Enteral and parenteral nutrition in cancer patients, a comparison of complication rates: an updated systematic review and (cumulative) meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Weight loss in cancer patients is a worrisome constitutional change predicting disease progression and shortened survival time. A logical approach to counter some of the weight loss is to provide nutritional support, administered through enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN). The aim of this paper was to update the original systematic review and meta-analysis previously published by Chow et al., while also assessing publication quality and effect of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the meta-conclusion over time. METHODS: A literature search was carried out; screening was conducted for RCTs published in January 2015 up until December 2018. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving no infection and no nutrition support complications. Secondary endpoints included proportion of patients achieving no major complications and no mortality. Review Manager (RevMan 5.3) by Cochrane IMS and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 3) by Biostat were used for meta-analyses of endpoints and assessment of publication quality. RESULTS: An additional seven studies were identified since our prior publication, leading to 43 papers included in our review. The results echo those previously published; EN and PN are equivalent in all endpoints except for infection. Subgroup analyses of studies only containing adults indicate identical risks across all endpoints. Cumulative meta-analysis suggests that meta-conclusions have remained the same since the beginning of publication time for all endpoints except for the endpoint of infection, which changed from not favoring to favoring EN after studies published in 1997. There was low risk of bias, as determined by assessment tool and visual inspection of funnel plots. CONCLUSIONS: The results support the current European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism guidelines recommending enteral over parenteral nutrition, when oral nutrition is inadequate, in adult patients. Further studies comparing EN and PN for these critical endpoints appear unnecessary, given the lack of change in meta-conclusion and low publication bias over the past decades.

Correction to: Enteral and parenteral nutrition in cancer patients, a comparison of complication rates: an updated systematic review and (cumulative) meta-analysis.

The appendices were incorrectly numbered in the original article. Please see below correcct appendices.

A prospective study examining cachexia predictors in patients with incurable cancer.

BACKGROUND: Early intervention against cachexia necessitates a predictive model. The aims of this study were to identify predictors of cachexia development and to create and evaluate accuracy of a predictive model based on these predictors. METHODS: A secondary analysis of a prospective, observational, multicentre study was conducted. Patients, who attended a palliative care programme, had incurable cancer and did not have cachexia at baseline, were amenable to the analysis. Cachexia was defined as weight loss (WL) > 5% (6 months) or WL > 2% and body mass index< 20 kg/m2. Clinical and demographic markers were evaluated as possible predictors with Cox analysis. A classification and regression tree analysis was used to create a model based on optimal combinations and cut-offs of significant predictors for cachexia development, and accuracy was evaluated with a calibration plot, Harrell's c-statistic and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: Six-hundred-twenty-eight patients were included in the analysis. Median age was 65 years (IQR 17), 359(57%) were female and median Karnofsky performance status was 70(IQR 10). Median follow-up was 109 days (IQR 108), and 159 (25%) patients developed cachexia. Initial WL, cancer type, appetite and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were significant predictors (p ≤ 0.04). A five-level model was created with each level carrying an increasing risk of cachexia development. For Risk-level 1-patients (WL < 3%, breast or hematologic cancer and no or little appetite loss), median time to cachexia development was not reached, while Risk-level 5-patients (WL 3-5%) had a median time to cachexia development of 51 days. Accuracy of cachexia predictions at 3 months was 76%. CONCLUSION: Important predictors of cachexia have been identified and used to construct a predictive model of cancer cachexia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01362816 .

[Cancer Rehabilitation: integrated in the care pathways of modern oncology]. / Onkologische Rehabilitation integriert in die Behandlungspfade der modernen Onkologie.

Cancer Rehabilitation: integrated in the care pathways of modern oncology Abstract. People suffering from cancer are affected both by the cancer disease and from side-effects of multimodal anticancer interventions such as surgical, radiooncological and drug therapies. These effects can lead to physical, emotional, social, intellectual or existential functional deficits, which presence and impact are often underrecgonized by oncology professionals. Oncological rehabilitation targets such deficits by multimodal, transprofessionally delivered, goal steered and human centered coordinated interventions. Indications for oncological rehabilitation exist in situations before, during, between and after cancer therapies in both curative and non-curative intention. This includes for example prehabilitation, rehabilitation of myeloma patients between transplantions, of patients suffering from cancer-treatment related fatigue or from advanced cancer undergoing anticancer treatment: basically, every patient in modern oncology who suffers from substantial functional deficits. Oncological rehabilitation defines concrete goals in order to achieve the functions in comparison to before the deficits occurred, the overlaying aims to achieve an optimal self-determination and independence. A profound understanding of the oncological situation by both the patient and professionals is necessary to define realistic goals. Based on - and steered by - these goals, oncological rehabilitation employs specific rehabilitation interventions, supported by a transprofessionally coordinated team of exercise specialists, physiotherapy, ergotherapy, speech, art and music therapists, nutritional, socialwork and psycho-oncological counsellors, as well as activating and therapy-accompanying nurses and physicians. Competence in both cancer disease and anticancer treatment side effects as well as rehabilitation procedures is relevant in goal setting and rehabilitative treatment guidance as well as administration of systemic cancer therapies during oncological rehabilitation. It is a reality in modern oncology that many cancer patients require both oncological rehabilitation and ongoing anticancer treatments. The integration of oncological rehabilitation in the treatment pathways of modern oncology demands new models - including new forms of reimbursement - making allowance for the realities and needs of modern oncology.

Automatic referral to standardize palliative care access: an international Delphi survey.

PURPOSE: Palliative care referral is primarily based on clinician judgment, contributing to highly variable access. Standardized criteria to trigger automatic referral have been proposed, but it remains unclear how best to apply them in practice. We conducted a Delphi study of international experts to identify a consensus for the use of standardized criteria to trigger automatic referral. METHODS: Sixty international experts stated their level of agreement for 14 statements regarding the use of clinician-based referral and automatic referral over two Delphi rounds. A consensus was defined as an agreement of ≥70% a priori. RESULTS: The response rate was 59/60 (98%) for the first round and 56/60 (93%) for the second round. Twenty-six (43%), 19 (32%), and 11 (18%) respondents were from North America, Asia/Australia, and Europe, respectively. The panel reached consensus that outpatient palliative care referral should be based on both automatic referral and clinician-based referral (agreement = 86%). Only 18% felt that referral should be clinician-based alone, and only 7% agreed that referral should be based on automatic referral only. There was consensus that automatic referral criteria may increase the number of referrals (agreement = 98%), facilitate earlier palliative care access, and help administrators to set benchmarks for quality improvement (agreement = 86%). CONCLUSIONS: Our panelists favored the combination of automatic referral to augment clinician-based referral. This integrated referral framework may inform policy and program development.

Referral criteria for outpatient specialty palliative cancer care: an international consensus.

Although outpatient specialty palliative-care clinics improve outcomes, there is no consensus on who should be referred or the optimal timing for referral. In response to this issue, we did a Delphi study to develop consensus on a list of criteria for referral of patients with advanced cancer at secondary or tertiary care hospitals to outpatient palliative care. 60 international experts (26 from North America, 19 from Asia and Australia, and 11 from Europe) on palliative cancer care rated 39 needs-based criteria and 22 time-based criteria in three iterative rounds. Nearly all experts responded in each round. Consensus was defined by an a-priori agreement of 70% or more. Panellists reached consensus on 11 major criteria for referral: severe physical symptoms, severe emotional symptoms, request for hastened death, spiritual or existential crisis, assistance with decision making or care planning, patient request for referral, delirium, spinal cord compression, brain or leptomeningeal metastases, within 3 months of advanced cancer diagnosis for patients with median survival of 1 year or less, and progressive disease despite second-line therapy. Consensus was also reached on 36 minor criteria for specialist palliative-care referral. These criteria, if validated, could provide guidance for identification of patients suitable for outpatient specialty palliative care.

Referral Criteria for Outpatient Palliative Cancer Care: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient palliative care clinics facilitate early referral and are associated with improved outcomes in cancer patients. However, appropriate candidates for outpatient palliative care referral and optimal timing remain unclear. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify criteria that are considered when an outpatient palliative cancer care referral is initiated. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1948-2013 citations) and Ovid Embase (1947-2015 citations) for articles related to outpatient palliative cancer care. Two researchers independently reviewed each citation for inclusion and extracted the referral criteria. The interrater agreement was high (κ = 0.96). RESULTS: Of the 186 publications in our initial search, 21 were included in the final sample. We identified 20 unique referral criteria. Among these, 6 were recurrent themes, which included physical symptoms (n = 13 [62%]), cancer trajectory (n = 13 [62%]), prognosis (n = 7 [33%]), performance status (n = 7 [33%]), psychosocial distress (n = 6 [29%]), and end-of-life care planning (n = 5 [24%]). We found significant variations among the articles regarding the definition of advanced cancer and the assessment tools for symptom/distress screening. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (n = 7 [33%]) and the distress thermometer (n = 2 [10%]) were used most often. Furthermore, there was a lack of consensus in the cutoffs in symptom assessment tools and timing for outpatient palliative care referral. CONCLUSION: This systematic review identified 20 criteria including 6 recurrent themes for outpatient cancer palliative care referral. It highlights the significant heterogeneity regarding the timing and process for referral and the need for further research to develop standardized referral criteria. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Outpatient palliative care clinics improve patient outcomes; however, it remains unclear who is appropriate for referral and what is the optimal timing. A better understanding of the referral criteria would help (a) referring clinicians to identify appropriate patients for palliative care interventions, (b) administrators to assess their programs with set benchmarks for quality improvement, (c) researchers to standardize inclusion criteria, and (d) policymakers to develop clinical care pathways and allocate appropriate resources. This systematic review identified 20 criteria including 6 recurrent themes for outpatient palliative cancer care referral. It represents the first step toward developing standardized referral criteria.

Integration of oncology and palliative care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Both the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology strongly endorse integrating oncology and palliative care (PC); however, a global consensus on what constitutes integration is currently lacking. To better understand what integration entails, we conducted a systematic review to identify articles addressing the clinical, educational, research, and administrative indicators of integration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBase between 1948 and 2013. Two researchers independently reviewed each citation for inclusion and extracted the indicators related to integration. The inter-rater agreement was high (κ = 0.96, p < .001). RESULTS: Of the 431 publications in our initial search, 101 were included. A majority were review articles (58%) published in oncology journals (59%) and in or after 2010 (64%, p < .001). A total of 55 articles (54%), 33 articles (32%), 24 articles (24%), and 14 articles (14%) discussed the role of outpatient clinics, community-based care, PC units, and inpatient consultation teams in integration, respectively. Process indicators of integration include interdisciplinary PC teams (n = 72), simultaneous care approach (n = 71), routine symptom screening (n = 25), PC guidelines (n = 33), care pathways (n = 11), and combined tumor boards (n = 10). A total of 66 articles (65%) mentioned early involvement of PC, 18 (18%) provided a specific timing, and 28 (28%) discussed referral criteria. A total of 45 articles (45%), 20 articles (20%), and 66 articles (65%) discussed 8, 4, and 9 indicators related to the educational, research, and administrative aspects of integration, respectively. CONCLUSION: Integration was a heterogeneously defined concept. Our systematic review highlighted 38 clinical, educational, research, and administrative indicators. With further refinement, these indicators may facilitate assessment of the level of integration of oncology and PC.

MASCC/ESMO/EAPC survey of palliative programs.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care program structure is important to integrating palliative services into cancer care. A first step in understanding the structure of palliative care programs is to survey existing programs. METHOD: This data was generated from members of MASCC, the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and the European Association of Palliative Care (EAPC) who completed the surveys on the website. A survey questionnaire was developed using the survey tool developed by Dr. Hui and colleagues by permission which was modified for the purposes of this study. Findings were described in number and percentages. Inferential statistics involved the Fisher's exact test for factors with two levels, chi-Square test for unordered categorical factors with greater than two levels, Cochran-Armitage trend test for ordered categorical factors, and the Wilcoxon rank sum test for measured factors. RESULTS: Sixty-two program leaders completed the survey. Most programs had been in existence greater than 5 years and were led by oncology trained physicians who had an additional specialty. Most programs had consultative services and outpatient clinics with fewer having inpatient beds and institutionally associated hospices. Most programs provided patient continuity. Patients were generally seen late in the course of illness with the average survival of 23 days when seen as inpatients and 40 days when seen as outpatients. Less than half had palliative care fellowship training programs. Most had research structures in place. DISCUSSION: These findings differ from results reported in a previous survey which may reflect a European palliative care program structure. However, there were similarities which include a high inpatient palliative care unit mortality and short survival of patients seen as outpatients, indicating that referrals to palliative care occur late in the course of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: This study not only differs in some respects to a previous survey of palliative care programs but also confirms the late referral of patients to palliative care.

How well is palliative care integrated into cancer care? A MASCC, ESMO, and EAPC Project.

INTRODUCTION: The benefits of integration of palliative care into oncology have become evidence-based. How palliative care is perceived and structured in various settings and countries would be of interest. METHOD: We used a previously published questionnaire to survey multiple institutions with members in MASCC and ESMO. The survey was made available on the MASCC website for approximately 6 months and repeated requests were made to complete the survey. Comparisons were made between NCI/ESMO designated cancer centers, nondesignated cancer centers, and urban hospitals. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-three different institutions completed this survey, 28 % of ESMO designated centers. Most institutions had palliative care programs and most programs consisted of an inpatient consult service and outpatient clinics. A minority had inpatient palliative care beds and institution supported hospice services. Barriers to palliative care were largely financial. Integration of palliative care into oncology was highly desirable but only a minority of respondents felt that their institution would financially support expanded services and additional palliative care personnel. Designated centers were more likely to have expanded palliative care services. DISCUSSION: Our findings are very similar to those previously published. Multiple studies have demonstrated that though palliative care integration into oncology is highly beneficial as measured by patient related outcomes, there is a great concern about reimbursement for services and budget constraints which prevent expansion of services. CONCLUSION: Palliative care integration into cancer care is largely through consulting services for inpatients and outpatient clinics. Financial concerns limit integration and expansion of palliative care services. Designated cancer centers have more extensive palliative care services relative to nondesignated cancer centers and urban hospitals.

When is an invasive palliative intervention in an acute internal medical patient worth it? A structured palliative approach.

A 67-year-old patient with coronary artery disease (CAD), diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery after a recent myocardial infarction despite a high perioperative risk of death. While waiting, acute renal failure developed, and the patient was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). After the patient and his wife were informed that CABG surgery was no longer possible, he declined further intensive care treatment and subsequently died peacefully.We show that a structured palliative approach which has been proposed for cancer patients may also be feasible in palliative situations concerning nononcologic patients.

Weight loss, appetite loss and food intake in cancer patients with cancer cachexia: three peas in a pod? - analysis from a multicenter cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: How to assess cachexia is a barrier both in research and in clinical practice. This study examines the need for assessing both reduced food intake and loss of appetite, to see if these variables can be used interchangeably. A secondary aim is to assess the variance explained by food intake, appetite and weight loss by using tumor-related factors, symptoms and biological markers as explanatory variables. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One thousand and seventy patients with incurable cancer were registered in an observational, cross sectional multicenter study. A total of 885 patients that had complete data on food intake (PG-SGA), appetite (EORTC QLQ-C30) and weight loss were included in the present analysis. The association between reduced food intake and appetite loss was assessed using Spearman's correlation. To find the explained variance of the three symptoms a multivariate analysis was performed. RESULTS: The mean age was 62 years with a mean survival of 247 days and a mean Karnofsky performance status of 72. Thirteen percent of the patients who reported eating less than normal had good appetite and 25% who had unchanged or increased food intake had reduced appetite. Correlation between appetite loss and food intake was 0.50. Explained variance for the regression models was 44% for appetite loss, 27% for food intake and only 13% for weight loss. CONCLUSION: Both appetite loss and food intake should be assessed in cachectic patients since conscious control of eating may sometimes overcome appetite loss. The low explained variance for weight loss is probably caused by the need for more knowledge about metabolism and inflammation, and is consistent with the cancer cachexia definition that claims that in cachexia weight loss is not caused by reduced food intake alone. The questions concerning appetite loss from EORTC-QLQ C30 and food intake from PG-SGA seem practical and informative when dealing with advanced cancer patients.

Neuropathic cancer pain: prevalence, severity, analgesics and impact from the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative-Computerised Symptom Assessment study.

BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain causes greater pain intensity and worse quality of life than nociceptive pain. There are no published data that confirm this in the cancer population. AIM: We hypothesised that patients with neuropathic cancer pain had more intense pain, experienced greater suffering and were treated with more analgesics than those with nociceptive cancer pain, and a neuropathic pain screening tool, painDETECT, would perform as well in those with cancer pain as is reported in those with non-cancer pain. DESIGN: The data were obtained from an international cross-sectional observational study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1051 patients from inpatients and outpatients, with incurable cancer completed a computerised assessment on symptoms, function and quality of life. In all, 17 centres within eight countries participated. Medical data were recorded by physicians. Pain type was a clinical diagnosis recorded on the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain. RESULTS: Of the patients, 670 had pain: 534 with nociceptive pain, 113 with neuropathic pain and 23 were unclassified. Patients with neuropathic cancer pain were significantly more likely to be receiving oncological treatment, strong opioids and adjuvant analgesia and have a reduced performance status. They reported worse physical, cognitive and social function. Sensitivity and specificity of painDETECT for identifying neuropathic cancer pain was less accurate than when used in non-cancer populations. CONCLUSIONS: Neuropathic cancer pain is associated with a negative impact on daily living and greater analgesic requirements than nociceptive cancer pain. Validated assessment methods are needed to enable early identification of neuropathic cancer pain, leading to more appropriate treatment and reduced burden on patients.

Consensus-based standards for best supportive care in clinical trials in advanced cancer.

Best supportive care is poorly defined in clinical trials, and a standard framework for delivery of such care is needed, using best available evidence and allowing replication of studies. We convened a panel of 36 experts to develop consensus statements via the Delphi method. The first round included open-ended questions; subsequent rounds sought to develop consensus-based standards. Consensus was assessed by use of a 5-point Likert agreement scale; more than 70% of panellists had to give a score of 5 to meet a-priori levels of consensus. The panel identified four key domains of best supportive care in clinical trials: multidisciplinary care; supportive care documentation; symptom assessment; and symptom management. Consensus was reached on 11 statements within these four domains. For example, 24 (96%) panellists recommended that the intervals between symptom assessments should be identical for control and experimental groups. Availability of resources was cited as a challenge to implementation of best supportive care standards.

Tools for guiding interventions to address patient-perceived multidimensional unmet healthcare needs in palliative care: systematic literature review.

CONTEXT: The unmet needs of patients with advanced disease are indicative of the patient centredness of healthcare. By tracking unmet needs in clinical practice, palliative interventions are aligned with patient priorities, and clinicians receive support in intervention delivery decisions for patients with overlapping, complex needs. OBJECTIVE: Identify tools used in everyday clinical practice for the purpose of identifying and addressing unmet healthcare needs for patients with advanced disease. METHODS: We conducted PubMed and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature searches to include studies published between 1 January 2008 and 21 April 2020. Three concepts were used in constructing a search statement: (1) patient need, (2) validated instrument and (3) clinical practice. 2313 citations were reviewed according to predefined eligibility, exclusion and inclusion criteria. Data were collected from 17 tools in order to understand how instruments assess unmet need, who is involved in tool completion, the psychometric validation conducted, the tool's relationship to delivering defined palliative interventions, and the number of palliative care domains covered. RESULTS: The majority of the 17 tools assessed unmet healthcare needs and had been validated. However, most did not link directly to clinical intervention, nor did they facilitate interaction between clinicians and patients to ensure a patient-reported view of unmet needs. Half of the tools reviewed covered ≤3 dimensions of palliative care. Of the 17 tools evaluated, 4 were compared in depth, but all were determined to be insufficient for the specific clinical applications sought in this research. CONCLUSION: A new, validated tool is needed to track unmet healthcare needs and guide interventions for patients with advanced disease.

Overcoming barriers to timely recognition and treatment of cancer cachexia: Sharing Progress in Cancer Care Task Force Position Paper and Call to Action.

Cachexia is a life-threatening disorder affecting an estimated 50-80% of cancer patients. The loss of skeletal muscle mass in patients with cachexia is associated with an increased risk of anticancer treatment toxicity, surgical complications and reduced response. Despite international guidelines, the identification and management of cancer cachexia remains a significant unmet need owing in part to the lack of routine screening for malnutrition and suboptimal integration of nutrition and metabolic care into clinical oncology practice. In June 2020, Sharing Progress in Cancer Care (SPCC) convened a multidisciplinary task force of medical experts and patient advocates to examine the barriers preventing the timely recognition of cancer cachexia, and provide practical recommendations to improve clinical care. This position paper summarises the key points and highlights available resources to support the integration of structured nutrition care pathways.

Development of a tool for palliative care needs assessment and intervention: mixed methods research at a Swiss tertiary oncology clinic.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care interventions improve quality-of-life for advanced cancer patients and their caregivers. The frequency and quality of service provision could be improved by a clinical tool that helps oncology professionals to assess unmet needs for palliative care interventions and to structure the interventions delivered. This paper aims to answer the following research question: what do oncology professionals and cancer patients view as important elements in a clinical tool for assessing unmet palliative care needs? Based on the feedback from professionals and patients, we developed and refined an intervention-focused clinical tool for use in cancer care. METHODS: This study used a prospective convergent mixed methods design and was carried out at a single tertiary hospital in Switzerland. Healthcare professionals participated in focus groups (n=29) and a Delphi survey (n=73). Patients receiving palliative care were interviewed (n=17). Purposive sampling was used to achieve maximal variation in participant response. Inductive content analysis and descriptive statistics were used to analyze focus group discussions, open-ended survey questions and interview data. Descriptive statistics were used for analyzing quantitative survey items and interviewee characteristics. RESULTS: Focus groups and Delphi surveys showed that seven key palliative care interventions were important to oncology professionals. They also valued a tool that could be used by doctors, nurses, or other professionals. Participants did not agree about the best timepoint for assessment. Two versions of a pilot clinical tool were tested in patient interviews. Interviews highlighted the divergent patient needs that must be accommodated in clinical practice. Patients provided confirmation that a clinical tool would be helpful to them. CONCLUSIONS: This paper reports on research carried out to understand what elements are most important in a tool that helps oncology professionals to identify patients' unmet needs and provide tailored palliative care interventions. This study demonstrated that professionals and patients alike are interested in a clinical tool. Responses from oncology healthcare professionals helped to identify relevant palliative care interventions, and patients provided constructive input used in designing a tool for use in clinical interactions.

Electronic monitoring of symptoms and syndromes associated with cancer: methods of a randomized controlled trial SAKK 95/06 E-MOSAIC.

BACKGROUND: In patients with advanced, incurable cancer, anticancer treatment may be used to alleviate cancer-related symptoms, but monitoring of them in daily practice is rarely done. We aim to test the effectiveness of a real-time symptom and syndrome assessment using the E-MOSAIC software installed in handheld computer generating a longitudinal monitoring sheet (LoMoS) provided to the oncologists in a phase III setting. METHODS: In this prospective multicentre cluster randomized phase-III trial patients with any incurable solid tumor and having defined cancer related symptoms, who receive new outpatient chemotherapy in palliative intention (expected tumor-size response rate ≤20%) are eligible. Immediately before the weekly visit to oncologists, all patients complete with nurse assistance the E-MOSAIC Assessment: Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, ≤3 additional symptoms, estimated nutritional intake, body weight, Karnofsky and medications for pain and cachexia. Experienced oncologists will be randomized to receive the LoMoS or not. To minimize contamination, LoMoS are removed from the medical charts after visits. Primary endpoint is the difference in global quality of life (items 29 & 30 of EORTC-QlQ-C30) between baseline and last study visit at week 6, with a 10 point between-arm difference considered to be clinically relevant. 20 clusters (=oncologists) per treatment arm with 4-8 patients each are aimed for to achieve a significance level of 5% and a power of 80% in a mixed model approach. Selected co- variables are included in the model for adjustment. Secondary endpoints include patient-perceived patient-physician communication symptom burden over time, and oncologists' symptom management performance (predefined thresholds of symptoms compared to oncologists' pharmacological, diagnostic or counselling actions [structured chart review]). DISCUSSION: This trial will contribute to the research question, whether structured, longitudinal monitoring of patients' multidimensional symptoms, indicators for symptom management, and clinical benefit outcomes can influence patients' quality of life and symptom distress, in a setting of routine oncology practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials NCT00477919.

[Anemia caused by cancer in the context of palliative care]. / Tumoranämie im palliativen Kontext.

Tumor anemia is very common in patients with cancer. The causes are very diverse and the parameter value depends on several factors. If this however develops to be symptomatic it may adversely impact health related quality of life. Erythropoietin or blood transfusion provides options for treatment. However, these are not always uneventful. There could also be a lack of response to Erythropoietin. This case report describes the complexity of tumor anemia. It also includes a more detailed discussion on the Fatigue Syndrome, which is one of the most common symptoms of patients with cancer. In the context of palliative care there is often the question of alternatives for improving the quality of patients life. Some kinds of treatment may also cause the opposite effect. A multidimensional assessment should help to approach this difficult issue and to find ways for a meaningful treatment of the symptoms of anemia.

Definition and classification of cancer cachexia: an international consensus.

To develop a framework for the definition and classification of cancer cachexia a panel of experts participated in a formal consensus process, including focus groups and two Delphi rounds. Cancer cachexia was defined as a multifactorial syndrome defined by an ongoing loss of skeletal muscle mass (with or without loss of fat mass) that cannot be fully reversed by conventional nutritional support and leads to progressive functional impairment. Its pathophysiology is characterised by a negative protein and energy balance driven by a variable combination of reduced food intake and abnormal metabolism. The agreed diagnostic criterion for cachexia was weight loss greater than 5%, or weight loss greater than 2% in individuals already showing depletion according to current bodyweight and height (body-mass index [BMI] <20 kg/m(2)) or skeletal muscle mass (sarcopenia). An agreement was made that the cachexia syndrome can develop progressively through various stages--precachexia to cachexia to refractory cachexia. Severity can be classified according to degree of depletion of energy stores and body protein (BMI) in combination with degree of ongoing weight loss. Assessment for classification and clinical management should include the following domains: anorexia or reduced food intake, catabolic drive, muscle mass and strength, functional and psychosocial impairment. Consensus exists on a framework for the definition and classification of cancer cachexia. After validation, this should aid clinical trial design, development of practice guidelines, and, eventually, routine clinical management.