Prognosticating in patients with advanced cancer--observational study comparing the accuracy of clinicians' and patients' estimates of survival.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians' prognoses in patients with advanced cancer are imprecise. The aim of this study was to compare doctors', nurses' and patients' survival predictions and to identify factors which influence accuracy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Some 1018 patients with advanced cancer were recruited. Survival estimates were obtained from the attending doctor, nurse, multidisciplinary team (MDT) and patient (n = 829, 954, 987 and 290 estimates, respectively) and were compared with actual survival. Clinician and patient characteristics were recorded. RESULTS: MDTs', doctors' and nurses' predictions were accurate 57.5%, 56.3% and 55.5% of occasions, respectively. Nurses were less accurate than the MDT (P = 0.007) but were no worse than doctors (P = 0.284). Estimates of clinicians and patients were more optimistic (doctors: 31%; nurses: 34%; MDT: 31.1%; patients: 45.1%) than pessimistic (12.7%, 11%, 11.4% and 2.7%). Nurses' accuracy increased if they had reviewed the patient within 24 h. Most patients (61.4%) wanted to know their prognosis. Only 37.1% were willing to offer an estimate regarding their own survival. Patients' prognostic estimates were less accurate than health care professionals' (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MDTs were better at predicting survival than doctors' or nurses' alone. Patients were substantially worse. Among nurses, recency of review was related to improved prognostic accuracy.

A phase II study to establish the efficacy and toxicity of sodium valproate in patients with cancer-related neuropathic pain.

The efficacy and toxicity of sodium valproate for cancer-related neuropathic pain was evaluated in a phase II study at this cancer center. Twenty-five patients entered the study over a 13 month period. Pain was assessed using a pain scale based on the Brief Pain Inventory at days 0, 8 and 15. Nineteen patients completed the two week study period, one patient discontinued treatment because of toxicity, and five discontinued because of progressive disease. The most frequently observed side effects were drowsiness, unsteadiness, nausea, and decreased appetite. Response was defined as a decrease in pain score in the absence of increased need for analgesic medication. The response rate for average pain at day 15 in assessable patients was 55.6% (30.8-78.5%, 95% CI), but response rates varied considerably depending on the mode of analysis. Baseline efficacy data have been gained on which to base future comparative studies against antidepressants.

The nature of terminal malignant bowel obstruction and its impact on patients with advanced cancer.

Patients with bowel obstruction due to advanced cancer often have a poor prognosis and suffer distressing symptoms that can be difficult to manage. Research to date has focused on medical interventions and the measurement and control of symptoms. Little attention has been given to patients' perceptions of their quality of life or the impact of their illness. This study aimed to explore patients' lived experience of bowel obstruction. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten patients with bowel obstruction due to gynaecological or gastric cancer. Data analysis was based on an adaptation of Giorgi (1975) and Parse et al's (1985a,b) phenomenological method. Findings suggest that the 'meaning' of being unable to eat is more significant for patients than the nutritional or biological loss of food. For some patients, bowel obstruction marks a process of transition from life to death which is characterized by a sense of social disengagement and disrupted identity. Interviews highlighted aspects of the nurse-patient relationship that were therapeutic in their own right.

Experience in the use of the palliative care outcome scale.

GOALS OF WORK: The objective of the study is to assess the Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS) as a potential audit tool within a specialist cancer centre. It also aims to answer the following questions: does the tool identify problem areas and demonstrate changes in quality of life over time? How well do staff and patient ratings correlate? PATIENTS AND METHODS: The POS questionnaire was piloted at a specialist cancer centre. Thirty consecutive patients admitted to the palliative care wards and ward staff completed questionnaires on admission and twice weekly until discharge or death. A further questionnaire assessed staff attitudes. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in overall patient POS score at 1 week (days 5-9). Four "symptoms" or issues were scored as being important for our patients: pain, other symptoms, anxiety and patient's perception of family anxiety. These all significantly improved within the first week. At the initial assessment, staff underestimated patients' pain and overestimated problems relating to information giving and patients' ability to share their feelings. There was no significant difference between staff and patient scores after 1 week. The other six areas covered by the tool were less important; this may reflect the patient population seen at our centre. Use of the tool identified areas for staff training and effectively demonstrated improvement in patient care. CONCLUSION: The POS is an outcome measure tool designed to assess physical, psychological, practical and existential aspects of quality of life. It may be useful in identifying problems in individual patients and directing care to address these needs.

A retrospective study of the association between haematological and biochemical parameters and morphine intolerance in patients with cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Morphine is the strong opioid of choice for the treatment of moderate to severe cancer pain according to guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO). However, a minority of patients do not receive the desired analgesic effect or suffer intolerable side effects from morphine, and are switched to alternative opioids. METHODS: The aim of this retrospective study was to identify factors that might be associated with morphine intolerance. Data were analysed from 100 controls who tolerated morphine and 77 patients who were switched to an alternative opioid. We investigated whether currently logged data could fully explain the need to switch. Demographic details, cancer type (histological diagnosis) and markers related to organ function were included in an analysis of biochemical and haematological parameters. RESULTS: Patients over 78 years (P = 0.03), or with a high white cell (P = 0.002) or high platelet count (P = 0.003), were more likely to switch. Although our numbers were small, patients with severe organ impairment were more likely to switch. However, a model including white cell count, platelet count, age, serum albumin and alkaline phosphatase, accurately separated switchers and controls in only 68% of cases. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the numbers of patients having cytotoxic drugs in the two weeks prior to the haematological and biochemical analysis. Similarly, there were no significant differences in histological diagnoses between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The white cell count was the strongest single effect observed and, as such, warrants further investigation. Further studies are needed in order to accurately define a model that will predict those patients likely to be intolerant of morphine.

Is there a dose response relationship for clodronate in the treatment of tumour induced hypercalcaemia?

Eighty-six patients with tumour induced hypercalcaemia were randomised to 600, 900, 1200 or 1500 mg of intravenous clodronate, according to post hydration serum calcium levels. Sixty-seven were evaluable for response. The overall response rate was 49.3% (95% CI: 36.8-61.8) with no significant difference in response rates, i.e. achievement of normocalcaemia at days 6-9 (corrected serum calcium < or =2.6 mmol l(-1)) across all groups.