Resilience and coping styles in family caregivers of terminally ill patients: A cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: Coping styles can be improved by dyadic palliative care interventions and may alleviate patients' and family caregivers' distress. Moreover, family caregivers' preloss resilience protects against depression after bereavement. This study aimed to determine the types of coping styles can be encouraged to increase resilience. METHODS: A self-reported questionnaire survey was administered to family caregivers at the 4 palliative care units, and their resilience was assessed using the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) and their coping styles were assessed using the Brief Coping Orientation to Problem Experienced, as well as their background characteristics. RESULTS: Among 291 caregivers with a mean CD-RISC score of 56.2 (standard deviation: 16.13), internal locus of control, educational level, and history of psychotropic drug use were associated with resilience. After adjusting for the aforementioned factors, more frequent use of positive coping styles such as active coping (Spearman's ρ = 0.29), acceptance (ρ = 0.29), positive reframing (ρ = 0.29), planning (ρ = 0.24), and humor (ρ = 0.18), was found to be associated with higher resilience. On the contrary, more frequent use of negative coping styles such as behavioral disengagement (ρ = -0.38), self-blame (ρ = -0.27), and denial (ρ = -0.14) was found to be associated with less resilience. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: By assessing internal locus of control, educational level, and history of psychotropic medication use of family caregivers, as factors associated with their respective resilience, may help identify less resilient family caregivers who are at risk for developing major depression after bereavement. In addition, coping skill-based educational interventions targeting patients and their family caregivers that focus on specific coping styles associated with resilience may increase family caregivers' resilience, resulting in less emotional distress and a lower risk of major depression after bereavement.

Validation of Modified Objective Prognostic Score in Patients with Advanced Cancer in Taiwan.

Background: Modified versions of the Objective Prognostic Score (mOPS) needs to be validated to reflect practical palliative care circumstances in Taiwan. Objectives: We compared the abilities of an mOPS score of 1.5 or higher versus a Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score of 30 or lower to predict 2-week mortality in patients with advanced cancer in Taiwan. Design: Observational study. Setting/Subjects: We performed a secondary analysis of an international multicenter cohort study of patients in East Asia. Participants were inpatients with advanced cancer in palliative care units (PCUs) in Taiwan. Measurements: We compared the mOPS-B model, which does not require laboratory tests, with the KPS in a 2-week survival timeframe. We compared the accuracy of the prognostic models using sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Calibration plots and net reclassification indices (NRI) for 2-week survival were compared between the two models. Differences in survival between the higher- and lower-scoring groups of each model were identified using the log-rank test. Results: We included 317 patients, with a median survival of 14.0 days. The mOPS-B had a high sensitivity (0.82) and high AUROC value (0.69). By contrast, the KPS demonstrated good sensitivity (0.77) and an acceptable AUROC value (0.65) for predicting 2-week survival. The calibration plot did not demonstrate satisfactory agreement between the actual and predicted survival times in either the mOPS-B or the KPS groups. Our NRI was positive (absolute value: 22%), indicating that mOPS-B predicted 2-week survival better than KPS. Conclusions: The mOPS-B may serve better than the KPS as a screening tool for admission to PCUs in Taiwan because it was more accurate at predicting 2-week survival.

Prognostic Impact of Malignant Wounds in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant wounds are lesions caused by metastasis from distant primary cancers or by direct invasion of the cutaneous structures of a primary cancer, and are most common in patients with breast or head and neck cancers. Malignant wounds not only cause physical symptoms, but also affect survival. Recognizing prognosis in terminal-stage cancer patients is necessary for both patients and health care providers. The prognostic impact of malignant wounds in patients with head and neck cancer has been poorly investigated. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of the results of a prospective cohort study that investigated the dying process in patients with advanced cancer in 23 palliative care units in Japan. The primary outcome of this study was the prognostic impact of malignant wounds in patients with head and neck cancer. The difference in survival between patients with head and neck cancer who had malignant wounds and those who did not was compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Of 1896 patients admitted to palliative care units, 68 had head and neck cancer, and 29 of these had malignant wounds. Overall survival was significantly shorter in patients with malignant wounds than that in those without (median: 19.0 days vs 32.0 days, P = 0.046). CONCLUSION: Patients with head and neck cancer who had malignant wounds had worse overall survival than those who did not.

The safety and effectiveness of naldemedine for opioid-induced constipation in patients with advanced cancer in real-world palliative care settings: a multicenter prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of naldemedine for treating opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in patients with advanced cancer, who are receiving palliative care, and particularly explored its early effects. METHODS: Palliative care teams and inpatient palliative care units across 14 institutions in Japan were included in this multicenter, prospective, observational study. Patients who were newly prescribed a daily oral dose of 0.2 mg naldemedine were enrolled. The spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) within 24 h after the first dose of naldemedine was considered the primary outcome, whereas, the secondary outcomes included weekly changes in SBM frequency and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were enrolled and 184 completed the 7-day study. The average age of the participants (103 males, 101 females) was 63 ± 14 years. The primary cancer was detected in the lungs (23.5%), gastrointestinal tract (13.7%), and urological organs (9.3%). A considerable proportion of patients (34.8%) had ECOG performance status of 3-4. Most patients were undergoing active cancer treatment, however, 40.7% of the patients were receiving the best supportive care. Within 24 h of the first naldemedine dose, 146 patients (71.6%, 95% CI: 65.4-77.8%) experienced SBMs. The weekly SBM counts increased in 62.7% of the participants. The major adverse events included diarrhea and abdominal pain, detected in 17.6% and 5.4% of the patients, respectively. However, no serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: Conclusively, naldemedine is effective and safe for OIC treatments in real-world palliative care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000031381, registered 20/02/2018.

Factors related to accurate clinicians' prediction of survival: an international multicenter study in East Asia.

PURPOSE: Recent guidelines for prognostic evaluation recommend clinicians' prediction of survival (CPS) for survival prediction in patients with advanced cancer. However, CPS is often inaccurate and optimistic. Studies on factors associated with overestimation or underestimation of CPS are limited. We aimed to investigate the factors associated with the overestimation and underestimation of CPS in patients with far-advanced cancer. METHODS: The current study was a secondary analysis of an international multicenter prospective cohort study, which enrolled newly admitted patients with advanced cancer in palliative care units (PCUs) in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan from 2017 to 2018. We obtained the temporal CPS at enrollment and performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify the factors associated with "underestimation (less than 33% of actual survival)" and "overestimation (more than 33% of actual survival)." RESULTS: A total of 2571 patients were assessed and admitted in 37 PCUs between January 2017 and September 2018. Older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.02; P < 0.01) and reduced oral intake (aOR 0.68; 95% CI 0.51-0.89; P < 0.01) were identified as significant factors associated with underestimation. Dyspnea (aOR 1.28; 95% CI 1.06-1.54; P = 0.01) and hyperactive delirium (aOR 1.34; 95% CI 1.05-1.72; P = 0.02) were identified as significant factors associated with overestimation. CONCLUSION: Older age was related to underestimation, while dyspnea and hyperactive delirium were related to overestimation of CPS for patients with weeks of survival. However, reduced oral intake was less likely to lead to underestimation.

Effectiveness of antipsychotics for managing agitated delirium in patients with advanced cancer: a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study in Japan (Phase-R).

PURPOSE: Delirium is a common and serious comorbidity in patients with advanced cancer, necessitating effective management. Nonetheless, effective drugs for managing agitated delirium in patients with advanced cancer remain unclear in real-world settings. Thus, the present study aimed to explore an effective pharmacotherapy for this condition. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study in Japan. The analysis included patients with advanced cancer who presented with agitated delirium and received pharmacotherapy. Agitation was defined as a score of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale for palliative care (RASS-PAL) of ≥ 1. The outcome was defined as -2 ≤ RASS-PAL ≤ 0 at 72 h after the initiation of pharmacotherapy. Multiple propensity scores were quantified using a multinomial logistic regression model, and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for haloperidol, chlorpromazine, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone. RESULTS: The analysis included 271 patients with agitated delirium, and 87 (32%) showed -2 ≤ RASS-PAL ≤ 0 on day 3. The propensity score-adjusted OR of olanzapine was statistically significant (OR, 2.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.12 to 7.80; P = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that olanzapine may effectively improve delirium agitation in patients with advanced cancer.

Malignancy-related ascites in palliative care units: prognostic factor analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The prognostic factors in patients with malignancy-related ascites (MA) have been poorly investigated. This study aimed to evaluate both the prognostic impact of MA on terminally ill patients with cancer and the prognostic factors in those with MA. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a multicentre, prospective cohort study. Patients with advanced cancer admitted to palliative care units at 23 institutions and aged≥18 years were enrolled between January and December 2017. Overall survival (OS) was compared according to MA. A multivariate analysis was conducted to explore prognostic factors in patients with MA. RESULTS: Of 1896 eligible patients, gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary pancreatic cancers accounted for 42.5%. 568 (30.0%) of the total had MA. Patients with MA had significantly shorter OS than those without MA (median, 14 vs 22 days, respectively; HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.39 to 1.72; p<0.01). A multivariate analysis showed that MA was a poor prognostic factor (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.50; p<0.01) and that among patients with MA, significant poor prognostic factors were liver metastasis, moderately to severely reduced oral intake, delirium, oedema, gastric cancer, high serum creatinine, high serum C reactive protein, high serum total bilirubin, dyspnoea and fatigue, while significant good prognostic factors were female sex, good performance status, high serum albumin and colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: MA had a negative impact on survival in terminally ill patients with cancer. A multivariate analysis revealed several prognostic factors in patients with terminal cancer and MA.

How different are accuracies of clinicians' prediction of survival by assessment methods?

BACKGROUND: No standardized method has been established for evaluating the accuracy of a clinicians' prediction of survival (CPS). Till now, no study has compared the accuracy of CPS according to the evaluation methods using the same dataset. We aimed to examine the accuracy of CPS by different statistical approaches in patients with far-advanced cancer. METHODS: The current study was a secondary analysis of an international multicenter prospective cohort study. Newly admitted patients with advanced cancer were enrolled in palliative care units (PCUs) in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. We obtained the temporal CPS at enrollment. The patients were classified into groups of days (≤7 days) and weeks (≤30 days) based on CPS and actual survival (AS). We evaluated the accuracy of CPS by the distribution, area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROCs), and an estimate ±33% of AS. RESULTS: A total of 2,571 patients were assessed and admitted in 37 PCUs between January 2017 and September 2018. As for the "days" category, the distribution of AS is larger than that of CPS, however, the results are reversed in the "weeks" category. The AUROCs showed over 80% discrimination for both the "days" and "weeks" categories. Accurate CPS within ±33% of AS was approximately 30% in both "days" and "weeks" categories. CONCLUSIONS: We showed a discrepancy of approximately 30-80% in the accuracy of CPS among three different analysis methods: distribution, AUROC, and AS comparison. Considering the low accuracy of AS comparisons, clinicians should provide a wide range of survival time. CPS was able to effectively discriminate and may be useful for risk stratification.

Symptoms and Prognoses of Patients With Breast Cancer and Malignant Wounds in Palliative Care Units: The Multicenter, Prospective, Observational EASED Study.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to investigate the symptoms and prognoses of patients with breast cancer and malignant wounds in the palliative care unit setting. METHODS: This study was a sub-group analysis of a multicenter, prospective, observational study. Patients admitted to 23 palliative care units in Japan between January and December 2017 were enrolled. Data of patients with breast cancer were extracted. We compared demographic characteristics, symptoms, and prognoses by breast cancer malignant wound status. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) score, malignant wound characteristics, and symptom burden. RESULTS: Of 1896 patients, 131 (6.9%) had breast cancer. In this cohort, 44 (33.6%) patients had malignant wounds. Most malignant wounds (88%) were on the back and chest. Malignant wounds were associated with skin redness, erosion, necrosis, or fistula. Symptoms included bleeding, exudate, odor, and pain. Twenty-eight patients (63.6%) needed dressing changes and 14 (31.8%) patients experienced bleeding. None died due to bleeding. In the malignant wounds group, 32 (72.8%) patients had used an opioid dose equivalent to 38 mg of oral morphine daily, compared to 25 mg by 57 (65.5%) patients in the non-malignant wounds group (P = .26). Median PPI scores at hospital admission were 4.5 vs 6.5 (P = .08). Median survival was 23 vs 21 days (P = .48). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with malignant wounds had a distinct symptom burden profile and tended to use a higher dose of opioids. The effect of malignant wounds on survival was unclear.

Low serum creatinine as a prognostic marker in advanced cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether low serum creatinine levels are associated with poor outcomes in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study. Patients were divided into three groups according to their baseline serum creatinine levels. We performed time-to-event analyses using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests, and by conducting univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: 809 males were divided: male-low group (n=192), male-normal group (n=403) and male-high group (n=214). 808 females were divided: female-low group (n=239), female-normal group (n=389) and female-high group (n=180). Significant differences were observed in survival rates between the high and normal groups in the males and females (both log-rank p<0.001). Significantly higher risks of mortality were observed in the Cox proportional hazard model for the high group than for the normal group in both sexes (adjusted HR 1.292, 95% CI 1.082 to 1.542; adjusted HR 1.316, 95% CI 1.094 to 1.583, respectively). High serum creatinine was associated with shorter survival than normal creatinine, while low serum creatinine was not. CONCLUSIONS: Low serum creatinine levels did not have prognostic abilities in this population.

Prediction of Survival in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Narrative Review and Future Research Priorities.

This paper aimed to summarize the current situation of prognostication for patients with an expected survival of weeks or months, and to clarify future research priorities. Prognostic information is essential for patients, their families, and medical professionals to make end-of-life decisions. The clinician's prediction of survival is often used, but this may be inaccurate and optimistic. Many prognostic tools, such as the Palliative Performance Scale, Palliative Prognostic Index, Palliative Prognostic Score, and Prognosis in Palliative Care Study, have been developed and validated to reduce the inaccuracy of the clinician's prediction of survival. To date, there is no consensus on the most appropriate method of comparing tools that use different formats to predict survival. Therefore, the feasibility of using prognostic scales in clinical practice and the information wanted by the end users can determine the appropriate prognostic tool to use. We propose four major themes for further prognostication research: (1) functional prognosis, (2) outcomes of prognostic communication, (3) artificial intelligence, and (4) education for clinicians.

Comparison of Symptom Severity and Progression in Advanced Cancer Patients Among Different Care Settings: A Secondary Analysis.

Background: Most people in Japan wish to spend their final days at home, but the majority fail to do so; earlier studies indicated a more pronounced worsening of symptoms if treated at home. Objectives: This study compared the prevalence of symptom worsening and explored associated factors between patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative care in palliative care units (PCUs) and at home. Design: We conducted a secondary analysis of two multicenter, prospective cohort studies involving patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative care in PCUs or at home. Setting/Subjects: One study was conducted at 23 PCUs (January to December 2017) and the other on 45 palliative home care services (July to December 2017) in Japan. Measurements: Symptom changes were categorized as stable, improved, or worse. Results: Of the 2998 registered patients, 2877 were analyzed. Among them, 1890 patients received palliative care in PCUs, and 987 at home. Patients receiving palliative care at home were more likely to have worsening of pain (17.1% vs. 3.8%; p < 0.001) and drowsiness (32.6% vs. 22.2%; p < 0.001) than those in PCUs. By multivariate logistic regression analysis, palliative care at home was significantly associated with worsening of the Palliative Prognostic Index dyspnea subscale in the unadjusted model (odds ratio, 1.42 [95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.88]; p = 0.014) but not for any symptoms in the adjusted model. Conclusions: After adjusting for patient background, the prevalence of symptom worsening was not different between patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative care at home and in PCUs.

Continuous Deep Sedation for Psycho-Existential Suffering: A Multicenter Nationwide Study.

Background: There is ongoing debate on whether continuous deep sedation (CDS) for psycho-existential suffering is appropriate. Objective: We aimed to (1) clarify clinical practice of CDS for psycho-existential suffering and (2) assess its impact on patients' survival. Methods: Advanced cancer patients admitted to 23 palliative care units in 2017 were consecutively enrolled. We compared patients' characteristics, CDS practices, and survival between those receiving CDS for psycho-existential suffering ± physical symptoms and only for physical symptoms. Results: Of 164 patients analyzed, 14 (8.5%) received CDS for psycho-existential suffering ± physical symptoms and only one of them (0.6%) solely for psycho-existential suffering. Patients receiving CDS for psycho-existential suffering, compared with those only for physical symptoms, were likely to have no specific religion (p = 0.025), and desired (78.6% vs. 22.0%, respectively; p < 0.001) and requested a hastened death more frequently (57.1% vs. 10.0%, respectively; p < 0.001). All of them had a poor physical condition with limited estimated survival, and mostly (71%) received intermittent sedation before CDS. CDS for psycho-existential suffering caused greater physicians' discomfort (p = 0.037), and lasted for longer (p = 0.029). Dependency, loss of autonomy, and hopelessness were common reasons for psycho-existential suffering that required CDS. The survival time after CDS initiation was longer in patients receiving it for psycho-existential suffering (log-rank, p = 0.021). Conclusion: CDS was applied to patients who suffered from psycho-existential suffering, which often associated with desire or request for a hastened death. Further studies and debate are warranted to develop feasible treatment strategies for psycho-existential suffering.

Comparison of survival times of advanced cancer patients with palliative care at home and in hospital.

OBJECTIVES: One primary concern about receiving care at home is that survival might be shortened because the quality and quantity of treatment provided at home will be inferior to that given in the hospital. Although our previous study demonstrated a longer survival of those with home-based palliative care (PC), it lacked adjustment for some potential confounders including symptoms and treatments during the stay. We aimed to compare the survival times among advanced cancer patients receiving home-based and hospital-based PC with adjusting for symptoms and treatments. METHOD: We compared survival time of participants who enrolled two multicenter, prospective cohort studies of advanced cancer patients at 45-home-based PC services between July 2017 and December 2017, and at 23-hospital-based PC services between January 2017 and December 2017. We analyzed with stratification by the estimated survival of Days, Weeks, and Months, which were defined by modified Prognosis in Palliative care Study predictor models-A. We conducted a Cox regression analysis with adjusting for potential confounders including symptoms and treatments during the stay. RESULTS: A total of 2,998 patients were enrolled in both studies and 2,878 patients were analyzed; 988 patients receiving home-based PC and 1,890 receiving hospital-based PC. The survival time of patients receiving home-based PC was significantly longer than that of patients receiving hospital-based PC for the Days Prognosis (estimated median survival time: 10 days [95% CI 8.1-11.8] vs. 9 days [95% CI 8.3-10.4], p = 0.157), the Weeks prognosis (32 days [95% CI 28.9-35.4] vs. 22 days [95% CI 20.3-22.9], p < 0.001), and the Months Prognosis, (65 days [95% CI 58.2-73.2] vs. 32 days [95% CI 28.9-35.4], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of advanced cancer patients with a Weeks or Months prognosis, those receiving home-based PC survived longer than those receiving hospital-based PC after adjusting for symptoms and treatments.

Visualizing How to Use Antipsychotics for Agitated Delirium in the Last Days of Life.

CONTEXT: How physicians use antipsychotics for agitated delirium in the last days of life varies markedly, which could hamper the quality of care. OBJECTIVES: To examine adherence to an algorithm-based treatment for terminal agitated delirium, and explore its effectiveness and safety. METHODS: A single-center, prospective, observational study was conducted in a 27-bed palliative care unit in Japan. All adult cancer patients who developed agitated delirium with a modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) of +1 or more were included; the palliative care specialists determined that the etiology was irreversible, the estimated survival was three weeks or less, and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was three or four. Patients were treated with an algorithm to visualize how to use antipsychotics, with the treatment goal defined as no agitation (RASS≤0) or acceptable agitation for patients and families. We provided all patients nonpharmacological management to alleviate the symptoms of delirium and administered antipsychotic medications when the nonpharmacological approach was insufficient. We measured the adherence rate, RASS, Nursing Delirium Screening Scale items 2, 3, 4 (Nu-DESC), and Agitation Distress Scale item 2 (ADS) on days 0, 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, and 24 hours before death. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients were enrolled. Adherence rates were 99, 94, and 89%, and treatment goals were achieved in 66, 83, and 93% on days one, three, and seven, respectively. The mean RASS decreased from +1.41 to -0.84 on day three; Nu-DESC decreased from 4.19 to 1.83, and ADS decreased from 1.54 to 0.38. There were seven severe adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) of 3), including aspiration (n = 3), apnea (n = 2), tremor (n = 1), and muscle rigidity (n = 1) on day three. CONCLUSION: The algorithm-based treatment could be feasible, effective, and safe. Visualizing how palliative care specialists provide pharmacological management could be beneficial for nonspecialist clinicians, and clinical, educational, and research implications warrant further empirical testing.

Influence of dosing pattern of antipsychotics on treatment outcome of delirium in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend antipsychotics for the treatment of delirium; however, there has been no confirmed recommendation regarding their administrating patterns. This study aims to investigate whether different dosing patterns of antipsychotics (single or multiple administrations) influence the outcomes of delirium treatment. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study involving patients with advanced cancer and delirium receiving antipsychotics. The Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98 was administered at baseline and after 72 h of starting pharmacotherapy. Patients were classified into single administration group (received a single dosage within 24 h before the assessment) and multiple administration group (received more than one dosage). RESULTS: A total of 555 patients (single administration 492 (88.6%); multiple administration 63 (11.4%)) were subjected to analyses. The patients in the multiple administration group were more likely to be male, in psycho-oncology consulting settings, with lower performance status, with hyperactive delirium and with severer delirium symptoms. In the multivariate analysis, single administration was significantly associated with better improvement of delirium (p < 0.01, 95% confidence interval: 1.83-5.87) even after controlling covariates. There were no significant differences in the mean dosages of antipsychotics per day in chlorpromazine equivalent (single administration 116.8 mg/day, multiple administration 123.5 mg/day) and the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study sample, Delirium Rating Scale severity score improvement in single administration was higher than that seen in multiple administration. There was no difference in adverse events between the two groups.

Prognostic awareness in Japanese patients with advanced cancer: a follow-up cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer have been reported to be more likely to receive goal-concordant care if they have accurate prognostic awareness. However, many patients do not have this awareness. This study aimed to examine the prognostic awareness among Japanese patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: This single-center, follow-up cohort study included Japanese patients with advanced cancer who received chemotherapy at Tohoku University Hospital between January 2015 and January 2016. Patients were surveyed at enrollment and followed up for clinical events for 5 years thereafter. We compared (i) the patients' prognostic awareness with both actual survival time and physician's prediction of survival and (ii) physician's prediction of survival time with actual survival. Factors associated with accurate prognostic awareness were identified by univariate analysis. RESULTS: Of the 133 patients eligible for the study, 57 patients were analyzed. Only 10 (17.5%) patients had accurate prognostic awareness. Forty-three patients (75.4%) were optimistic about their prognosis; >80% of patients were more optimistic than their physicians about their prognosis. The physicians' predictions were accurate in for patients (37.5%). Accurate prognostic awareness was associated with physician's explanation of the prognosis and patients' perception of a good death. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of the patients with advanced cancer in this study had prognostic awareness that was more optimistic in comparison with their actual survival, and most were more optimistic than their physicians about their prognosis. Further research is needed to develop programs to facilitate the discussion of life expectancy with patients in a manner that is consistent with their preferences.

Anticholinergic drugs for death rattle in dying patients with cancer: multicentre prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of anticholinergics (AC) for death rattle in dying patients with cancer. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study enrolled Terminally ill adult (20 years or older) patients with cancer who developed substantial death rattle (Back score ≥2) from 23 palliative care units in Japan. AC treatment for death rattle was prescribed according to primary physician's decision. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients whose death rattle improved, which was defined as a Back score of ≤1. We compared the proportion of improved cases in patients treated with (AC group) and without (non-AC group) AC, controlling potential confounders by employing propensity score weighting. RESULTS: Of the 1896 patients enrolled, we included 196 who developed a substantial death rattle. Of these, 81 received AC. 56.8% in the AC group and 35.4% in the non-AC group had an improved death rattle at 8 hours after baseline. In the weighted analysis, AC group showed significant improvements in death rattle, with an adjusted OR of 4.47 (95% CI 2.04 to 9.78; p=0.0024). All sensitivity analyses achieved essentially the same results. In the subgroup analysis, ACs were strongly associated with death rattle improvement in men, patients with lung cancer, and type 1 death rattle (adjusted OR 5.81, 8.38 and 9.32, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity score-weighted analysis, ACs were associated with death rattle improvement in terminally ill patients with cancer who developed substantial death rattle. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN-CTR (UMIN00002545).

Should Neuroleptics Be Used in Patients With Delirium Seen by Palliative Care?

Delirium commonly occurs in the palliative care setting and impacts many aspects of patient care, such as symptom assessment, patient-clinician communication, and medical decision-making. One controversial topic regarding the management of delirium in the palliative care setting is whether neuroleptics should be used. In this "Controversies in Palliative Care" article, 3 expert clinicians independently answer this question. Specifically, each group provides a synopsis of the key studies that inform their thought processes, share practical advice on their clinical approach, and highlight the opportunities for future research. Interestingly, all 3 experts arrived at similar conclusions-they underscored the importance of identification and treatment of any reversible causes of delirium and endorsed a trial of non-pharmacologic measures. They also agreed that neuroleptics should be considered for patients with hyperactive or mixed delirium when the conservative measures fail to control delirium symptoms and for delirious patients with days of life expectancy and thus limited time to try other measures. Risk of adverse effects such as extrapyramidal symptoms and seizures should be considered as part of the treatment decision. There is also a need to conduct high quality research to examine both neuroleptics and neuroleptic-sparing strategies for the management of delirium.

Preference of Japanese cancer patients for being informed about their prognosis.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic information, which consists of life expectancy, functional prognosis, and uncertainty, of cancer patients is essential. However, the evidence regarding the prognostic preferences of cancer patients is limited. To clarify the prognostic preferences of cancer patients and whether cancer patients want to be informed about their prognosis. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional web-based anonymous survey through a private survey company in January 2022. We assessed whether patients would prefer to be informed about their life expectancy and functional prognosis, and explored correlations between patients' backgrounds. RESULTS: A total of 132 patients responded to the survey. The mean age was 63.1±9.3, and 67 (50.8%) were male. The most frequent primary tumor was gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary and pancreatic (n=43, 32.6%). Among the patients, 26.6% answered "Strongly agree" or "Agree" to wanting to be informed about their life expectancy, and 33.6-46.9%. wanted to be informed of their functional prognosis. Experience of a family member that had died from cancer had a significant correlation with the preference to be informed about "Life expectancy" (rs=0.344, P<0.001), "Moving freely" (rs=0.210, P=0.016), and "Proper communication" (rs=0.344, P=0.038). CONCLUSIONS: More cancer patients wanted to be informed about their functional prognosis than their life expectancy. In addition, the experience of a family member that had died of cancer had a significant correlation with the preference for wanting to be informed about their life expectancy and functional prognosis.