Symptoms, performance status and phase of illness in advanced cancer: multicentre cross-sectional study of palliative care unit admissions.

OBJECTIVES: To clarify the relationship between Phase of Illness at the time of admission to palliative care units and symptoms of patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of the East Asian collaborative cross-cultural Study to Elucidate the Dying process. Palliative physicians recorded data, including Phase of Illness, physical function and the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale. We used multinomial logistic regression to analyse ORs for factors associated with Phase of Illness. Twenty-three palliative care units in Japan participated from January 2017 to September 2018. RESULTS: In total, 1894 patients were analysed-50.9% were male, mean age was 72.4 (SD±12.3) years, and Phase of Illness at the time of admission to the palliative care unit comprised 177 (8.9%) stable, 579 (29.2%) unstable, 921 (46.4%) deteriorating and 217 (10.9%) terminal phases. Symptoms were most distressing in the terminal phase for all items, followed by deteriorating, unstable and stable (p<0.001). The stable phase had lower association with shortness of breath (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94) and felt at peace (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90) than the unstable phase. In the deteriorating phase, weakness or lack of energy (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.40) were higher, while drowsiness (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97) and felt at peace (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94) were significantly lower. CONCLUSION: Our study is reflective of the situation in palliative care units in Japan. Future studies should consider the differences in patients' medical conditions and routinely investigate patients' Phase of Illness and symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRARION NUMBER: UMIN000025457.

Association of the RASS Score with Intensity of Symptoms, Discomfort, and Communication Capacity in Terminally Ill Cancer Patients Receiving Palliative Sedation: Is RASS an Appropriate Outcome Measure?

Background: Palliative sedation is sometimes needed for refractory symptoms, and the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) is one of the key measures. The primary aim of this study was to explore the association between RASS and degree of distress quantified by other measures: Item "symptom control" of Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS, item 2), Discomfort Scale for Dementia of Alzheimer Type (Discomfort Scale), and Noncommunicative Patient's Pain Assessment Instrument (NOPPAIN), as well as a communication capacity measured by the Communication Capacity Scale (CCS), item 4. Methods: This was a prospective observational study on terminally ill cancer patients with palliative sedation in a palliative care unit of a designated cancer hospital. Primarily responsible palliative care physicians rated RASS, Discomfort Scale, NOPPAIN, and CCS just before sedation and 1, 4, 24, and 48 hours after, and ward nurses rated STAS at the same time. Since the ward nurses evaluated STAS during palliative sedation, we regarded STAS as a standard of distress measure. Results: A total of 249 assessments were performed for 55 patients. RASS was moderately to highly associated with symptom intensity measured by STAS, discomfort measured by the Discomfort Scale, and pain measured by NOPPAIN (r = 0.63 to 0.73). But communication capacity measured by CCS is not parallel with RASS and demonstrated a valley shape. In 82 assessments with an RASS score of -1 to -3, 11 patients (13%) had physical symptoms of STAS of 2 or more. Conclusions: RASS can roughly estimate physical distress in patients with palliative sedation, but a measure to more precisely quantify the symptom experience is needed.

Association between experiences of advanced cancer patients at the end of life and depression in their bereaved caregivers.

OBJECTIVE: Research on the association between circumstances of death in advanced cancer patients and depression in their bereaved caregivers is limited. METHODS: A longitudinal study was performed on patients admitted to 21 inpatient hospices/palliative care units (PCUs) in Japan. Patient symptoms were assessed at admission and in the last 3 days of life. Data on distressing events (unexpected death, bleeding) and received treatments (morphine prescriptions, continuous deep sedation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation) were also obtained. Bereaved caregiver depression was assessed 6 months or more after patient death via mail survey using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). A multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to explore variables predicting bereaved caregiver depression. RESULTS: Of 1324 deceased patient-bereaved caregiver dyads, data were finally analyzed for 711 dyads. The proportion of probable depression (PHQ-9 scores ≥10) in bereaved caregivers was 13.6% (91/671; 95% confidence interval: 11.0-16.2). The multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that patient hyperactive delirium at PCU admission was significantly associated with the development of bereaved caregiver depression (odds ratio: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.2-3.8). Bereaved caregiver perceived low social support (OR: 4.7, 95% CI: 2.2-10.0) and low preparedness for death (OR: 4.5, 95% CI: 2.6-7.8) were also significantly associated with the development of depression. Other patient and bereaved caregiver variables had no association with depression. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperactive delirium in terminally ill cancer patients was associated with bereaved caregiver depression. The development of effective strategies to reduce delirium-related agitation and to provide educational interventions for caregivers may be needed.

Optimal Paracentesis Volume for Terminally Ill Cancer Patients With Ascites.

CONTEXT: Patients with malignant ascites often suffer from distressing symptoms, especially in their end-of-life stage. Although paracentesis is the most common treatment modality to alleviate such symptoms, the optimal volume of paracentesis is not known. OBJECTIVES: To explore the efficacy and safety of paracentesis by the drainage volume for terminally ill cancer patients with malignant ascites. METHODS: This was part of a multicenter prospective observational study (EASED study). Consecutive adult patients with advanced cancer admitted to 23 participating palliative care units were eligible. We analyzed patients with malignant ascites who received paracentesis. We compared paracentesis-free survival (PFS) using Cox regression among three groups with different paracentesis volumes: minimum: ≤ 1500 mL, small: 1500-2500 mL, and moderate: > 2500 mL. Trends of the difference in the numerical rating scale of abdominal distension (0-10) and adverse events were compared among the 3 groups. RESULTS: Of the 1926 patients enrolled, 673 developed ascites (symptomatic, n = 374 and asymptomatic, n = 299). Finally, we analyzed 87 patients with paracentesis. Median PFS was 7 days. Compared with a moderate volume, small-volume paracentesis was not a significant risk for shorter PFS (HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.69-1.93), while a minimum volume was a significant risk (HR: 2.34). The abdominal distension intensity significantly decreased after paracentesis (median: 7.5 to 4.0), while the difference did not significantly increase as the volume of paracentesis rose (P = 0.61). No severe adverse event was observed. CONCLUSION: Even small-volume paracentesis could alleviate abdominal distension of terminally ill cancer patients with malignant ascites without shortening the paracentesis interval compared with moderate-volume paracentesis. Small-volume paracentesis was a well-balanced treatment for these patients.

Effects of enteral nutrition and parenteral nutrition on survival in patients with advanced cancer cachexia: Analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The benefits of artificial nutrition and hydration in patients with advanced cancer remain unknown. Therefore, we conducted a prospective study to evaluate effects of enteral nutrition (EN) and parenteral nutrition and hydration (PNH) on survival in palliative care units. METHODS: This study involved a secondary analysis of a multicenter cohort study. Data of primary nutritional administration routes during the first week after admission (oral intake, enteral tube feeding, parenteral nutrition, parenteral hydration, poor oral intake) were obtained. Data of averaged calorie sufficiency rate/total calorie intake [high (75% ≤ or 750 kcal/day ≤), moderate (50-75% or 500-750 kcal/day), low (25-50% or 250-500 kcal/day), very low (<25% or <250 kcal/day)] were also obtained. After investigating the implementation of artificial nutrition and hydration, participants were divided into three groups according to the nutritional administration route and calorie sufficiency rate/total calorie intake: EN, PNH, and control. We conducted time-to-event analyses using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Patients were divided into the EN group (n = 730), PNH group (n = 190), and control group (n = 533). Differences in survival rates among the three groups were significant (Log-rank P < 0.001). Median survival times were 43.0 (95% CI 40-46), 33.0 (95% CI 29-37), and 15.0 (95% CI 14-16) days, respectively (P < 0.001). In the multivariate-adjusted model, a significantly lower risk of mortality was observed in Cox's proportional hazard model in the EN group and PNH groups (HR 0.43 [95% CI 0.37-0.49], P < 0.001; and HR 0.52 [95% CI 0.44-0.62], P < 0.001, respectively) than in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated the clinical benefits of EN and PNH for patients with advanced cancer. Nevertheless, managing symptoms to improve oral intake is essential before initiation of PNH, because EN was superior to PNH.

Predictors of duloxetine response in patients with neuropathic cancer pain: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial-JORTC-PAL08 (DIRECT) study.

PURPOSE: Duloxetine has some effect against cancer neuropathic pain (CNP); however, predictors of duloxetine response are unclear. This study sought to identify predictors of duloxetine response in patients with CNP. METHODS: Patients (N = 70) with CNP unresponsive to or intolerant of opioid-pregabalin combination therapy, with a brief pain inventory-short form (BPI-SF) Item 5 score (average pain) ≥ 4, and with a total hospital anxiety and depression scale score < 20, were randomized to a duloxetine or a placebo group. Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to identify predictors of duloxetine response as a secondary analysis with the change in the average pain score on day 10 from day 0 as the dependent variable, and the following five covariates; baseline (day 0) average pain score, baseline opioid dose, continuation/discontinuation of pregabalin, and items 20 and 21 score of the short-form McGill pain questionnaire 2 (SF-MPQ-2) as independent variables. RESULTS: Of the four domains (continuous pain, intermittent pain, neuropathic pain, and affective descriptors) score of SF-MPQ-2 on day 0, significant differences were observed in the neuropathic pain domain (p = 0.040) in change on the average pain between day 10 and day 0 in the duloxetine group. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that patients with a high score for SF-MPQ-2 Item 21 (tingling pain) on day 0 had a significantly greater change in average pain between day 10 and day 0 (p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: Patients with a high score for SF-MPQ-2 Item 21 might benefit more from duloxetine.

Additive Duloxetine for Cancer-Related Neuropathic Pain Nonresponsive or Intolerant to Opioid-Pregabalin Therapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial (JORTC-PAL08).

CONTEXT: Although opioids and pregabalin are widely used for cancer-related neuropathic pain (CNP), no clinical trials exist to determine which medications are effective when an opioid-pregabalin combination therapy fails. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the efficacy of duloxetine for CNP nonresponsive or intolerant to opioid-pregabalin combination therapy. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed at 12 specialized palliative care services in Japan. Patients with CNP average pain scores (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]-Item 5) ≥ 4 in the previous 24 hours and nonresponsive or intolerant to opioid-pregabalin combination therapy were eligible. Patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathies were excluded. Patients were administered duloxetine 20 mg/day titrated to 40 mg/day or placebo for 10 days. The primary endpoint was BPI-Item 5 on Day 10. Responder analysis measured proportions of patients with 30% and 50% pain decreases. RESULTS: Seventy patients were enrolled. Complete case analysis revealed mean BPI-Item 5 on Day 10 of 4.03 for Group D vs. 4.88 for Group P (P = 0.053). Baseline observation carried forward analysis revealed mean BPI-Item 5 on Day 10 of 4.06 and 4.91 for Groups D and P, respectively (P = 0.048). Clinically meaningful pain improvement (≥30%) was reported by 44.1% (n = 15) of patients in Group D vs. 18.2% (n = 6) in Group P (P = 0.02); 32.4% (n = 11) vs. 3.0% (n = 1) of patients in Groups D and P, respectively, reported pain reduction ≥ 50% (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Adding duloxetine to opioid-pregabalin therapy might have clinical benefit in alleviating refractory CNP. Further studies are needed to conclude the efficacy of adding duloxetine.

Prophylactic use of antiemetics for prevention of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting: a survey about Italian physicians' practice.

PURPOSE: Antiemetics are being used both for the treatment and prophylaxis of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) in clinical practice, despite the lack of evidence for the prophylactic benefit. Studies among Japanese physicians demonstrated over 80% prescribe antiemetics, with neuroleptic antipsychotics as the most commonly prescribed drugs. Our objective was to elucidate the current scenario of the prophylactic use of antiemetics for OINV among Italian physicians. METHODS: We conducted a web-based cross-sectional national survey. All the invited participants received an e-mail with an 11-item electronic questionnaire accessible through a direct link. Anonymity was guaranteed. According to the exploratory intent of the survey, we did not predefine any formal statistical hypothesis. Associations between variables were tested by the Pearson chi-square or the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: From January to March 2017, 112 completed the electronic questionnaire (112/256, overall response rate, 43.7%). Nearly half of the participants were oncologists (54; 48.2%). Sixty-one (54.4%) physicians worked in palliative care units. About 45% of the interviewed prescribed prophylactic antiemetics at the beginning of opioid prescription. The most commonly chosen drugs for this purpose were prokinetics such as metoclopramide and domperidone (84%), followed by 5-HT3 antagonists (8%), neuroleptic antipsychotics (6%), and corticosteroids (2%). Ninety-one physicians (81%) declared to prescribe antiemetics at the occurrence of OINV, mainly prokinetics (N = 70; 77%). CONCLUSION: Italian physicians do not commonly prescribe prophylactic antiemetics for OINV. Unlike previously reported data, dopamine antagonists resulted the most commonly prescribed drugs. Prospective clinical trials are necessary to evaluate the real efficacy of this practice.

Efficacy of Prophylactic Treatment for Oxycodone-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Among Patients with Cancer Pain (POINT): A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) often result in analgesic undertreatment in patients with cancer, no randomized controlled trials have evaluated the efficacy of prophylactic antiemetics for preventing OINV. We conducted this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic treatment with prochlorperazine for preventing OINV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cancer patients who started to receive oral oxycodone were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either prochlorperazine 5 mg or placebo prophylactically, given three times daily for 5 days. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had a complete response (CR) during the 120 hours of oxycodone treatment. CR was defined as no emetic episode and no use of rescue medication for nausea and vomiting during 5 days. Key secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with emetic episodes, proportion of patients with moderate or severe nausea, quality of life, and proportion of treatment withdrawal. RESULTS: From November 2013 through February 2016, a total of 120 patients were assigned to receive prochlorperazine (n = 60) or placebo (n = 60). There was no significant difference in CR rates (69.5% vs. 63.3%; p = .47) or any secondary endpoint between the groups. Patients who received prochlorperazine were more likely to experience severe somnolence (p = .048). CONCLUSION: Routine use of prochlorperazine as a prophylactic antiemetic at the initiation of treatment with opioids is not recommended. Further research is needed to evaluate whether other antiemetics would be effective in preventing OINV in specific patient populations. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Prophylactic prochlorperazine seems to be ineffective in preventing opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) and may cause adverse events such as somnolence. Routine use of prophylactic prochlorperazine at the initiation of treatment with opioids is not recommended. Further research is needed to evaluate whether other antiemetics would be effective in preventing OINV in specific patient populations.

Efficacy of two types of palliative sedation therapy defined using intervention protocols: proportional vs. deep sedation.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the effect of two types of palliative sedation defined using intervention protocols: proportional and deep sedation. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed prospectively recorded data of consecutive cancer patients who received the continuous infusion of midazolam in a palliative care unit. Attending physicians chose the sedation protocol based on each patient's wish, symptom severity, prognosis, and refractoriness of suffering. The primary endpoint was a treatment goal achievement at 4 h: in proportional sedation, the achievement of symptom relief (Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS) ≤ 1) and absence of agitation (modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) ≤ 0) and in deep sedation, the achievement of deep sedation (RASS ≤ - 4). Secondary endpoints included mean scores of STAS and RASS, deep sedation as a result, and adverse events. RESULTS: Among 398 patients who died during the period, 32 received proportional and 18 received deep sedation. The treatment goal achievement rate was 68.8% (22/32, 95% confidence interval 52.7-84.9) in the proportional sedation group vs. 83.3% (15/18, 66.1-100) in the deep sedation group. STAS decreased from 3.8 to 0.8 with proportional sedation at 4 h vs. 3.7 to 0.3 with deep sedation; RASS decreased from + 1.2 to - 1.7 vs. + 1.4 to - 3.7, respectively. Deep sedation was needed as a result in 31.3% (10/32) of the proportional sedation group. No fatal events that were considered as probably or definitely related to the intervention occurred. CONCLUSION: The two types of intervention protocol well reflected the treatment intention and expected outcomes. Further, large-scale cohort studies are promising.

Should low-income countries invest in breast cancer screening?

With the increase in incidence and mortality of breast cancer in low-income countries (LICs), the question of whether LICs should promote breast cancer screening for early detection has gained tremendous importance. Because LICs have limited financial resources, the value of screening must be carefully considered before integrating screening programs into national healthcare system. Mammography-the most commonly used screening tool in developed countries-reduces breast cancer-specific mortality among women of age group 50-69, but the evidence is not so clear for younger women. Further, it does not reduce the overall mortality. Because the women in LICs tend to get breast cancer at younger age and are faced with various competing causes of mortality, LICs need to seriously evaluate whether mammographic screening presents a good value for the investment. Instead, we suggest a special module of clinical breast examination that could provide similar benefits at a very low cost. Nevertheless, we believe that LICs would obtain a much greater value for their investment if they promote primary prevention by tobacco cessation, healthier food and healthier lifestyle campaigns instead.

Prophylactic Use of Antiemetics for Prevention of Opioid-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Questionnaire Survey among Japanese Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Antiemetics are being used both for the treatment and prophylaxis of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) in clinical practice, despite the lack of evidence for the prophylactic benefit. Data regarding the actual status of prophylactic antiemetic use for OINV remain to be elucidated. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the practice among Japanese physicians of the prophylactic use of antiemetics when starting opioids prescription for the prevention of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting. METHODS: This questionnaire survey was targeted among physicians experienced in cancer pain treatment at two institutions of Japan (Nagoya University Hospital and Ichinomiya City Municipal Hospital). The questionnaire assessed the physicians' practice and beliefs regarding the prophylactic antiemetics prescription when they start opioids in patients with cancer pain. RESULTS: Questionnaires were filled in and received from 112 physicians from two institutions. Eighty-two percent of physicians prescribed prophylactic antiemetics at the beginning of opioid prescription, and the most commonly prescribed drug for this purpose was prochlorperazine (88%). CONCLUSION: Despite the lack of evidence, Japanese physicians commonly prescribe prophylactic antiemetics, most commonly prochlorperazine, for OINV. Prospective clinical trials are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of this practice.

Opioid-induced constipation.

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a very troublesome, difficult to manage and a nearly universal complication of chronic opioid use to control pain associated with advanced illness. Some studies have reported that OIC is so intolerable in some patients that they skip their opioid medications and bear pain instead of OIC. Laxatives have commonly been used as a prophylaxis and treatment of OIC but they are frequently ineffective because the commonly available laxatives do not target the underlying mechanism of OIC, which is the blockade of peripheral mu-receptors. Recently, there have been a number of advances in the treatment of OIC, which any physician involved with opioid-prescribing discipline should be aware of. This review will update the new options and strategies available for treating OIC along with the relevant clinical trials. Finally, this review also provides a recommendation on the preferred way to approach a patient with OIC in the modern era as well as highlight on the importance of doctor-patient communication in this setting.

A retrospective study to identify risk factors for somnolence and dizziness in patients treated with pregabalin.

BACKGROUND: Pregabalin is a therapeutic drug for neuropathic pain that is associated with somnolence and dizziness. These adverse events are often experienced shortly after initiating pregabalin, and may lead to treatment discontinuation. The purpose of this study was to explore factors that influence the incidence of somnolence and dizziness induced by pregabalin, and to identify patients at higher risk of adverse events. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of patient characteristics (age, gender, renal function, initial daily dose of pregabalin, co-administration of strong opioids and hypnotics) and the incidence of somnolence and dizziness during the first week of pregabalin treatment. An electronic chart was used to collect data from 204 inpatients prescribed pregabalin at Nagoya University Hospital from June 2011 to November 2012. RESULTS: Among 36 patients who regularly received strong opioids, 18 (50.0 %) reported somnolence or dizziness during the first week of pregabalin treatment. The remaining 168 patients did not regularly receive strong opioids, and 25 (14.9 %) had an adverse event. In multivariate analysis, age (≧65 years, adjusted odds ratio: 2.507, 95 % CI: 1.164-5.397, p = 0.019) and regular co-administration of strong opioids (adjusted odds ratio: 5.507, 95 % CI: 2.460-12.328, p < 0.001) correlated with somnolence or dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that age (≧65 years) and co-administration of strong opioids are risk factors for somnolence or dizziness during pregabalin treatment for neuropathic pain. More careful dose titration is recommended for elderly patients and those receiving concomitant strong opioids.