[The use of transdermal opioids in patients in oncological remission suffering from chronic pain]. / Utilisation des patchs d'opioïdes dans les douleurs chroniques chez les patients en rémission oncologique.

Today, oncological patients in remission are becoming more numerous and about a third have chronic pain from various etiologies. In the objective of a comprehensive management plan for chronic pain in these patients, therapeutic goals, conditions and terms of prescription of opioids in the long-term should be discussed. The transdermal route may be an attractive alternative when analgesic treatment of moderate to severe pain is balanced. It provides increased comfort in selected patients in whom oral administration is difficult or a polypharmacy troublesome. Risks/benefits of a prescription of opioids in the treatment of chronic pain in patients in oncological remission should be re-evaluated and included in a multimodal support.

Patients' views about causes and preferences for the management of cancer-related fatigue-a case for non-congruence with the physicians?

PURPOSE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is frequently overlooked. Adherence to treatment guidelines may be related to the patient's views about illness. This study aimed at exploring patients' views about CRF and determining whether they are congruent with best practice treatments. METHODS: Data were collected in 160 consecutive patients hospitalized in a supportive care setting. Biological, clinical, and psychological variables were assessed using validated questionnaires. Patients were also asked to complete the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) and a questionnaire investigating their main symptoms and views about CRF and its management. RESULTS: Patients were mainly men (60%); median age was 66 years. Various cancer diagnoses were represented; 17.5% had primary local diseases, 40% local recurrences, and 42.5% metastatic diseases. The majority of the patients experienced moderate or severe CRF (76.3%) on the BFI. Fatigue was the most frequently reported symptom (87.5%). Only anxiety, depression, and dimensions of quality of life were significantly related with CRF. Two thirds of the patients associated CRF with cancer-related morbidities. As for the best treatments, patients first stressed control of adverse effects. Over half of the patients were reluctant to report fatigue, mainly because they considered fatigue as an unavoidable side effect, but also because they feared a change towards less active/aggressive treatments. CONCLUSION: Patients mostly consider that CRF must be tolerated. Guidelines emphasize activity enhancement strategies as beneficial. The patients' preferences for rest rather than activity may be related to their high level of fatigue, which leads them to disregard activity as a possible treatment.

External radiotherapy for prostate cancer with or without androgen deprivation: Geneva, 1991 to 2004.

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY/PRINCIPLES: A retrospective assessment of long-term results on a single centre, single author experience in treating prostate cancer with high dose curative radiotherapy (RT) with or without androgen deprivation (AD). METHODS: Between 1991 and 2004, 408 patients with clinically localised prostate cancer were treated with RT (+/-AD) at the University Hospital of Geneva. RT alone was delivered to 229 patients whereas AD associated to RT was given to 179 patients. The latter was most frequently delivered to those patients with worse prognostic factors at diagnosis (high PSA values, high Gleason scores, stage T3-T4; p <0.001). Patient's biochemical failure was established at the time of PSA progression above the post-treatment nadir value +2 ng/ml. Late urinary, rectal, and sexual side effects were assessed and scored according to the Radiotherapy Oncology Group grading system. RESULTS: Ten-year overall survival (OS) and cancer specific survival were 93% and 62% (p = 0.10), and 94% and 71% (p = 0.19) for patients treated with RT with and without AD respectively (p = 0.10). Ten-year biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) was 61% and 50% for patients treated with RT with and without AD, respectively (p = 0.14). On Cox regression analysis, PSA at diagnosis and treatment modality correlated significantly with OS, whereas PSA at diagnosis, Gleason score, and treatment modality correlated significantly with bDFS. Mostly high-risk patients (PSA >20 ng/ml and/or Gleason 8-10) benefited from neo-adjuvant AD+RT compared to patients treated with RT alone (67% versus 32%, 5-year bDFS; p <0.001). The 5-year probability of moderate to severe late urinary and low-GI toxicities was 15% and 7% respectively. Regarding sexual toxicity, the 5-year risk of complete failure of erections after treatment was 57%. CONCLUSIONS: AD+RT significantly improved both 10-year OS and bDFS, especially in patients with high-risk disease at diagnosis. Patients treated with RT alone presented with continuous failures during the 10-year interval of observation, thus questioning the wisdom of proposing RT alone at doses below 74 Gy, especially for patients with long life expectancies.

Bedside or not bedside: Evaluation of patient satisfaction in intensive medical rehabilitation wards.

BACKGROUND: Concerns that bedside presentation (BsP) rounds could make patients uncomfortable led many residency programs to move daily rounds outside the patients' room (OsPR). We performed a prospective quasi-experimental controlled study measuring the effect of these two approaches on patient satisfaction. METHODS: Patient satisfaction was measured using the Picker questionnaire (PiQ). Results are expressed in problematic percentage scores scaled from 0 = best-100 = worst. During three months, 3 wards of a 6 ward medical rehabilitation division implemented BsP and 3 control wards kept their usual organization of rounds. In total, 90 patients of each group were included in the study and completed the PiQ. RESULTS: Socio-clinical characteristics were similar in both groups: mean age = 67 years (SD = 13), mean Charlson comorbidity index = 8.6 (2.4); mean length of stay = 22 days (12). During their stay, patients in the BsP units had a mean of 14.3 (8) BsP rounds and 0.5 (0.8) OsPR; control patients had a mean of 0.9 (0.7) BsP and 14.8 (7.3) OsPR (p<0.0001). Patients in BsP units reported lower problematic scores regarding coordination of care (39% vs 45%, p = 0.029), involvement of family/friends (29 vs 41%, p = 0.006) and continuity/transition (44% vs 54%, p = 0.020); two questions of the PiQ had worse scores in the BsP: trust in nurses (46.7% vs 30 %, p = 0.021) and recommendation of the institution (61.1% vs 44.4%. p = 0.025). No worsening in dimensions such as respect for patient preferences was seen. CONCLUSIONS: BsP rounds influenced the patient-healthcare professionals' encounter. These rounds were associated with improved patient satisfaction with care, particularly regarding interprofessional collaboration and discharge planning.

Dosimetric implications of changes in patient repositioning and organ motion in conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess the influence of patient repositioning and organ motion on dose distribution within the prostate and the seminal vesicles (clinical target volume, (CTV)). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nine patients were simulated and treated in the supine position, with an empty bladder, and without immobilization devices. While on treatment, patients underwent weekly pelvic computed tomography (CT) scans under conditions identical to those at simulation. Patients were aligned using lasers on anterior and lateral skin tattoos, onto which lead markers were placed. After each CT scan (n=53) the CTV was redefined by contouring, and a new isocenter was obtained. A six-field technique was used. The field margins around the CTV were 20 mm in the cranio-caudal axis, and 13 mm in the other axes, except in the lateral fields where a 10 mm posterior margin was used. Dose-volume histograms (DVHs) for each organ were compared with those determined at simulation, using the notion of the proportional change in the area under the CTV-DVH curve resulting from a change in treatment plan (cDVH). RESULTS: The reproducibility of the dose distribution was good for the prostate (%cDVH, mean+/-SD: -0.97+/-2.11%) and less than optimal for the seminal vesicles (%cDVH, mean+/-SD: -4.66+/-10.45%). When correlating prostate %cDVH variations with displacements of the isocenter in the Y axis (antero-posterior) the %cDVH exceeded (-)5% in only two dosimetries, both with an isocenter shift of >10 mm. For the seminal vesicles, however, ten out of 53 dosimetries showed a %cDVH exceeding (-) 5%. In nine of these ten dose distribution studies the posterior shift of the isocenter exceeded 8 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Precise targeting of prostate radiotherapy is primarily dependent on careful daily set-up and on random changes in rectal geometry. Margins no less than 10 mm around the prostate and at least 15 mm around the seminal vesicles are probably necessary to insure adequate target coverage with a six-field technique.