Scheduled and Breakthrough Opioid Use for Cancer Pain in an Inpatient Setting at a Tertiary Cancer Hospital.

Background: Our aim was to examine the frequency and prescription pattern of breakthrough (BTO) and scheduled (SCH) opioids and their ratio (BTO/SCH ratio) of use, prior to and after referral to an inpatient supportive care consult (SCC) for cancer pain management (CPM). Methods and Materials: Patients admitted at the MD Anderson Cancer Center and referred to a SCC were retrospectively reviewed. Cancer patients receiving SCH and BTO opioids for ≥24 h were eligible for inclusion. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics, including the type and route of SCH and BTO opioids, daily opioid doses (MEDDs) of SCH and BTO, and BTO/SCH ratios were reviewed in patients seen prior to a SCC (pre-SCC) and during a SCC. A normal BTO ratio was defined as 0.5-0.2. Results: A total of 665/728 (91%) patients were evaluable. Median pain scores (p < 0.001), BTO MEDDs (p < 0.001), scheduled opioid MEDDs (p < 0.0001), and total MEDDs (p < 0.0001) were higher, but the median number of BTO doses was fewer (2 vs. 4, p < 0.001), among patients seen at SCC compared to pre-SCC. A BTO/SCH ratio over the recommended ratio (>0.2) was seen in 37.5% of patients. The BTO/SCH ratios in the pre-SCC and SCC groups were 0.10 (0.04, 0.21) and 0.17 (0.10, 0.30), respectively, p < 0.001. Hydromorphone and Morphine were the most common BTO and SCH opioids prescribed, respectively. Patients in the early supportive care group had higher pain scores and MEDDs. Conclusions: BTO/SCH ratios are frequently prescribed higher than the recommended dose. Daily pain scores, BTO MEDDs, scheduled opioid MEDDs, and total MEDDs were higher among the SCC group than the pre-SCC group, but the number of BTO doses/day was lower.

The Administrative Burden on Palliative Academic Physicians.

CONTEXT: Burnout is frequently a workload-related syndrome among palliative care physicians. Mandatory administrative activities contribute to this workload. The purpose of this study was to measure the amount of time involved in multiple required administrative activities and the cost of this on academic healthcare facilities. METHODS: We measured all mandatory and non-mandatory activities that need to be completed by faculty and reviewed them with all Department of Palliative, Rehabilitation, and Integrative Medicine members for accuracy. RESULTS: Every faculty member spends annually an approximate average of 5300 minutes on administrative activities (approximately the equivalent of 29 consults plus 133 follow-ups). Using the department net average per encounter, the approximate value of these encounters is $36,936 for each faculty member (about 11 clinical days). CONCLUSION: Academic palliative care physicians are required to complete a number of administrative activities. Institutions do not keep a registry of these activities and do not accommodate for them with a reduction in the annual clinical productivity requirements. We recommend that regulatory agencies and institutions work together to better regulate this list of tasks and their frequency.

"I'm Done": A patient's wish and will to die.

BACKGROUND: A desire for hastened death is commonly expressed by cancer patients. Although efforts to define and explore this issue have been undertaken, no standardized approach exists to address these desires. CASE DESCRIPTION: Ms. J expressed a wish for accelerated death and subsequently experienced unexpected clinical decline resulting in a quick, natural death. Our team experienced a mixture of both emotional distress and awe after witnessing the pragmatic approach our patient had to her impending decline, that we felt was worthy of further exploration. CONCLUSION: Most clinicians lack formal training in communication, potentially making cases like Ms. J's highly distressing. Clinicians should feel comfortable addressing and potentially inquiring about patients' desire to hasten death. While our initial reaction might be to correct this desire, we propose reframing this expression as an opportunity to explore more about our patients.

Helpfulness of Question Prompt Sheet for Patient-Physician Communication Among Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There are few robust evaluations of disease-specific question prompt sheets (QPS) in patient-physician communication among patients with advanced cancer. Objective: To compare the patient perception of helpfulness, global evaluation, and preference for the QPS vs a general information sheet (GIS), and to examine the effect of the QPS on participants' anxiety, participants' speaking time, number of questions asked, and length of the clinical encounter. Design, Setting, and Participants: This controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted at an outpatient palliative and supportive care clinic in a cancer center in the US. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had a cancer diagnosis, and were undergoing their first outpatient consultation visit with a palliative care physician from September 1, 2017, to May 31, 2019. Data analysis used a modified intention-to-treat design. Data were analyzed from May 18 to June 27, 2022. Intervention: QPS, a 25-item list of questions developed by expert palliative care clinicians using a Delphi process and tested among ambulatory advanced cancer patients. The control was GIS, generic information material given routinely to patients seen at the supportive care clinic. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was patient perception of helpfulness. Secondary outcomes included global evaluation and preference of QPS compared with GIS immediately after the encounter. Results: A total of 130 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.6 [13.3] years; 79 [60.8%] female) were randomized to receive either QPS (67 patients [51.5%]) or GIS (63 patients [48.5%]). Patients considered QPS and GIS equally helpful, with no statistically significant difference (mean [SD] helpfulness score, 7.2 [2.3] points vs 7.1 [2.7] points; P = .79). The QPS group, compared with the GIS group, had a higher global positive view of the material (mean [SD] global perception score, 7.1 [1.3] vs 6.5 [1.7]; P = .03) and felt it prompted them more to generate new questions (mean [SD] rating, 7.0 [2.9] vs 5.3 [3.5]; P = .005). Of 47 patients asked their preference between the items, more participants preferred the QPS to the GIS in communicating with their physicians (24 patients [51.1%] vs 7 patients [14.9%]; P = .01) at the 4-week follow-up. No significant differences between the QPS and GIS groups were observed regarding participant anxiety, speaking time, number of questions asked, or consultation length (eg, mean [SD] anxiety rating, 2.3 [3.7] vs 1.6 [2.7]; P = .19). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, participants perceived both QPS and GIS as equally helpful, but they had a more positive global view of and preferred the QPS. QPS facilitated generation of new questions without increasing patient anxiety nor prolonging the consultation. The findings provide support for increased adoption and integration of QPS into routine oncologic care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03287492.

High Flow Nasal Cannula in Patients With Cancer at the End of Life.

CONTEXT: High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is frequently used to manage dyspnea in patients with cancer near the end of life. Because HFNC is restricted to the in-patient setting, patients on HFNC need to be liberated from it to be discharged from the hospital. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to assess the rate of successful liberation from HFNC in a palliative and supportive care unit (PSCU). METHODS: The study is a retrospective chart review of all 374 adult patients with cancer on HFNC admitted to a palliative and supportive care unit at a tertiary medical center from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020. We determined the proportion of patients who were liberated from HFNC (by day three and overall) and the proportion of patients discharged alive. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 64, 54% were male and 73% were white. Only 16% (95% CI: 13-20) of the patients were discharged alive. Liberation from HFNC by day three and overall was accomplished in 23% and 25% of the patients respectively. Comparing the patients who could be liberated from HFNC vs. those who could not by day three, 38% vs. 9% were discharged alive respectively; and overall, 62% vs. 1% respectively (P < 0.001 in both cases). CONCLUSION: Only a minority of patients with cancer at the end of life can be liberated from HFNC, and only a minority are discharged alive. This information is important when discussing goals of care with patients and their families before initiating HFNC.

Open-Label Placebo for the Treatment of Cancer-Related Fatigue in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of an open-labeled placebo (OLP) compared to a waitlist control (WL) in reducing cancer-related fatigue (CRF) in patients with advanced cancer using Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, patients with fatigue ≥4/10 on Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were randomized to OLP one tablet twice a day or WL for 7 days. On day 8, patients of both arms received a placebo for 3 weeks. Changes in FACIT-F from baseline to day 8 (primary outcome) and at day 29, were assessed. Secondary outcomes included FACT-G, Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory-SF, Fatigue cluster (defined as a composite of ESAS fatigue, pain, and depression), Center for epidemiologic studies-depression, Godin leisure-time physical activity questionnaire, and global symptom evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 84/90 (93%) patients were evaluable. The mean (SD) FACIT-F change at day 8 was 6.6 (7.6) after OLP, vs. 2.1 (9.4) after WL (P = .016). On days 15 and 29, when all patients received OLP, there was a significant improvement in CRF and no difference between arms. There was also a significant improvement in ESAS fatigue, and fatigue cluster score in the OLP arm on day 8 of the study (0.029, and 0.044, respectively). There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes and adverse events between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Open-labeled placebo was efficacious in reducing CRF and fatigue clusters in fatigued advanced cancer patients at the end of 1 week. The improvement in fatigue was maintained for 4 weeks. Further studies are needed.

Management of Physical Symptoms in Patients with Advanced Cancer during the Last Weeks and Days of Life.

Patients with advanced cancer are faced with many devastating symptoms in the last weeks and days of life, such as pain, delirium, dyspnea, bronchial hypersecretions (death rattle) and intractable seizures. Symptom management in the last weeks of life can be particularly challenging because of the high prevalence of delirium complicating symptom assessment, high symptom expression secondary to psychosocial and spiritual factors, limited life-expectancy requiring special considerations for prognosis-based decision-making, and distressed caregivers. There is a paucity of research involving patients in the last weeks of life, contributing to substantial variations in clinical practice. In this narrative review, we shall review the existing literature and provide a practical approach to in-patient management of several of the most distressing physical symptoms in the last weeks to days of life.

Dying Alone during a Pandemic.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an unprecedented experience that has had profound impact and consequences for health care providers, visitation policies, and procedures. Hospitals and health care facilities were forced to implement changes to visitation policies, in an effort, to minimize transmission of the virus, which unfortunately had negative impact on patients' and family members' well-being as well as moral distress for the staff. Objectives: We present here a case illustration of the impacts of such a response to the pandemic situation at our institution, including challenges for uniformly implementing such a change along with suggestions to support patients during these difficult times. Conclusion: Health care facilities should make efforts to maintain balance between safety precautions and minimizing potential negative impacts on patients, families, and staff by implementing innovative measures to support ongoing communication and access to family support.

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.

Frequency and Characteristics of First-Time Palliative Care Referrals During the Last Day of Life.

CONTEXT: Palliative care referrals (PCRs) improve symptom management, provide psychosocial and spiritual support, clarify goals of care, and facilitate discharge planning. However, very late PCR can result in increased clinician distress and prevent patients and families from benefiting from the full spectrum of interdisciplinary care. OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency and predictors of PCR within 24 hours of death. METHODS: Consecutive first-time inpatient PCR from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2017 was identified to determine the frequency and predictors of referrals within 24 hours of death. We compared the clinical characteristics with a random sample of patients discharged alive or died more than 24 hours after first-time PCR as a control, stratified by year of consult in a 1:1 ratio. RESULTS: Of 7322 first-time PCRs, 154 (2%) died within 24 hours of referral. These patients were older (P = 0.003) and had higher scores for depression (P = 0.0009), drowsiness (P = 0.02), and shortness of breath (P = 0.008) compared with a random sample of 153 patients discharged alive or died more than 24 hours after first-time PCR. Patients who received a PCR within 24 hours of death were more likely than the control group to have Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 4 (95% vs. 25%, P < 0.0001), delirium (89% vs. 17%, P < 0.0001), do-not-resuscitate code status (81% vs. 18%, P < 0.0001), and hematologic malignancies (39% vs. 16%, P < 0.0001). In the multivariate analysis, depression (odds ratio [OR] 1.4; P = 0.005), do-not-resuscitate code status (OR 9.1; P = 0.003), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 4 (OR 9.8; P = 0.003) were independently associated with first-time PCR within 24 hours of death. CONCLUSION: Although only a small proportion of first-time PCR occurred in the last 24 hours of life, the patients had a significant amount of distress, indicating a missed opportunity for timely palliative care intervention. These sentinel events call for specific guidelines to better support patients, families, and clinicians during this difficult time. Further research is needed to understand how to minimize very late PCR.

Empowering the Health and Well-Being of the Palliative Care Workforce: Evaluation of a Weekly Self-Care Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Workplace interventions are needed to prevent burnout and support the well-being of the palliative care workforce. MEASURES: We conducted a survey of all palliative care clinical staff to evaluate the usefulness and feasibility of checklist items and the checklist itself. We collected demographics, perceptions of professional satisfaction and burnout, and qualitative feedback aimed at improving the checklist. INTERVENTION: We implemented a 13-item self-care checklist, included in a handbook on palliative care carried in the laboratory coat of all clinical personnel, to remind them to care of their own well-being. OUTCOMES: Of 39 personnel contacted, 32 (82%) responded. Most (20; 62%) found the checklist useful. Exercise was the most highly ranked item, whereas watching visual arts was the lowest ranked item. CONCLUSIONS/LESSONS LEARNED: Numerous opportunities were identified to improve the checklist and facilitate achievement of checklist items. Survey data will be used in the next checklist version.

Neuroleptic strategies for terminal agitation in patients with cancer and delirium at an acute palliative care unit: a single-centre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of neuroleptics for terminal agitated delirium is controversial. We assessed the effect of three neuroleptic strategies on refractory agitation in patients with cancer with terminal delirium. METHODS: In this single-centre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised trial, patients with advanced cancer, aged at least 18 years, admitted to the palliative and supportive care unit at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA), with refractory agitation, despite low-dose haloperidol, were randomly assigned to receive intravenous haloperidol dose escalation at 2 mg every 4 h, neuroleptic rotation with chlorpromazine at 25 mg every 4 h, or combined haloperidol at 1 mg and chlorpromazine at 12·5 mg every 4 h, until death or discharge. Rescue doses identical to the scheduled doses were administered at inception, and then hourly as needed. Permuted block randomisation (block size six; 1:1:1) was done, stratified by baseline Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores. Research staff, clinicians, patients, and caregivers were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was change in RASS score from time 0 to 24 h. Comparisons among group were done by modified intention-to-treat analysis. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03021486. FINDINGS: Between July 5, 2017, and July 1, 2019, 998 patients were screened for eligibility, with 68 being enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment; 45 received the masked study interventions (escalation n=15, rotation n=16, combination n=14). RASS score decreased significantly within 30 min and remained low at 24 h in the escalation group (n=10, mean RASS score change between 0 h and 24 h -3·6 [95% CI -5·0 to -2·2]), rotation group (n=11, -3·3 [-4·4 to -2·2]), and combination group (n=10, -3·0 [-4·6 to -1·4]), with no difference among groups (p=0·71). The most common serious toxicity was hypotension (escalation n=6 [40%], rotation n=5 [31%], combination n=3 [21%]); there were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Our data provide preliminary evidence that the three strategies of neuroleptics might reduce agitation in patients with terminal agitation. These findings are in the context of the single-centre design, small sample size, and lack of a placebo-only group. FUNDING: National Institute of Nursing Research.

Challenging the Status Quo of Physician Attire in the Palliative Care Setting.

BACKGROUND, AIM, AND HYPOTHESIS: This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the impact of a physician's attire on the perceptions of patients with cancer of compassion, professionalism, and physician preference. Our hypothesis was that patients would perceive the physician with formal attire as more compassionate than the physician wearing casual attire. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred five adult follow-up patients with advanced cancer were randomized to watch two standardized, 3-minute video vignettes with the same script, depicting a routine physician-patient clinic encounter. Videos included a physician in formal attire with tie and buttoned-up white coat and casual attire without a tie or white coat. Actors, patients, and investigators were all blinded to the purpose and videos watched, respectively. After each video, patients completed validated questionnaires rating their perception of physician compassion, professionalism, and their overall preference for the physician. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between formal and casual attire for compassion (median [interquartile range], 25 [10-31] vs. 20 [8-27]; p = .31) and professionalism (17 [13-21] vs. 18 [14-22]; p = .42). Thirty percent of patients preferred formal attire, 31% preferred casual attire, and 38% had no preference. Subgroup analysis did not show statistically significant differences among different cohorts of age, sex, marital status, and education level. CONCLUSION: Doctors' attire did not affect the perceptions of patients with cancer of physician's level of compassion and professionalism, nor did it influence the patients' preference for their doctor or their trust and confidence in the doctor's ability to provide care. There is a need for more studies in this area of communications skills. Clinical trial identification number. NCT03168763 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The significance of physician attire as a means of nonverbal communication has not been well characterized. It is an important element to consider, as patient preferences vary geographically, are influenced by cultural beliefs, and may vary based on particular care settings. Previous studies consisted of nonblinded surveys and found increasing confidence in physicians wearing a professional white coat. Unfortunately, there are no randomized controlled trials, to the authors' knowledge, to confirm the survey findings. In this randomized, blinded clinical trial the researchers found that physician's attire did not affect patients' perception of the physician's level of compassion and professionalism. Attire also did not influence the patients' preferences for their doctor or their trust and confidence in the doctor's ability to provide care.

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.

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.

Prophylactic Fentanyl Sublingual Spray for Episodic Exertional Dyspnea in Cancer Patients: A Pilot Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.

CONTEXT: The optimal dose of fentanyl sublingual spray (FSS) for exertional dyspnea has not been determined. OBJECTIVES: We examined the effect of two doses of prophylactic FSS on exertional dyspnea. METHODS: In this parallel, dose-finding, double-blind randomized clinical trial, opioid-tolerant cancer patients completed a shuttle walk test at baseline. Patients completed a second shuttle walk test 10 minutes after a single dose of FSS equivalent to either 35%-45% (high dose) or 15%-25% (low dose) of the total daily opioid dose. The primary outcome was change in modified dyspnea Borg scale (0-10) between the first and second shuttle walk tests. Secondary outcomes included adverse events as well as changes in walk distance, vital signs, and neurocognitive function. RESULTS: Thirty of the 50 enrolled patients completed the study. High-dose FSS (n = 13) resulted in significantly lower dyspnea (mean change -1.42; 95% CI -2.37, -0.48; P = 0.007) and greater walk distance (mean change 44 m; P = 0.001) compared to baseline. Low-dose FSS (n = 17) resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in dyspnea (mean change -0.47; 95% CI -1.26, 0.32; P = 0.24) and significant increase in walk distance (mean change 24 m; P = 0.01) compared to baseline. Global evaluation showed high-dose group was more likely to report at least somewhat better improvement (64% vs. 24%; P = 0.06). No significant adverse events or detriment to vital signs or neurocognitive function was detected. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic FSS was well tolerated and demonstrated a dose-response relationship in improving both dyspnea and walk distance. High-dose FSS should be tested in confirmatory trials.

Response to Oral Immediate-Release Opioids for Breakthrough Pain in Patients with Advanced Cancer with Adequately Controlled Background Pain.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence about the response of breakthrough pain (BTP) to the most commonly used oral immediate-release (IR) opioids. Our aim was to determine response rate to oral IR opioids for BTP control in patients with advanced cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, palliative care outpatients, with advanced cancer and adequately managed background pain, were asked to complete a self-administered survey. We assessed patients' baseline demographics, pain characteristics, alcoholism (CAGE questionnaire), tobacco and substance abuse, and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scores (ESAS). We determined the effectiveness of oral IR BTP opioids by using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "very ineffective" to "very effective." "Effective" and "very effective" were defined a priori as a good response to IR opioids for BTP. RESULTS: Of 592 evaluable patients, 192 (32%) had background pain of ≤3 (ESAS pain scale 0-10). Among these 192 patients, 152 (79%) reported BTP, 143/152 (94%) took oral IR opioids for BTP, and 127/143 (89%) responded to a median dose of 10% of the total morphine equivalent daily dose. In univariate logistic regression analysis, younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.94 per year; p = .008), higher ESAS scores for pain (OR, 1.32; p = .012), anxiety (OR, 1.24; p = .017), and dyspnea (OR, 1.31; p = .007) had statistically significant association with poor response to IR opioids for BTP. In multicovariate logistic regression, adjusted for age, a higher ESAS dyspnea score was significantly associated with poor response to oral IR opioids (OR, 1.44; p = .002). CONCLUSION: The vast majority of patients with advanced cancer with adequately controlled background pain reported a good response to oral IR opioids for BTP, supporting their use in clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oral immediate-release opioids are standard treatment for cancer breakthrough pain. However, information regarding treatment response to these commonly used opioids is limited. This study provides information that the vast majority of patients with advanced cancer, with adequately controlled background pain, reported good response to oral immediate release opioids for managing their breakthrough pain episodes. Results of this study support the use of conventional oral immediate release opioids that are relatively inexpensive and readily available for management of breakthrough pain in patients with advanced cancer.

Outcome measurement and complex physical, psychosocial and spiritual experiences of death and dying.

Patients with advanced illnesses, especially near the end of life, often experience multiple complex symptoms which may have profound impact on the quality of life of not only the patients but also their family members. Early and prompt recognition of such clinical challenges is linked with better end of life care for the dying patients, their caregivers and family members. In this narrative, which is not meant to be an in-depth systematic review, we attempt to provide an overview of some commonly used outcome measurement tools available for bedside clinical assessment of the different dimensions of suffering, especially near the time of death. We also mention need for recognition of conditions, like delirium and other personal, environmental and social factors, to draw the readers' attention towards the importance of such assessments, as these may influence interpretation of patient responses on the tools being used to measure outcomes.