Fluorescence-guided photoimmunotherapy using targeted nanotechnology and ML7710 to manage peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Fluorescence-guided intervention can bolster standard therapies by detecting and treating microscopic tumors before lethal recurrence. Tremendous progress in photoimmunotherapy and nanotechnology has been made to treat metastasis. However, many are lost in translation due to heterogeneous treatment effects. Here, we integrate three technological advances in targeted photo-activable multi-agent liposome (TPMAL), fluorescence-guided intervention, and laser endoscopy (ML7710) to improve photoimmunotherapy. TPMAL consists of a nanoliposome chemotherapy labeled with fluorophores for tracking and photosensitizer immunoconjugates for photoimmunotherapy. ML7710 is connected to Modulight Cloud to capture and analyze multispectral emission from TPMAL for fluorescence-guided drug delivery (FGDD) and fluorescence-guided light dosimetry (FGLD) in peritoneal carcinomatosis mouse models. FGDD revealed that TPMAL enhances drug delivery to metastases by 14-fold. ML7710 captured interpatient variability in TPMAL uptake and prompted FGLD in >50% of animals. By combining TPMAL, ML7710, and fluorescence-guided intervention, variation in treatment response was substantially reduced and tumor control improved without side effects.

Changes in symptoms and inpatient mortality: a study in advanced cancer patients admitted to an acute palliative care unit in a comprehensive cancer center.

CONTEXT: Although several symptoms have been shown to predict survival, little is known of the roles of symptom changes in predicting inpatient death. OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between changes in symptoms and inpatient mortality among advanced cancer patients in an acute palliative care unit (APCU). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 166 consecutive cancer patients admitted to our APCU from the emergency center (EC) or clinic from June 2006 to December 2007. We recorded symptom severity and presence of delirium on admission (baseline) and on the third, fourth, or fifthth day, whichever appeared first (follow-up). The primary endpoint was the vital status at discharge. Univariate (UVA) and multivariate analyses (MVA) were used to estimate the odds of inpatient death. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-four patients (80.7%) were discharged alive and 32 (19.3%) died in the APCU. All symptoms significantly improved at follow-up. In UVA, persistent delirium was significantly associated with inpatient mortality (odds ratio [OR] 2.59, 95% confidence interval [CI 1] 0.09-6.17, p = 0.031), although presence of baseline delirium was not. MVA revealed that greater risk of dying was jointly correlated with a high level of baseline dyspnea (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.13-1.61, p = 0.001) and drowsiness (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.04-1.50, p = 0.02), low level of baseline anxiety (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.99, p = 0.038), and transfer from EC (OR 6.78, 95% CI 1.99-23.14, p = 0.002). Worsened depression was significantly related with death in UVA (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.08-1.56, p < 0.001), but not in MVA. CONCLUSION: Changes in certain symptoms, such as worsened depression and persistent delirium, might be important predictors of inpatient death.

Association between a name change from palliative to supportive care and the timing of patient referrals at a comprehensive cancer center.

PURPOSE: Palliative care consultation services are now available in the majority of cancer centers, yet most referrals to palliative care occur late. We previously found that the term "palliative care" was perceived by oncology professionals as a barrier to early patient referral. We aimed to determine whether a service name change to supportive care was associated with earlier referrals. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Records of 4,701 consecutive patients with a first palliative care consultation before (January 2006 to August 2007) and after (January 2008 to August 2009) the name change were analyzed, including demographics and dates of first registration to hospital, advanced cancer diagnosis, palliative care consultation, and death. One-sample proportions tests, median tests, χ(2) tests, and log-rank tests were used to identify group differences. RESULTS: The median age was 59 years, 50% were male, and 90% had solid tumors. After the name change, we found: (a) a 41% greater number of palliative care consultations (1,950 versus 2,751 patients; p < .001), mainly as a result of a rise in inpatient referrals (733 versus 1,451 patients; p < .001), and (b) in the outpatient setting, a shorter duration from hospital registration to palliative care consultation (median, 9.2 months versus 13.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; p < .001) and from advanced cancer diagnosis to palliative care consultation (5.2 months versus 6.9 months; HR, 0.82; p < .001), and a longer overall survival duration from palliative care consultation (median 6.2 months versus 4.7 months; HR, 1.21; p < .001). CONCLUSION: The name change to supportive care was associated with more inpatient referrals and earlier referrals in the outpatient setting. The outpatient setting facilitates earlier access to supportive/palliative care and should be established in more centers.

Availability and integration of palliative care at US cancer centers.

CONTEXT: The current state of palliative care in cancer centers is not known. OBJECTIVES: To determine the availability and degree of integration of palliative care services and to compare between National Cancer Institute (NCI) and non-NCI cancer centers in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A survey of 71 NCI-designated cancer centers and a random sample of 71 non-NCI cancer centers of both executives and palliative care clinical program leaders, where applicable, regarding their palliative care services between June and October 2009. Survey questions were generated after a comprehensive literature search, review of guidelines from the National Quality Forum, and discussions among 7 physicians with research interest in palliative oncology. Executives were also asked about their attitudes toward palliative care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Availability of palliative care services in the cancer center, defined as the presence of at least 1 palliative care physician. RESULTS: A total of 142 and 120 surveys were sent to executives and program leaders, with response rates of 71% and 82%, respectively. National Cancer Institute cancer centers were significantly more likely to have a palliative care program (50/51 [98%] vs 39/50 [78%]; P = .002), at least 1 palliative care physician (46/50 [92%] vs 28/38 [74%]; P = .04), an inpatient palliative care consultation team (47/51 [92%] vs 28/50 [56%]; P < .001), and an outpatient palliative care clinic (30/51 [59%] vs 11/50 [22%]; P < .001). Few centers had dedicated palliative care beds (23/101 [23%]) or an institution-operated hospice (37/101 [37%]). The median (interquartile range) reported durations from referral to death were 7 (4-16), 7 (5-10), and 90 (30-120) days for inpatient consultation teams, inpatient units, and outpatient clinics, respectively. Research programs, palliative care fellowships, and mandatory rotations for oncology fellows were uncommon. Executives were supportive of stronger integration and increasing palliative care resources. CONCLUSION: Most cancer centers reported a palliative care program, although the scope of services and the degree of integration varied widely.

Predictors of inpatient mortality in an acute palliative care unit at a comprehensive cancer center.

GOALS OF WORK: Predicting inpatient mortality has clinical and financial implications and helps improve the care of patients with advanced cancer and their families. Models with excellent validity and reliability are available for mortality prediction in intensive care units. The purpose of the current study was to determine factors associated with increased likelihood of mortality in an acute palliative care unit (APCU). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 500 patients admitted to the APCU. Basic characteristics and information on symptom intensity, vital signs, relevant laboratory tests, and the presence or absence of delirium were obtained from the records of the consultation that preceded the APCU admission. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to compare characteristics of patients who died in the APCU with characteristics of those who were discharged alive. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 500 patients admitted to the APCU, 124 (25%) died. Factors that were jointly prognostic for death, using multivariate analysis were younger age (odds ratio [OR] for older patients [>/=65] 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.73, p < 0.001), admission from another oncology floor (OR 5.64, 95% CI, 1.82-17.44, p = 0.003), hyponatremia (OR 3.02, 95% CI, 1.76-5.17, p < 0.001), hypernatremia (OR 4.14, 95% CI, 1.25-13.75, p = 0.020), high blood urea nitrogen (BUN) (OR 1.95, 95% CI, 1.15-3.30, p = 0.013), high heart rate (>/=101 bpm) (OR 1.72, 95% CI, 1.01-2.93, p = 0.047), high respiration rate (>/=21/min) (OR 1.67, 95% CI, 1.00-2.79, p = 0.048), and supplemental oxygen use (OR 2.69, 95% CI, 1.60-4.52, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a significant association of certain factors with increased likelihood of APCU death in patients with advanced cancer. These findings need to be validated in a larger prospective study to develop a model for predicting APCU mortality for patients with advanced cancer.

Supportive versus palliative care: what's in a name?: a survey of medical oncologists and midlevel providers at a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: : Palliative care has been progressively adopted by American cancer centers; however, referrals to palliative care continue to occur late in the trajectory of illness. It was hypothesized that the perceived association between the name palliative care and hospice was a barrier to early patients' referral. The objectives of this study were to determine the perception of the impact of the name palliative care compared with supportive care on patient referral and to determine whether there was an association between demographic factors and the perceptions of the 2 names by medical oncologists and their midlevel providers (advance practice nurses and physician assistants) at a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: : A survey was conducted among a random sample of 100 medical oncologists and 100 midlevel providers from The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Information was collected on demographics, previous experience in palliative care, and attitudes and beliefs toward the impact of the name palliative care compared with supportive care on patient referral. RESULTS: : A total of 140 of 200 (70%) participants responded (74 midlevel providers and 66 medical oncologists). Median age was 43 years (range, 34.5-50 years), and there were 83 (60%) women. Midlevel providers and medical oncologists generally agreed in their responses to most of the items. More participants preferred the name supportive care (80, 57%) compared with palliative care (27, 19% P < .0001). Medical oncologists and midlevel providers stated increased likelihood to refer patients on active primary (79 vs 45%, P < .0001) and advanced cancer (89 vs 69%, P < .0001) treatments to a service named supportive care. The name palliative care compared with supportive care was perceived more frequently by medical oncologists and midlevel providers as a barrier to referral (23 vs 6% P < .0001), decreasing hope (44 vs 11% P < .0001), and causing distress (33 vs 3% P < .0001) in patients and families. There were no significant associations among the perception of the 2 names and age (P = .82), sex (P = .35), or prior training in palliative care (P > .99). CONCLUSIONS: : The name palliative care was perceived by medical oncologists and midlevel providers as more distressing and reducing hope to patients and families. Medical oncologists and midlevel providers significantly prefer the name supportive care and stated more likelihood to refer patients on active primary and advanced cancer treatments to a service named supportive care. Cancer 2009. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.

Predictors of access to palliative care services among patients who died at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: Palliative care services can decrease physical and psychosocial distress in patients with advanced cancer. However, most patients with cancer die without access to palliative care services (APCS), and patterns of referral are not well understood. The purpose of this study was to determine predictors of patients' access to palliative care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed patient records from the computerized database at UT M. D. Anderson Cancer Center over 2 (2003 and 2004) to determine differences in characteristics and outcomes between patients with and without APCS. APCS was defined as a palliative care consultation and follow-up or transfer to the palliative care unit. RESULTS: A total of 499 of 1453 (34%) inpatients who died at our cancer center had APCS. There were no significant differences in race, age, or insurance status between the APCS groups. The two major predictors of a low rate of APCS were hematologic malignancies (20% rate of APCS versus 44% for solid tumors, p < 0.0001) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission (15% versus 52% for non-ICU admission, p < 0.0001). Patients with hematologic malignancies who were admitted to the ICU had the lowest APCS rate (10%, p < 0.0001). The median relative cost of care per patient for decedents with APCS was 0.62 compared to non-referred patients (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: APCS was lower among patients with hematologic malignancies and those admitted to the ICU. APCS resulted in a lower cost of care. Mortality in comprehensive cancer centers is quite variable among different primary malignancies. More research is needed to better define patterns of referral.