An international, open-label, randomised trial comparing a two-step approach versus the standard three-step approach of the WHO analgesic ladder in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, cancer pain management follows the World Health Organization (WHO) three-step analgesic ladder. Using weak opioids (e.g. codeine) at step 2 is debatable with low-dose strong opioids being potentially better, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where weak opioids are expensive. We wanted to assess the efficiency, safety and cost of omitting step 2 of the WHO ladder. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We carried out an international, open-label, randomised (1 : 1) parallel group trial. Eligible patients had cancer, pain ≥4/10 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale, required at least step 1 (paracetamol) of the WHO ladder and were randomised to the control arm (weak opioid, step 2 of the WHO ladder) or the experimental arm (strong opioid, step 3). Primary outcome was time to stable pain control (3 consecutive days with pain ≤3). Secondary outcomes included distress, opioid-related side-effects and costs. The primary outcome analysis was by intention to treat and the follow-up was for 20 days. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-three patients were randomised (76 control, 77 experimental). There was no statistically significant difference in time to stable pain control between the arms, P = 0.667 (log-rank test). The adjusted hazard ratio for the control arm was 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.72-1.49). In the control arm, 38 patients (53%) needed to change to a strong opioid due to ineffective analgesia. The median time to change was day 6 (interquartile range 4-11). Compared to the control arm, patients in the experimental arm had less nausea (P = 0.009) and costs were less. CONCLUSION: This trial provides some evidence that the two-step approach is an alternative option for cancer pain management.

Best practices for the management of local-regional recurrent chordoma: a position paper by the Chordoma Global Consensus Group.

Chordomas are rare, malignant bone tumors of the skull-base and axial skeleton. Until recently, there was no consensus among experts regarding appropriate clinical management of chordoma, resulting in inconsistent care and suboptimal outcomes for many patients. To address this shortcoming, the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the Chordoma Foundation, the global chordoma patient advocacy group, convened a multi-disciplinary group of chordoma specialists to define by consensus evidence-based best practices for the optimal approach to chordoma. In January 2015, the first recommendations of this group were published, covering the management of primary and metastatic chordomas. Additional evidence and further discussion were needed to develop recommendations about the management of local-regional failures. Thus, ESMO and CF convened a second consensus group meeting in November 2015 to address the treatment of locally relapsed chordoma. This meeting involved over 60 specialists from Europe, the United States and Japan with expertise in treatment of patients with chordoma. The consensus achieved during that meeting is the subject of the present publication and complements the recommendations of the first position paper.

Are strong opioids equally effective and safe in the treatment of chronic cancer pain? A multicenter randomized phase IV 'real life' trial on the variability of response to opioids.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines tend to consider morphine and morphine-like opioids comparable and interchangeable in the treatment of chronic cancer pain, but individual responses can vary. This study compared the analgesic efficacy, changes of therapy and safety profile over time of four strong opioids given for cancer pain. PATIENT AND METHODS: In this four-arm multicenter, randomized, comparative, of superiority, phase IV trial, oncological patients with moderate to severe pain requiring WHO step III opioids were randomly assigned to receive oral morphine or oxycodone or transdermal fentanyl or buprenorphine for 28 days. At each visit, pain intensity, modifications of therapy and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were recorded. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of nonresponders, meaning patients with worse or unchanged average pain intensity (API) between the first and last visit, measured on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. (NCT01809106). RESULTS: Forty-four centers participated in the trial and recruited 520 patients. Worst pain intensity and API decreased over 4 weeks with no significant differences between drugs. Nonresponders ranged from 11.5% (morphine) to 14.4% (buprenorphine). Appreciable changes were made in the treatment schedules over time. Each group required increases in the daily dose, from 32.7% (morphine) to 121.2% (transdermal fentanyl). Patients requiring adjuvant analgesics ranged from 68.9% (morphine) to 81.6% (oxycodone), switches varied from 22.1% (morphine) to 12% (oxycodone), discontinuation of treatment from 27% ( morphine) to 14.5% (fentanyl). ADRs were similar except for effects on the nervous system, which significantly prevailed with morphine. CONCLUSION: The main findings were the similarity in pain control, response rates and main adverse reactions among opioids. Changes in therapy schedules were notable over time. A considerable proportion of patients were nonresponders or poor responders. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01809106 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01809106?term=cerp&rank=2).

A consensus review on the development of palliative care for patients with chronic and progressive neurological disease.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The European Association of Palliative Care Taskforce, in collaboration with the Scientific Panel on Palliative Care in Neurology of the European Federation of Neurological Societies (now the European Academy of Neurology), aimed to undertake a review of the literature to establish an evidence-based consensus for palliative and end of life care for patients with progressive neurological disease, and their families. METHODS: A search of the literature yielded 942 articles on this area. These were reviewed by two investigators to determine the main areas and the subsections. A draft list of papers supporting the evidence for each area was circulated to the other authors in an iterative process leading to the agreed recommendations. RESULTS: Overall there is limited evidence to support the recommendations but there is increasing evidence that palliative care and a multidisciplinary approach to care do lead to improved symptoms (Level B) and quality of life of patients and their families (Level C). The main areas in which consensus was found and recommendations could be made are in the early integration of palliative care (Level C), involvement of the wider multidisciplinary team (Level B), communication with patients and families including advance care planning (Level C), symptom management (Level B), end of life care (Level C), carer support and training (Level C), and education for all professionals involved in the care of these patients and families (Good Practice Point). CONCLUSIONS: The care of patients with progressive neurological disease and their families continues to improve and develop. There is a pressing need for increased collaboration between neurology and palliative care.

Indicators of integration of oncology and palliative care programs: an international consensus.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the concept of integrating oncology and palliative care has gained wide professional and scientific support; however, a global consensus on what constitutes integration is unavailable. We conducted a Delphi Survey to develop a consensus list of indicators on integration of specialty palliative care and oncology programs for advanced cancer patients in hospitals with ≥100 beds. METHODS: International experts on integration rated a list of indicators on integration over three iterative rounds under five categories: clinical structure, processes, outcomes, education, and research. Consensus was defined a priori by an agreement of ≥70%. Major criteria (i.e. most relevant and important indicators) were subsequently identified. RESULTS: Among 47 experts surveyed, 46 (98%), 45 (96%), and 45 (96%) responded over the three rounds. Nineteen (40%) were female, 24 (51%) were from North America, and 14 (30%) were from Europe. Sixteen (34%), 7 (15%), and 25 (53%) practiced palliative care, oncology, and both specialties, respectively. After three rounds of deliberation, the panelists reached consensus on 13 major and 30 minor indicators. Major indicators included two related to structure (consensus 95%-98%), four on processes (88%-98%), three on outcomes (88%-91%), and four on education (93%-100%). The major indicators were considered to be clearly stated (9.8/10), objective (9.4/10), amenable to accurate coding (9.5/10), and applicable to their own countries (9.4/10). CONCLUSIONS: Our international experts reached broad consensus on a list of indicators of integration, which may be used to identify centers with a high level of integration, and facilitate benchmarking, quality improvement, and research.

Long-term morbidity after multivisceral resection for retroperitoneal sarcoma.

BACKGROUND: More than 60 per cent of patients treated surgically for primary retroperitoneal sarcoma survive for at least 5 years. Extended surgical resection has been proposed for primary disease, but long-term morbidity data are lacking. A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the long-term morbidity of patients undergoing surgery for retroperitoneal sarcoma. METHODS: Patients operated on between January 2002 and December 2011 were eligible for the study. Long-term morbidity was evaluated based on a semistructured clinical interview. Lower limb function was assessed by means of the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), a self-report questionnaire with a total score ranging from 0 (low functioning) to 80 (high functioning). Pain was investigated by means of the Brief Pain Inventory--Short Form, with pain intensity scores reported on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain). RESULTS: Some 243 patients underwent surgery, and 101 of 160 patients who were alive at the time of the investigation responded to the study invitation letter. Finally, 95 patients were enrolled in the study. Sensory impairment of the limbs was reported in 72 patients (76 per cent). The median LEFS score was 60 (i.q.r. 43-73). Mean scores for the pain intensity items varied from 1.23 to 2.68. In multivariable analysis, there was no difference in median levels of creatinine at survey between patients who did or did not undergo nephrectomy (difference between median values 13 (95 per cent c.i. -4 to 30) µmol/l; P = 0.170). CONCLUSION: Severe chronic pain and lower limb motor impairment after multivisceral resection for retroperitoneal sarcomas are rare. Long-term renal function is not significantly impaired when nephrectomy is performed.

Breakthrough pain in patients with multiple myeloma: a secondary analysis of IOPS MS study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterize breakthrough pain (BTcP) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a large multicenter study of patients with BTcP. Background pain intensity and opioid doses were recorded. The BTcP characteristics, including the number of BTcP episodes, intensity, onset, duration, predictability, and interference with daily activities were recorded. Opioids prescribed for BTcP, time to achieve a meaningful pain relief after taking a medication, adverse effects, and patients' satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients with MM were examined. In comparison with other tumors, in patients with MM BTcP was more predictable (p=0.04), with the predominant trigger being the physical activity (p<0.001). Other BTcP characteristics, pattern of opioids used for background pain and BTcP, satisfaction and adverse effects did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MM have their own peculiarities. Given the peculiar involvement of the skeleton, BTcP was highly predictable and triggered by movement.

Artificial nutrition and hydration in the last week of life in cancer patients. A systematic literature review of practices and effects.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and burdens of artificial nutrition (AN) and artificial hydration (AH) in end-of-life care are unclear. We carried out a literature review on the use of AN and AH in the last days of life of cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched for papers in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo and EMBASE. All English papers published between January 1998 and July 2009 that contained data on frequencies or effects of AN or AH in cancer patients in the last days of life were included. RESULTS: Reported percentages of patients receiving AN or AH in the last week of life varied from 3% to 53% and from 12% to 88%, respectively. Five studies reported on the effects of AH: two found positive effects (less chronic nausea, less physical dehydration signs), two found negative effects (more ascites, more intestinal drainage) and four found also no effects on terminal delirium, thirst, chronic nausea and fluid overload. No study reported on the sole effect of AN. CONCLUSIONS: Providing AN or AH to cancer patients who are in the last week of life is a frequent practice. The effects on comfort, symptoms and length of survival seem limited. Further research will contribute to better understanding of this important topic in end-of-life care.

Clinical prognostic factors in advanced epithelioid haemangioendothelioma: a retrospective case series analysis within the Italian Rare Cancers Network.

BACKGROUND: This multicentric, retrospective study conducted within the Italian Rare Cancer Network describes clinical features and explores their possible prognostic relevance in patients with advanced epithelioid haemangioendothelioma (EHE) started on surveillance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected data on adult patients with molecularly confirmed, advanced EHE consecutively referred at five sarcoma reference centres between January 2010 and June 2018, with no evidence of progressive disease (PD) and started on surveillance. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) univariable and multivariable Cox analyses were performed. In the latter, due to the low number of cases and events, penalized likelihood was applied, and variable selection was performed using a random forest model. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were included. With a median follow-up of 50.2 months, 51 (76%) patients developed PD and 16 (24%) remained stable. PD at treatment start did not meet RECIST version 1.1 in 15/51 (29%) patients. The 3-year PFS and OS were 25.4% and 71.1%, respectively, in the whole population. Tumour-related pain (TRP) was the most common baseline symptom (32.8%), followed by temperature (20.9%), fatigue (17.9%), and weight loss (16.4%). Baseline TRP (P = 0.0002), development of TRP during follow-up (P = 0.005), baseline temperature (P = 0.002), and development of fatigue during follow-up (P = 0.007) were associated with a significantly worst PFS. An association between baseline TRP (P < 0.0001), development of TRP during follow-up (P = 0.0009), evidence of baseline serosal effusion (P = 0.121), and OS was recorded. CONCLUSION: Because of the poor outcome observed in EHE patients presenting with serosal effusion, TRP, temperature, or serosal effusion, upfront treatment in this subgroup could be considered.

Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, an ultra-rare cancer: a consensus paper from the community of experts.

Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is an ultra-rare, translocated, vascular sarcoma. EHE clinical behavior is variable, ranging from that of a low-grade malignancy to that of a high-grade sarcoma and it is marked by a high propensity for systemic involvement. No active systemic agents are currently approved specifically for EHE, which is typically refractory to the antitumor drugs used in sarcomas. The degree of uncertainty in selecting the most appropriate therapy for EHE patients and the lack of guidelines on the clinical management of the disease make the adoption of new treatments inconsistent across the world, resulting in suboptimal outcomes for many EHE patients. To address the shortcoming, a global consensus meeting was organized in December 2020 under the umbrella of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) involving >80 experts from several disciplines from Europe, North America and Asia, together with a patient representative from the EHE Group, a global, disease-specific patient advocacy group, and Sarcoma Patient EuroNet (SPAEN). The meeting was aimed at defining, by consensus, evidence-based best practices for the optimal approach to primary and metastatic EHE. The consensus achieved during that meeting is the subject of the present publication.

Pattern and quality of care of cancer pain management. Results from the Cancer Pain Outcome Research Study Group.

Most patients with advanced or metastatic cancer experience pain and despite several guidelines, undertreatment is well documented. A multicenter, open-label, prospective, non-randomised study was launched in Italy in 2006 to evaluate the epidemiology, patterns and quality of pain care of cancer patients. To assess the adequacy of analgesic care, we used a standardised measure, the pain management index (PMI), that compares the most potent analgesic prescribed for a patient with the reported level of the worst pain of that patient together with a selected list of clinical indicators. A total of 110 centres recruited 1801 valid cases. 61% of cases were received a WHO-level III opioid; 25.3% were classified as potentially undertreated, with wide variation (9.8-55.3%) according to the variables describing patients, centres and pattern of care. After adjustment with a multivariable logistic regression model, type of recruiting centre, receiving adjuvant therapy or not and type of patient recruited (new or already on follow-up) had a significant association with undertreatment. Non-compliance with the predefined set of clinical indicators was generally high, ranging from 41 to 76%. Despite intrinsic limitations of the PMI that may be considered as an indicator of the poor quality of cancer pain care, results suggest that the recourse to WHO third-level drugs still seems delayed in a substantial percentage of patients. This delay is probably related to several factors affecting practice in participating centres and suggests that the quality of cancer pain management in Italy deserves specific attention and interventions aimed at improving patients' outcomes.

Classification of pain in cancer patients--a systematic literature review.

One of the aims of the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC) is to achieve consensus on a classification system for cancer pain. We performed a systematic literature review to identify existing classification systems and domains/items used to classify cancer patients with pain. In a systematic search in the databases Medline and Embase, covering 1986-2006, 692 hits were obtained. 92 papers were evaluated to address pain classification. Six standardised classification systems were identified; three of them systematically developed and partially validated. Both pain characteristics and patient characteristics relevant for cancer pain classification were included in the classification systems. All but one of the standardised systems aim at predicting treatment response or adequacy of treatment. Several domains and items used to describe cancer pain but not formally described as part of a classification system were also identified and systematized. The existing approaches to pain classification in cancer patients are different, mostly not thoroughly validated, and none is widely applied. An internationally accepted classification system for cancer pain could improve research and cancer pain management. This systematic review suggests a need for developing an international consensus on how to classify pain in cancer patients.

Pain assessment tools in palliative care: an urgent need for consensus.

At present, there is no universally accepted cancer pain assessment tool for use in palliative care (PC). The European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC), therefore, aims to develop an international consensus-based computerised pain assessment tool. As part of this process, we have performed (1) a literature review on pain assessment tools for use in the PC and (2) an international expert survey to gain information on the relevant dimensions for pain assessment in PC. 230 publications were identified, only six met the inclusion criteria. Three further articles were identified through manual searching, totalling 11 different pain assessment tools. Nine tools were multidimensional. Pain intensity was assessed in seven, using various numerical/verbal rating scales (NRS/VRS); five tools focused on pain management. Three publications did not identify the rationale for the need to develop a new tool, and the selection procedure for items/dimensions was not described in six tools. Patient and/or professional expert groups were involved in the development of five tools and only two tools were extensively validated or cross-culturally tested. Thirty-two experts (71%) completed the expert survey and identified 'intensity', 'temporal pattern', 'relief/exacerbation', 'pain quality' and 'location' as the five most relevant dimensions. Most preferred assessment of 'pain intensity' was by NRS rather than VRS. Time windows extending 24 h were regarded as less relevant. Development of PC pain assessment tools seems to be a continuous process, which does not adhere to systematic guidelines, thus does not contribute to a universally accepted tool. No tool contained all relevant dimensions as defined by the experts. Many tools focused on particular dimensions, suggesting that specific research interests may drive the tool development process. Extensive literature reviews, expert and patient input and clinical studies are a needed approach in the development of a new consensus-based pain assessment tool.

Characteristics of the case mix, organisation and delivery in cancer palliative care: a challenge for good-quality research.

OBJECTIVES: Palliative care (PC) services and patients differ across countries. Data on PC delivery paired with medical and self-reported data are seldom reported. Aims were to describe (1) PC organisation and services in participating centres and (2) characteristics of patients in PC programmes. METHODS: This was an international prospective multicentre study with a single web-based survey on PC organisation, services and academics and patients' self-reported symptoms collected at baseline and monthly thereafter, with concurrent registrations of medical data by healthcare providers. Participants were patients ≥18 enrolled in a PC programme. RESULTS: 30 centres in 12 countries participated; 24 hospitals, 4 hospices, 1 nursing home, 1 home-care service. 22 centres (73%) had PC in-house teams and inpatient and outpatient services. 20 centres (67%) had integral chemotherapy/radiotherapy services, and most (28/30) had access to general medical or oncology inpatient units. Physicians or nurses were present 24 hours/7 days in 50% and 60% of centres, respectively. 50 centres (50%) had professorships, and 12 centres (40%) had full-time/part-time research staff. Data were available on 1698 patients: 50% females; median age 66 (range 21-97); median Karnofsky score 70 (10-100); 1409 patients (83%) had metastatic/disseminated disease; tiredness and pain in the past 24 hours were most prominent. During follow-up, 1060 patients (62%) died; 450 (44%) <3 months from inclusion and 701 (68%) within 6 months. ANOVA and χ2 tests showed that hospice/nursing home patients were significantly older, had poorer performance status and had shorter survival compared with hospital-patients (p<.0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variation in PC services and patients across Europe. Detailed characterisation is the first step in improving PC services and research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01362816.

Phenomenology and emotional impact of neuropsychiatric symptoms in orthotopic liver transplant for hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have focused on neuropsychiatric symptoms like hallucinations or delusions occurring in the early posttransplant period. The aim of this study was to estimate the percentage of patients reporting neuropsychiatric symptoms in the immediate postoperative phase, to describe the phenomenology, and to evaluate the emotional impact of such disorders. METHOD: We studied 94 consecutive patients who underwent orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) for hepatocellular carcinoma at least 30 days prior. The presence of neuropsychiatric symptoms were retrospectively evaluated through a semistructured interview. RESULTS: Overall 49 patients (52%) reported various postoperative neuropsychiatric symptoms. None of the demographic and clinical variables showed significant associations, except for barbiturate administration; patients using barbiturates showed a lower percentage of neuropsychiatric symptoms. It was a time-limited phenomenon that in most cases resolved by day 7 after transplantation. Interestingly, the most frequent emotion perceived was surprise and not fear; a nontrivial amount of patients reported happiness, while many patients reported no emotion. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggested the usefulness of a registry of the neurological and psychiatric complications after OLT that may help to clarify the pathogenic mechanisms of such complications and implement uniform protocols of prevention and treatment. In fact, better knowledge of the phenomenology of neuropsychiatric symptoms in OLT recipients could allow easier symptom recognition and therapy adjustments on the basis of the emotional impact of such symptoms on patients, family, and caregivers, as well as increase patients' awareness and capability to face this experience.

Paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer: a trial of two doses by a 3-hour infusion in patients with disease recurrence after prior therapy with anthracyclines.

BACKGROUND: To date, anthracyclines are the most active drugs against breast tumors, and the taxane paclitaxel (Taxol) looks very promising. Both classes of drugs are affected by cellular multidrug-resistance mechanisms, and therefore their sequential use raises the possibility of clinical cross-resistance. It is therefore important to assess the activity of paclitaxel in patients with clinical resistance to anthracyclines. PURPOSE: We assessed the safety and efficacy of paclitaxel administered by the logistically convenient 3-hour infusion to breast cancer patients who had disease progression within 12 months since prior therapy with anthracyclines. METHODS: Fifty-one patients with metastatic breast cancer who had all relapsed or whose disease had progressed within 12 months from completion of an anthracycline-containing chemotherapy protocol (six receiving adjuvant therapy, 19 receiving neoadjuvant therapy, and 26 receiving treatment for metastatic disease) were enrolled in this phase II trial from June 1992 to May 1994. After medication to prevent type I acute hypersensitivity reactions, paclitaxel was given intravenously over 3 hours at 175 mg/m2 to the first 15 patients and at 225 mg/m2 to the next 36 patients. The median age was 50 years (range, 31-62 years), and the median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 0 (range, 0-2). RESULTS: Patients received a median of five cycles (range, one to 11 cycles). After initial doses of 175 and 225 mg/m2, paclitaxel could be increased by 25 mg/m2 in 73% and 58% of cycles, respectively. Among 50 assessable patients, seven achieved a complete response and 12 achieved a partial response (response rate, 38% [95% confidence interval = 25%-53%]). The median duration of response was 7 months (range, 4-16 months), and the median time to disease progression for all patients was 5 months. Grade 4 neutropenia occurred in 3% of the cycles and in 12% of the patients and was never associated with fever and infection. Common toxic effects were myalgia and arthralgia (94% of the patients; 4% grade 3), peripheral neuropathy (92% of the patients; 8% grade 3), and alopecia (all patients). Pruritus and neuropathy were significantly more frequent and severe, respectively, with the higher dose (P < .01 by chi 2 test). Frequency and severity of other toxic effects were similar at either starting dose. Ten patients had symptoms of neuro-optic toxicity. Only one patient had a grade 2 hypersensitivity reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Paclitaxel at starting doses of 175 and 225 mg/m2 given as a 3-hour infusion can safely be administered to, and is active in women whose disease has progressed after prior treatment with anthracyclines. There was evidence of increased toxicity at the higher dose but no suggestion of better efficacy. IMPLICATION: Paclitaxel by a 3-hour infusion in combination with doxorubicin should be investigated in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Unless randomized trials demonstrate greater efficacy of the more toxic higher dose, it is suggested that a dose of 175-200 mg/m2 be administered with the 3-hour infusion schedule.

Paclitaxel by 3-hour infusion in combination with bolus doxorubicin in women with untreated metastatic breast cancer: high antitumor efficacy and cardiac effects in a dose-finding and sequence-finding study.

PURPOSE: To define the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and better tolerated sequence of paclitaxel by 3-hour infusion plus bolus doxorubicin (DOX) and to evaluate antitumor efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-five women with metastatic breast cancer (dominant visceral metastases in 56%, and involvement of > or = three sites in 67%) who never received chemotherapy of any type were studied. Paclitaxel every 3 weeks (125 mg/m2 starting dose) was increased by 25-mg/m2 steps in subsequent cohorts of patients. DOX (60 mg/m2 fixed dose) was administered 15 minutes before the start of or after the end of paclitaxel for a maximum of eight cycles. Subsequently, patients in continuous response could receive single-agent paclitaxel (175 to 200 mg/m2 every 3 weeks). The drug sequence was alternated in consecutive patients and in the first two cycles. RESULTS: Severe neutropenia that lasted greater than 7 days (n = 4), febrile neutropenia (n = 7) and grade III oral mucositis (n = 6) defined the MTD of paclitaxel at 200 mg/m2 in 34 assessable patients. Grade II peripheral neuropathy occurred in 33% of patients. Six women (18%) developed clinically reversible congestive heart failure (CHF) after a median of 480 mg/m2 total DOX. Drug sequence had no effect on toxicities. High efficacy on all metastatic sites in 32 assessable patients accounted for a 41% complete response (CR) rate (95% confidence interval [CI], 24% to 59%) and 94% overall-response rate (95% CI, 79% to 99%). After a median follow-up of 12 months (range 3 to 18), the median response duration is 8 months (range, 2+ to 18+) for complete responders and 11 months (range 1+ to 15+) for partial responders. CONCLUSION: The rate of CR and incidence of CHF may be an expression of therapeutic and toxic enhancement due to the schedule used in this trial. Until clarification of this possibility, this promising combination should be used in investigational trials.

Careful monitoring of the use of sedative drugs at the end of life: the role of Epidemiology. The ITAELD study.

BACKGROUND: Sedative drugs are often used at the end of life for different clinical indications, and sometimes sedation is not interrupted until the patient dies. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of patients who died while deeply sedated in Italy in 2007. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey which asked physicians about the last death that occurred among their assisted patients during the last year, and about their attitudes towards end-of-life decisions. All general practitioners (N=5,710) and a random sample of hospital physicians (N=8,950) from 14 Italian provinces were invited to participate. RESULTS: The response rate was 20%. Among 1855 reported deaths, 1466 (79.2%) were classified by physicians as expected or non-sudden; 18.2% of these expected or non-sudden deaths occurred while the patient was deeply sedated. GPs were the least likely to report deep sedation, whereas anesthetists were the most likely. In 8% of cases, sedation occurred along with an abrupt increase in the dosage of opioids during the last day of life, reaching a dosage considered higher than necessary by the doctor. No association with positive attitudes of the physician towards physician assisted death was found, whereas reporting sedation was associated with a positive attitude towards respecting the choice of relatives to forgo life-sustaining treatment in the case of an incompetent patient. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms the high prevalence of patients in Italy who die while being deeply sedated and shows that different practices may converge under the same label. Careful descriptive language is needed.