Vithusha Ganesh

Enteral and parenteral nutrition in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND In cancer patients, weight loss is an ominous sign suggesting disease progression and shortened survival time. As a result, providing nutrition support for cancer patients has been proposed as a logical approach for improving clinical outcomes. Nutrition support can be given to patients through enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN). The purpose of the review was to compare the outcomes of PN and EN in cancer patients. METHODS A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE and OLDMEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies were included if over half of the patient population had cancer and reported on any of the following endpoints: the percentage of patients that experienced no infection, nutrition support complications, major complications or mortality. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Review Manager Version 5.3 were calculated. Primary endpoints were stratified according to type of EN for subgroup analysis, grouping studies into either tube feeding (TF) or standard care (SC). Additionally, another subgroup analysis was conducted comparing studies with protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) patients and studies without PEM patients. RESULTS The literature search yielded 674 articles of which 36 were included for the meta-analysis. There were no difference in the endpoints between the two study interventions except that PN resulted in more infection when compared with EN (RR =1.09, 95% CI: 1.01-1.18; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Other than increased incidence of infection, PN has not resulted in prolonging the survival, increasing nutrition support complications, or major complications when compared with EN in cancer patients.

Comparison of the FACT-C, EORTC QLQ-CR38, and QLQ-CR29 quality of life questionnaires for patients with colorectal cancer: a literature review

PurposeThe purpose of this review was to compare the development, characteristics, validity, and reliability of three widely used quality of life (QOL) assessment tools used in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients: the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C), the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Colorectal Cancer Module (QLQ-CR38) and its successor, the QLQ-CR29.MethodsA literature search was conducted using Ovid EMBASE and EMBASE Classic (1996–2015 Week 39), Ovid MEDLINE and OLDMEDLINE (1996 September Week 4 2015), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to August 2015) to identify studies that discussed the FACT-C, EORTC QLQ-CR38, and QLQ-CR29 including, but not limited to, their development, characteristics, validity, and reliability.ResultsThe FACT-C consists of 36 items, presented on a 5-point Likert scale, in four domains of well-being (physical, emotional, social, and functional), and the Colorectal Cancer Subscale (CCS). The physical and social well-being scales showed reasonable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient > 60) in all studied populations. The EORTC QLQ-CR38 (38 items) and the QLQ-CR29 (29 items) are implemented in conjunction with the core QLQ-C30 (30 items); all are presented in 4-point Likert scales. Seven scales in the QLQ-CR38 demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient > 0.70). In the QLQ-CR29, three scales had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of less than 0.70.ConclusionThe FACT-C, QLQ-CR38, and QLQ-CR29 have been extensively validated. However, analysis of their characteristics, validity, and reliability suggest differing suitability in assessing QOL in specific clinical situations.

Solitary brain metastasis from prostate cancer: a case report

Brain metastases arising from prostate cancer are exceedingly rare and typically occur late in the course of the disease. Most patients have widespread metastatic disease before developing brain metastases from prostate cancer. We report the case of a 67-year-old male with prostate cancer presenting with an isolated symptomatic brain metastasis. Aggressive treatment of the metastatic site included tumor resection and adjuvant stereotactic radiation treatment (RT) to the surgical bed, resulting in a favorable outcome.

A review of patterns of practice and clinical guidelines in the palliative radiation treatment of uncomplicated bone metastases

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Single fraction radiation treatment (SFRT) is recommended for its equivalence to multiple-fraction (MF) RT in the palliation of uncomplicated bone metastases (BM). However, adoption of SFRT has been slow. MATERIALS AND METHODS Literature searches for studies published following 2014 were conducted using online repositories of gray literature, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and Embase Classic, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. RESULTS A total of 32 articles detailing patterns of practice and clinical practice guidelines were included for final synthesis. The majority of organizations have released high level recommendations for SFRT use in treatment of uncomplicated BM, based on evidence of non-inferiority to MFRT. There are key differences between guidelines, such as varying strengths of recommendation for SFRT use over MFRT; contraindication in vertebral sites for SFRT; and risk estimation of pathologic fractures after SFRT. Differences in guidelines may be influenced by committee composition and organization mandate. Differences in patterns of practice may be influenced by individual center policies, payment modalities and consideration of patient factors such as age, prognosis, and performance status. CONCLUSION Although there is some variation between groups, the majority of guidelines recommend use of SFRT and others consider it to be a reasonable alternative to MFRT.

An update in symptom clusters using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System in a palliative radiotherapy clinic

PurposeTo identify symptom clusters in advanced cancer patients attending a palliative radiotherapy clinic using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS).MethodsPrincipal component analysis (PCA), exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) were used to identify symptom clusters among the nine ESAS items using scores from each patient’s first visit.ResultsESAS scores from 182 patients were analyzed. The PCA identified three symptom clusters (cluster 1: depression-anxiety-well-being, cluster 2: pain-tiredness-drowsiness, cluster 3: nausea-dyspnea-loss of appetite). The EFA identified two clusters (cluster 1: tiredness-drowsiness-loss of appetite-well-being-pain-nausea-dyspnea, cluster 2: depression-anxiety). The HCA identified three clusters similar to the PCA with an exception of the loss of appetite item being classified under cluster 1 rather than 3. Two to three symptom clusters were identified using three analytical methods, with similar patterns reported in the literature. Particular groups of items co-occurred consistently across all three analyses: depression and anxiety; nausea and dyspnea; as well as pain, tiredness, and drowsiness.ConclusionThree similar symptom clusters were identified in our patient population using the PCA and HCA; whereas, the EFA produced two clusters: one physical and one psychological cluster. Given the implications of symptom clusters in the management of quality of life, clinicians should be aware of these clusters to aid in the palliative treatment of patients.

Gender and age make no difference in the re-irradiation of painful bone metastases: A secondary analysis of the NCIC CTG SC.20 randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Patients gender and age may influence physicians in prescribing palliative radiotherapy. The purpose of this secondary analysis of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Symptom Control Trial SC.20 was to explore the gender and age differences in pain and patient reported outcomes in cancer patients with bone metastases undergoing re-irradiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Response to radiation was evaluated using the International Bone Metastases Consensus Endpoint Definitions. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (C30) before and 2 months after re-irradiation. RESULTS A total of 847 patients were analyzed. At baseline, men had more dyspnea, and mild pain. Older patients consumed less analgesic. More women reported clinically significant improvement in mood and enjoyment of life in the BPI after radiation. Similarly, younger patients reported better improvement in enjoyment of life. There were no significant gender or age differences in overall survival, response to radiation, or in C30 scores at 2 months. CONCLUSION Similar benefit in terms of pain relief was observed across all patient groups. Cancer patients with bone metastases should be offered palliative re-irradiation irrespective of gender or age. TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT00080912; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00080912.

Prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND The aim of this article was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of various antiemetics in prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV). METHODS A literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of prophylaxis for RINV in patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis, including total body irradiation (TBI). Primary endpoints were complete control of nausea and complete control of vomiting during acute and delayed phases. Secondary endpoints included use of rescue medication, quality of life (QoL) and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS Seventeen RCTs were identified. Among patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis, our meta-analysis showed that prophylaxis with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3 RA) was significantly more efficacious than placebo and dopamine receptor antagonists in both complete control of vomiting [OR 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.72 and OR 0.17; 95% CI: 0.05-0.58 respectively] and complete control of nausea (OR 0.43; 95% CI: 0.26-0.70 and OR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.24-0.88 respectively). 5HT3 RAs were also more efficacious than rescue therapy and dopamine receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone. The addition of dexamethasone to 5HT3 RA compared to 5HT3 RA alone provides a modest improvement in prophylaxis of RINV. Among patients receiving TBI, 5HT3 RA was more effective than other agents (placebo, combination of metoclopramide, dexamethasone and lorazepam). CONCLUSIONS 5HT3 RAs are more effective than other antiemetics for prophylaxis of RINV in patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis and TBI. Future RCTs should investigate the efficacy of newer agents such as substance P neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in addition to 5HT3 RAs in prophylaxis of RINV during both acute and delayed phases.

Comparison of the EORTC STO-22 and the FACT-Ga quality of life questionnaires for patients with gastric cancer

This review compares the development, characteristics, validity, and reliability of two well-known quality of life (QOL) assessment tools used in patients with gastric cancer: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Stomach (EORTC QLQ-STO22) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gastric (FACT-Ga). A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL (inception to April 2015) to identify studies that discussed the development, characteristics, validity and reliability of the EORTC QLQ-STO22 or the FACT-Ga. The QLQ-STO22 was developed with collaboration with patients, healthcare professionals and literature review and was mainly field tested in European countries. Conversely, items on the FACT-Ga were generated from interviews with patients and healthcare professionals concurrently in North America and Asia. While both modules involve a 7-day recall period and use Likert scales, the QLQ-STO22 and FACT-Ga differ in terms of QOL domain focus, quantity and presentation of items, response options, and scoring. However, both tools show good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, sensitivity to change and construct validity. In addition, both questionnaires have been internationally validated within a large sample of patients undergoing a variety of treatments, thus demonstrating their cross-cultural applicability. The EORTC QLQ-STO22 and FACT-Ga are both valid and reliable tools with unique strengths and weaknesses. Selection between instruments should consider specific patient characteristics and goals of the study.

Impact of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting on quality of life

PurposeRadiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a common side effect of radiotherapy. It is well-established that nausea and vomiting have a negative impact on quality of life, but the relative influence of each of symptom is infrequently reported. This study aimed to compare the effects of nausea and vomiting on quality of life in cancer patients receiving palliative radiotherapy.MethodsThe Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) is a quality of life questionnaire developed in the chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting setting. The FLIE consists of 18 questions, half of which address nausea and half of which address vomiting. Three prospective studies on the efficacy of various anti-emetic medications conducted at our center used the FLIE to assess radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting at various time points during and after palliative radiotherapy. FLIE data from these three studies were combined for the present analysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to assess the relationships between nausea and vomiting, time of FLIE completion, and patient-reported quality of life.ResultsNausea and vomiting scores both decreased patients’ quality of life. Multivariate modeling showed that both symptoms significantly influenced patients’ ability to enjoy meals. Nausea was also associated with increased hardship for the patient, while vomiting imposed more difficulty on the patients’ loved ones.ConclusionsNausea and vomiting both significantly influence quality of life. Nausea seems to impact the patient more directly, whereas vomiting affects those closest to the patient.

Symptom clusters using the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL in palliative radiotherapy

BACKGROUND Patients with advanced cancer often experience a multitude of symptoms. Due to the potential interrelation of symptoms, symptom clusters of 2 or more concurrent symptoms have been advocated for use in the palliative setting to provide better management of symptoms. METHODS The principal component analysis (PCA), exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and hierarchal cluster analysis (HCA) were conducted on responses to items 1-14 in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life-C15-Palliative (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL) at baseline and days 5 and 10 following RT. RESULTS There was complete data for 109, 90 and 87 patients at baseline, day 5 and day 10 respectively. The average age was 72 years. The most common site of primary was the prostate (36.7%), and almost all patients presented with bone metastases (95.4%). Analyses identified 2-4 clusters at each interval. From baseline to day 10 follow-up, across all analyses, items associated with physical functioning clustered consistently with shortness of breath. Pain and pain interference clustered with nausea at baseline; and with sleep at both follow-up intervals. Cronbachs alpha values for the clusters ranged from 0.53 to 0.90. CONCLUSIONS Fluctuation of symptom clusters was observed in a short time frame following palliative RT. Although clusters were dynamic, several items tended to cluster together. Further research is required to validate these clusters.