Anamorelin for the Treatment of Cancer Anorexia-Cachexia Syndrome.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The following review will highlight the development of anamorelin to treat cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome (CACS) including the potential benefits, limitations, and future directions. RECENT FINDINGS: Ghrelin, a 28-amino acid peptide hormone, is secreted by the stomach mucosa and regulates appetite, promotes lipogenesis, increases body weight, improves gastric motility, reduces catabolic wasting and inflammation. Several randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials evaluating anamorelin, a ghrelin agonist, for the treatment of CACS have reported improvement in appetite and body composition including both lean body and fat mass; however, most studies noted no improvement in physical function as assessed by measuring non-dominant hand-grip strength. Common adverse effects of anamorelin include the development of diabetes mellitus, hyperglycemia, and less frequently, hepatic abnormalities and cardiovascular events including conduction abnormalities, hypertension, and ischemic cardiomyopathy. Anamorelin has the potential to stimulate appetite, improve gastric movement, and may have anti-inflammatory effects on patients with CACS. In patients with cancer, studies involving anamorelin combined with other multimodal treatments including nutrition counseling (branched chain amino acids, omega 3 fatty acids, and other nutrients), exercise, treatment of hormonal abnormalities including hypogonadism and hypovitaminosis D, and anti-inflammatory agents are needed. Compliance with multimodality treatment has been a barrier and future studies may need to incorporate motivational counseling to promote adherence.

Coping Strategies and Associated Symptom Burden Among Patients With Advanced Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Few studies examine how patients with advanced cancer cope with stress. The objective of our study was to evaluate coping strategies adopted by patients with cancer and their relationship with symptom burden. METHODS: A secondary data analysis of a prospective cross-sectional survey of patients with cancer and tobacco use was conducted, which examined demographics, symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System), and coping strategies (the Brief COPE Questionnaire). Demographic characteristics were summarized by standard summary statistics; we also examined associations between patient characteristics and coping strategies using t-test, rank-sum test, chi-squared test, or Fisher's exact test depending on the distribution of data. RESULTS: Among 399 patients, the majority were female (60%), Caucasian (70%), the mean age was 56.5 (±12.0) years, and the most common malignancies were gastrointestinal (21%) and breast (19%). Patients with cancer adopted multiple adaptive coping strategies, most frequently acceptance (86.7%) and emotional support (79.9%), with humor (18.5%) being the least. Common maladaptive strategies included venting (14.5%) and self-distraction (36.6%), while substance use (1.0%) was infrequently reported. Of the adaptive strategies, female gender was significantly associated with higher engagement with emotional and instrumental support, positive reframing, religious coping, and acceptance (P < .05 for all). College educated patients reported significantly higher implementation of humor, planning, and acceptance. Maladaptive coping strategies such as denial were associated with increased pain and depression, while patients adopting emotional-focused strategies rated decreased emotional distress. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with advanced cancer reported adopting multiple, adaptive coping strategies, and a minority utilized maladaptive or avoidant strategies, rarely substance use, and may need additional psychological support.

Benefits and risks of off-label olanzapine use for symptom management in cancer patients-a case report.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients often experience symptoms such as anorexia, anxiety and insomnia, which can impact their quality of life. Randomized placebo-controlled trials support prophylactic use of olanzapine for the prevention of nausea and vomiting due to moderate and high-emetic risk chemotherapy. In the setting of palliative care, olanzapine is increasingly utilized as an off-label treatment of symptoms including anorexia-cachexia, anxiety, and insomnia. The following case reports will highlight the potential benefits and risks of off-label olanzapine use for symptom management in cancer patients. CASE DESCRIPTION: Patient 1 is a female in her 70s with stage IV infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the right breast was having trouble tolerating treatment with letrozole, palbociclib, and denosumab due to uncontrolled nausea resulting in weight loss. Her nausea was refractory to multiple anti-emetics. Low dose olanzapine (2.5 mg) prevented nausea and allowed her to tolerate treatment. Patient 2 is a male in his 50s with renal cell carcinoma, who was receiving treatment with cabozantinib, presented with uncontrolled pain improved with opioid rotation from oxycodone to morphine. He was also experiencing uncontrolled anxiety despite treatment with alprazolam. Alprazolam was weaned and replaced with olanzapine resulting in improvement of his symptoms. Patient 3 is a male in his 60s with pancreatic adenocarcinoma who presented with muscle weakness and fatigue resulting in discontinuation of gemcitabine plus cisplatin. He also had symptoms of depression, poor appetite, and sleep problems. He was prescribed short course of dexamethasone 4 mg by mouth twice daily and olanzapine 5 mg by mouth nightly to improve symptoms. One week after, he presented with confusion and workup revealed hyperammonia which was treated with lactulose, which led to the return of baseline mentation. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine antagonizes multiple receptors and has potential to treat a host of symptoms including nausea, anorexia, anxiety, and insomnia, but healthcare providers should be mindful of potential risks and unclear benefits for off-label indications. More research and funding are needed evaluating off-label use of olanzapine for palliation of symptoms in cancer patients who are often frail and susceptible to adverse events.

Levorphanol as a Second Line Opioid in Cancer Patients Presenting to an Outpatient Supportive Care Center: An Open-label Study.

CONTEXT: Levorphanol is a potent opioid agonist and NMDA receptor blocker with minimal drug interactions, and there are few reports of its use in cancer patients. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the frequency of successful opioid rotation (OR) to levorphanol and the median opioid rotation ratio (ORR) from Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (MEDD). METHODS: This is a prospective, single-group, interventional study. Cancer outpatients requiring an OR and receiving a MEDD of 60-300 mg were rotated to levorphanol using a ratio of 10:1 and assessed daily for 10-day. Successful OR was defined as a 2-point improvement in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) pain score on day 10 or achieving the personalized pain goal between days 3-10 in patients with uncontrolled pain or resolution of opioid side effects (OSE) in those undergoing OR for OSE alone. The ORR to levorphanol was calculated using net-MEDD (MEDD before OR minus the MEDD of the breakthrough opioid used along with levorphanol after OR). RESULTS: Forty patients underwent OR to levorphanol, and uncontrolled pain 35/40 (87.5%) was the most common indication. The median net-MEDD and levorphanol doses were 95 and 10 mg, respectively, and 33/40 (82.5%) had a successful OR with a median (IQR) ORR of 8.56 (7.5-10). Successful OR was associated with significant improvement in ESAS and OSE scale scores. There was a strong association between MEDD and levorphanol dose. CONCLUSION: This study provided preliminary data that cancer patients could be successfully rotated to levorphanol using an ORR of 8.5. Levorphanol was associated with improved pain and symptom control and was well- tolerated.

Palliative medicine integration in the USA: cancer centre executives' attitudes.

OBJECTIVES: To compare cancer centre (CC) executives' attitudes towards palliative care between National Cancer Institute-designated CCs (NCI-CCs) and non-NCI-designated CCs (non-NCI-CCs) in 2018 and to examine the changes in attitudes and beliefs between 2009 and 2018. METHODS: CC chief executives at all NCI-CCs and a random sample of non-NCI-CCs were surveyed from April to August 2018. Twelve questions examined the executives' attitudes towards palliative care integration, perceived barriers and self-assessments. The primary outcome was agreement on the statement 'a stronger integration of palliative care services into oncology practice will benefit patients at my institution.' Survey findings from 2018 were compared with data from 2009 to examine changes in attitudes. RESULTS: 52 of 77 (68%) NCI-CCs and 88 of 126 (70%) non-NCI-CCs responded to the survey. A vast majority of executives at NCI-CCs and non-NCI-CCs endorsed palliative care integration (89.7% vs 90.0%; p>0.999). NCI-CCs were more likely to endorse increasing funding for palliative care (52.5% vs 23.1%; p=0.01) and hiring physician specialists (70.0% vs 37.5%; p=0.004) than non-NCI-CCs. The top three perceived barriers among NCI-CCs and non-NCI-CCs were limited institutional budgets (57.9% vs 59.0%; p=0.92), poor reimbursements (55.3% vs 43.6%; p=0.31), and lack of adequately trained palliative care physicians and nurses (52.6% vs 43.6%; p=0.43). Both NCI-CCs and non-NCI-CCs favourably rated their palliative care services (89.7% vs 71.8%; p=0.04) with no major changes since 2009. CONCLUSION: CC executives endorse integration of palliative care, with greater willingness to invest in palliative care among NCI-CCs. Resource limitation continues to be a major barrier.

Perception of subjective lived experiences of individuals with anorexia-cachexia in patients with advanced lung cancer.

Objective: Cancer cachexia (CC) is a frequent and debilitating syndrome in patients with cancer. It has serious implications for patients, extending beyond physical problems into psychological, and social domains. The objective of our study was to qualitatively understand the experiences related to CC in patients with advanced lung cancer. Methods: Patients with advanced lung cancer with anorexia (≤ 37 points on Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Treatment-ACS) and weight loss were eligible. Patients participated in semi-structured interviews prior to study treatment (n = 19). Qualitative analysis was conducted using interpretative phenomenological approach. Results: Two super-ordinate themes emerged (anorexia and weight loss). Patients reported experiencing distress related to anorexia, weight loss, lack of social eating, worsening function, body image, and eating habits. The encouragement to eat by the family was often distressing to the patient. The treatment recommendations by their oncologist for anorexia and weight loss was felt inadequate. Patients felt that the treatment for CC should improve appetite and weight gain as well as their mood and be independent. Conclusions: The findings of the study suggests that anorexia and weight loss results in high levels of distress due to their effects on physical and psychosocial domains. Further studies are needed to better understand the experience of anorexia and weight loss to develop strategies to effectively treat CC. Trial registration: NCT03637816.

Effect of dexamethasone on dyspnoea in patients with cancer (ABCD): a parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic corticosteroids are commonly prescribed for palliation of dyspnoea in patients with cancer, despite scarce evidence to support their use. We aimed to assess the effect of high-dose dexamethasone versus placebo on cancer-related dyspnoea. METHODS: The parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, controlled ABCD (Alleviating Breathlessness in Cancer Patients with Dexamethasone) trial was done at the at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the general oncology clinic at Lyndon B Johnson General Hospital (both in Houston, TX, USA). Ambulatory patients with cancer, aged 18 years or older, and with an average dyspnoea intensity score on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS; 0=none, 10=worst) over the past week of 4 or higher were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive dexamethasone 8 mg orally every 12 h for 7 days followed by 4 mg orally every 12 h for 7 days, or matching placebo capsules for 14 days. Pharmacists did permuted block randomisation with a block size of six, and patients were stratified by baseline dyspnoea score (4-6 vs 7-10) and study site. Patients, research staff, and clinicians were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was change in dyspnoea NRS intensity over the past 24 h from baseline to day 7 (±2 days). Analyses were done by modified intention-to-treat (ie, including all patients who were randomly assigned and started the study treatment, regardless of whether they completed the study). Enrolment was stopped after the second preplanned interim analysis, when the futility criterion was met. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03367156) and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2018, and April 23, 2021, we screened 2867 patients, enrolled 149 patients, and randomly assigned 128 to dexamethasone (n=85) or placebo (n=43). The mean change in dyspnoea NRS intensity from baseline to day 7 (±2 days) was -1·6 (95% CI -2·0 to -1·2) in the dexamethasone group and -1·6 (-2·3 to -0·9) in the placebo group, with no significant between-group difference (mean 0 [95% CI -0·8 to 0·7]; p=0·48). The most common all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were infections (nine [11%] of 85 patients in the dexamethasone group vs three [7%] of 43 in the placebo group), insomnia (seven [8%] vs one [2%]), and neuropsychiatric symptoms (three [4%] vs none [0%]). Serious adverse events, all resulting in hospital admissions, were reported in 24 (28%) of 85 patients in the dexamethasone group and in three (7%) of 43 patients in the placebo group. No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group. INTERPRETATION: High-dose dexamethasone did not improve dyspnoea in patients with cancer more effectively than placebo and was associated with a higher frequency of adverse events. These data suggest that dexamethasone should not be routinely given to unselected patients with cancer for palliation of dyspnoea. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute.

Opioid Rotation and Conversion Ratios Used by Palliative Care Professionals: An International Survey.

Background: The opioid rotation ratios (ORRs) and conversion ratios (CRs) used worldwide among palliative care (PC) professionals to perform opioid rotations (ORs) and route conversions may have a wide variation. Methods: We surveyed PC professionals on opioid ratios used through email to the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer's PC study group and Twitter and Facebook posts between September and November 2020. Results: We received 370 responses from respondents from 53 countries: 276 (76%) were physicians, 46 (13%) advanced practice providers, 39 (11%) pharmacists, and 9 respondents did not report their profession. There were statistically significant variations in median CR from intravenous (IV) to oral morphine (2-3), IV to oral hydromorphone (2-4.5), ORR from IV hydromorphone to oral morphine (10-20), and ORR from transdermal fentanyl mcg/hour to oral morphine (2-3.5) across various groups. Conclusion: This survey highlights the wide variation in ORRs and CRs among PC clinicians worldwide and the need for further research to standardize practice.

Supportive care for the prevention of nausea, vomiting and anorexia in a phase 1B study of selinexor in advanced cancer patients: an exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical observations of cancer patients treated with selinexor have reported high incidence of nausea and anorexia. The study objective was to investigate the adoption of prophylactic olanzapine for the prevention of nausea, vomiting and anorexia in cancer patients receiving selinexor and standard chemotherapy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed supportive care interventions in patients receiving selinexor and recorded frequency of adverse events (NCI-CTAE). Association between categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher's exact tests; repeated measures analysis was performed to assess weight changes over time. RESULTS: Of 124 evaluable patients, 83 (66.9%) were female, 93 were white (75.0%), and the most common cancer was ovarian (N = 30, 24.2%). One hundred and four patients (83.9%) received olanzapine, of which 93 (89.4%) were prophylactically treated, the majority (86.5%) receiving low 2.5 mg daily dose. Other anti-emetics included ondansetron in 90 patients (72.6%), dexamethasone prescribed in 50 patients (40.3%) and metoclopramide in 49 patients (39.5%), while aprepitant/fosaprepitant (N = 2, 1.6%) were prescribed infrequently. Cancer patients receiving prophylactic olanzapine (N = 93) compared to patients who never received olanzapine (N = 20) had more Grade 1 + anorexia (31.2% vs 20.0%), less nausea (53.8% vs 70.0%), less vomiting (33.3% vs 40.0%), and increased hyperglycemia (29.0% vs 10.0%), but differences were non-statistically significant. In addition, there was minimal weight loss over time in both groups and no statistically significant differences in weight loss between groups. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic olanzapine decreased nausea, vomiting and maintained weight over 3 months but did not prevent anorexia in patients receiving selinexor and chemotherapy. Low dose olanzapine was well tolerated but associated with hyperglycemia.

Anamorelin combined with physical activity, and nutritional counseling for cancer-related fatigue: a preliminary study.

PURPOSE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most frequent and debilitating symptom in patients with advanced cancer. There are limited effective treatments for CRF. The objective of this prospective longitudinal study was to evaluate the change in CRF at Day 43 after treatment with combination therapy of oral Anamorelin 100 mg daily with physical activity and nutrition counseling. METHODS: In this study, patients with CRF [≤ 34 Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue subscales(FACIT-F)] received Anamorelin 100 mg orally daily with standardized physical activity and nutrition counseling for 43 days. Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Anorexia Cachexia(FAACT-ACS), Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory-Short Form(MFSI-SF), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System(PROMIS-Fatigue), body composition, and physical performance tests were assessed at baseline, Day 15, 29, and 43. Frequency and type of side effects were determined by NCI CTAE 4.0.(NCT03035409). RESULTS: 28/45 (62%) of patients dosed were evaluable at Day 43. The mean, SD for FACIT-F subscale improvement from baseline was 4.89 (± 13.07), P = .058, MFSI-SF (G) - 3.46 (± 6.86), P = 0.013, PROMIS-fatigue - 4.14 (± 7.88), P = 0.010, FAACT ACS 3.48 (± 8.13), P = 0.035. Godin Liesure-Time physical activity questionnaire 7.41 (± 16.50), P = 0.038. Weight (kg) 1.81 (± 2.63), P = 0.005, and Lean Body Mass 1.54 (± 1.85), P = 0.001, IGF-1 36.50 (± 48.76), P = 0.015. There was no significant improvement in physical performance outcomes. No adverse events > grade 3 related to the study drug were reported. CONCLUSION: The use of the combination therapy was associated with improvement of CRF (FACIT-F fatigue, PROMIS-fatigue, MFSI-SF-general), activity (Godin-leisure time), anorexia (FAACT), body composition, and IGF-1 levels. Further studies using combination therapy for CRF are justified.

Oncology patients' perception of physicians who use an integrated electronic health record (EHR) during clinic visits: PRIME-EHR double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer prefer and positively perceive physicians who communicate face-to-face without the use of a computer. However, the use of electronic health records (EHRs) in the examination room remains a practical necessity. On the basis of existing literature, the authors developed and tested an integration model, PRIME-EHR, that focuses on the best-practice guidelines. To their knowledge, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted to test the effectiveness of such models. METHODS: In this double-blind, crossover RCT, 120 eligible patients with cancer were enrolled between April 1, 2019 and February 15, 2020 at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The objectives were to compare patients' perceptions of physicians' skills and their overall preference after they watched 2 standardized, scripted video vignettes of physicians: 1 portraying the use of a standard EHR and the other portraying the use of a PRIME-EHR. Actors and patients were blinded to the purpose of the study. Investigators were blinded to the sequence of videos watched by the patients. Validated questionnaires to rate physicians' compassion (0 = best, 50 = worst), communication skills (14 = poor, 70 = excellent), and professionalism (4 = poor, 20 = very good) were used. RESULTS: PRIME-EHR, compared with the standard EHR, resulted in better scores for physician compassion (median score, 5 [interquartile range, 0-10] vs 12 [interquartile range, 4-25]; P = .0009), communication skills (median score, 69 [interquartile range, 63-70] vs 61 [interquartile range, 50-69]; P = .0026), and professionalism (median score, 20 [interquartile range, 18-20] vs 18 [interquartile range, 14-20]; P = .0058). The majority of patients preferred physicians who used PRIME-EHR (n = 70 [77%] vs n = 21 [23%]; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The PRIME-EHR approach significantly improved patients' perceptions of and preference for the physicians. This integrated model of health care delivery has the potential to improve communication and compassion in cancer care.

Acupuncture for Cancer-Related Anorexia: a Review of the Current Evidence.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Loss of appetite/anorexia is extremely common among cancer patients, affecting as many as half of newly diagnosed patients and 70% of patients with advanced disease. Effective management of this disabling symptom of cancer remains a major challenge in the field of oncology. We conducted a systematic review of the current evidence on acupuncture and/or moxibustion as an intervention for cancer-related anorexia. RECENT FINDINGS: Acupuncture, as a part of traditional Chinese medicine practice, has demonstrated effectiveness in managing many cancer- and treatment-related symptoms, especially chemotherapy-induced or postoperative nausea. However, the efficacy of acupuncture in treating cancer-related anorexia/loss of appetite is not clear. The current level of evidence is insufficient to make a definitive conclusion on the benefit of acupuncture/moxibustion for treating chronic cancer-related anorexia/appetite problems. Future large randomized controlled trials of high methodological quality are needed.

A retrospective review of the use of oxymorphone immediate release for long term pain control in cancer patients with gastrostomy tubes.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients often require feeding or venting gastrostomy-tubes (G-tubes) for enteral nutrition or symptom palliation. The administration of most extended-release (ER) opioids via the G-tube or orally followed by clamping of the venting G-tube is contraindicated. Oxymorphone immediate release (IR) may be useful because of its longer half-life compared to other IR opioids. We examined the use of oxymorphone IR administered every 8 hours in patients with G-tubes. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of 40 consecutive cancer patients with G-tubes who underwent opioid rotation (OR) to oxymorphone. Demographics, symptoms, morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), and oxymorphone dose were collected. Successful OR was defined as a 2-point or 30% reduction in pain score and continued use of oxymorphone at follow-up in outpatient setting, or discharge in inpatient setting. Opioid rotation ration (ORR) between MEDD and oxymorphone in patients with successful OR was calculated as MEDD before the OR divided by total oxymorphone dose/day at follow-up or discharge. RESULTS: The median age was 56 years, 57.5% were white, 68% male, 47.5% (n=19) had head and neck cancer, 90% had advanced disease, 67.5% (n=27) were inpatient, and 15% (n=6) had venting G-tubes. 25/40 (62.5%) patients had successful OR to oxymorphone. The median ORR from MEDD to oxymorphone was 3.5 (IQR, 3.1-4). There were no independent predictors for successful OR, and ORR did not significantly differ among various groups. CONCLUSIONS: Oxymorphone IR can be used successfully in cancer patients with G-tubes using an ORR of 3.5 to calculate dose from MEDD.

Random urine drug testing among patients receiving opioid therapy for cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information regarding the true frequency of nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) among patients receiving opioid therapy for cancer pain. Data to guide patient selection for urine drug testing (UDT) as well as the timing and frequency of ordering UDT are insufficient. This study examined the frequency of abnormal UDT among patients with cancer who underwent random UDT and their characteristics. METHODS: Demographic and clinical information for patients with cancer who underwent random UDT were retrospectively reviewed and compared with a historical cohort that underwent targeted UDT. Random UDT was ordered regardless of a patient's risk potential for NMOU. Targeted UDT was ordered on the basis of a physician's estimation of a patient's risk for NMOU. RESULTS: In all, 552 of 573 eligible patients (96%) underwent random UDT. Among these patients, 130 (24%) had 1 or more abnormal results; 38 of the 88 patients (43%) who underwent targeted UDT had 1 or more abnormal results. When marijuana was excluded, 15% of the random group and 37% of the targeted group had abnormal UDT findings (P < .001). It took a shorter time from the initial consultation to detect 1 or more abnormalities with the random test than the targeted test (median, 130 vs 274 days; P = .02). Abnormal random UDT was independently associated with younger age (P < .0001), male sex (P = .03), Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener-Adapted to Include Drugs positivity (P = .001), and higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment System anxiety (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 1 in 4 patients receiving opioids for cancer pain at a supportive care clinic who underwent random UDT had 1 or more abnormalities. Random UDT detected abnormalities earlier than the targeted test. These findings suggest that random UDT is justified among patients with cancer pain.

Chronic Non-Malignant Pain in Patients with Cancer Seen at a Timely Outpatient Palliative Care Clinic.

Palliative care is seeing cancer patients earlier in the disease trajectory with a multitude of chronic issues. Chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP) in cancer patients is under-studied. In this prospective study, we examined the prevalence and management of CNMP in cancer patients seen at our supportive care clinic for consultation. We systematically characterized each pain type with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and documented current treatments. The attending physician made the pain diagnoses according to the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) task force classification. Among 200 patients (mean age 60 years, 69% metastatic disease, 1-year survival of 77%), the median number of pain diagnosis was 2 (IQR 1-2); 67 (34%, 95% CI 28-41%) had a diagnosis of CNMP; 133 (67%) had cancer-related pain; and 52 (26%) had treatment-related pain. In total, 12/31 (39%) patients with only CNMP and 21/36 (58%) patients with CNMP and other pain diagnoses were on opioids. There was a total of 94 CNMP diagnoses among 67 patients, including 37 (39%) osteoarthritis and 20 (21%) lower back pain; 30 (32%) were treated with opioids. In summary, CNMP was common in the timely palliative care setting and many patients were on opioids. Our findings highlight the need to develop clinical guidelines for CNMP in cancer patients to standardize its management.

Predicting survival in patients with advanced cancer in the last weeks of life: How accurate are prognostic models compared to clinicians' estimates?

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if validated prognostic scores such as the Palliative Performance Scale, Palliative Prognostic Index, and Palliative Prognostic Score are more accurate than clinician prediction of survival in patients admitted to an acute palliative care unit with only days of survival. AIM: We compared the prognostic accuracy of Palliative Performance Scale, Palliative Prognostic Index, Palliative Prognostic Score, and clinician prediction of survival in this setting. DESIGN: This is a pre-planned secondary analysis of a prospective study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We assessed Palliative Performance Scale, Palliative Prognostic Index, Palliative Prognostic Score, and clinician prediction of survival at baseline. We computed their prognostic accuracy using the Concordance index and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for 7-, 14-, and 30-day survival. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were included with a median overall survival of 10 days (95% confidence interval: 8-11 days). The Concordance index for Palliative Performance Scale, Palliative Prognostic Index, Palliative Prognostic Score, and clinician prediction of survival were 0.74, 0.71, 0.70, and 0.75, respectively. The areas under the curve for these approaches were 0.82-0.87 for 30-day survival, 0.75-0.80 for 14-day survival, and 0.74-0.81 for 7-day survival. The four prognostic approaches had similar accuracies, with the exception of 7-day survival in which clinician prediction of survival was significantly more accurate than Palliative Prognostic Score (difference: 7%) and Palliative Prognostic Index (difference: 8%). CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced cancer with days of survival, clinician prediction of survival and Palliative Performance Scale alone were as accurate as Palliative Prognostic Score and Palliative Prognostic Index. These four approaches may be useful for prognostication in acute palliative care units. Our findings highlight how patient population may impact the accuracy of prognostic scores.

Endocrinopathies and cancer cachexia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cancer cachexia cannot be easily reversed by standard nutritional support and interventions directed at underlying metabolic derangements may be needed to prevent or reverse cachexia and maintain healthy body composition. The following review will highlight the contribution and potential therapeutic interventions for insulin resistance, alterations in ghrelin signaling, and hypogonadism in cancer patients. RECENT FINDINGS: In addition to decreased caloric intake, chronic inflammation, and altered metabolism of glucose, proteins and lipids, endocrine abnormalities can propagate weight loss or changes in body composition in cancer patients. SUMMARY: Cancer cachexia, loss of muscle mass with or without the loss of fat mass, is a multifactorial syndrome, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Currently, limited therapeutic options for the treatment of weight loss in cancer patients exist, which lead to clinically meaningful improvements in weight gain and performance status. Treatment directed at underlying insulin resistance, low testosterone, and altered ghrelin sensitivity, in the future, may lead to potential therapeutic options for loss of lean body mass and cancer cachexia.

Concurrent use of opioids with benzodiazepines or nonbenzodiazepine sedatives among patients with cancer referred to an outpatient palliative care clinic.

BACKGROUND: The concurrent use of opioids with benzodiazepines (BZD) or nonbenzodiazepine sedatives (S) recently was found to be associated with an increased risk of overdose death compared with the use of opioids alone. In the current study, the authors examined the frequency and trend of concurrent opioid/BZD-S use and its associated risk factors among patients with cancer. METHODS: Data regarding the frequency and trend of concurrent opioid/BZD-S use were extracted for 1500 randomly selected patients referred to the outpatient palliative care clinic at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between the calendar years of 2011 and 2016. To explore associated risk factors, the authors compared the demographic and clinical predictors of 418 patients each in the concurrent opioid/BZD-S group and opioids-only group. RESULTS: In 2011, at the time of referral to the palliative care clinic, 96 of 221 patients with cancer (43%) were prescribed concurrent opioids/BZD-S. This rate progressively declined to 67 of 217 patients (31%) by 2016 (P = .0008). Patients in the concurrent opioid/BZD-S group had a higher percentage of females (233 individuals; 55% [P = .007]) and whites (323 individuals; 77% [P = .002]), and patients reported higher scores regarding depression (P = .0001), anxiety (P ≤ .0001), drowsiness (P = .048), and worst feeling of well-being (P = .001). The morphine equivalent daily dose was significantly higher in concurrent opioid/BZD-S group (median of 67.5 mg/day [interquartile range (IQR), 30-135 mg/day] vs 60 mg/day [IQR, 30-105 mg/day]; P = .034). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that anxiety (P ≤ .0001), white race (P = .0092), and poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (P = .0017) were significantly associated with concurrent use. CONCLUSIONS: The concurrent use of opioids with BZD-S has declined but continues to be frequent among patients with cancer. Anxiety, white race, and poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status were associated with its use. More research is needed to explore which medications can replace these agents.