into practice relatively slowly by established practitioners. At present, the translation of evidence into palliative and hospice care clinical practice lags behind emerging research evidence in palliative care at even greater rates for three critical reasons: 1) the application of research results to specific clinical subpopulations is complicated by the heterogeneity of palliative care study subpopulations and by the lack of a recognized schema for describing populations or services; 2) definitional issues in service provision are, at best, confusing; and 3) fundamental research concepts (e.g., external validity, effect size, generalizability, applicability) are difficult to apply meaningfully in palliative care. This article provides a suggested framework for classifying palliative care research subpopulations and the clinical subpopulations to which the research findings are being applied to improve the ability of clinicians, health planners, and funders to interpret and apply palliative care research in real-world settings. The framework has five domains: patients and caregivers; health professionals; service issues; health and social policy; and research.