Why is advance care planning underused in oncology settings? A systematic overview of reviews to identify the benefits, barriers, enablers, and interventions to improve uptake.

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) centres on supporting people to define and discuss their individual goals and preferences for future medical care, and to record and review these as appropriate. Despite recommendations from guidelines, rates of documentation for people with cancer are considerably low. Aim: To systematically clarify and consolidate the evidence base of ACP in cancer care by exploring how it is defined; identifying benefits, and known barriers and enablers across patient, clinical and healthcare services levels; as well as interventions that improve advance care planning and are their effectiveness. Methods: A systematic overview of reviews was conducted and was prospectively registered on PROSPERO. PubMed, Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched for review related to ACP in cancer. Content analysis and narrative synthesis were used for data analysis. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to code barriers and enablers of ACP as well as the implied barriers targeted by each of the interventions. Results: Eighteen reviews met the inclusion criteria. Definitions were inconsistent across reviews that defined ACP (n=16). Proposed benefits identified in 15/18 reviews were rarely empirically supported. Interventions reported in seven reviews tended to target the patient, even though more barriers were associated with healthcare providers (n=40 versus n=60, respectively). Conclusion: To improve ACP uptake in oncology settings; the definition should include key categories that clarify the utility and benefits. Interventions need to target healthcare providers and empirically identified barriers to be most effective in improving uptake. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?, identifier CRD42021288825.

Exploring advance care planning awareness, experiences, and preferences of people with cancer and support people: an Australian online cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: To explore advance care planning (ACP) awareness, experiences, and preferences of people with cancer and support people of someone with cancer, in Australia. METHODS: Descriptive analysis and independent group t tests were used to examine data from a national, online cross-sectional survey. RESULTS: Of 705 respondents (440 people with cancer, 265 support people), 48.5% of participants had heard of ACP prior to the survey and 65% had discussed their values or preferences with someone. Significantly more people aged under 65 years had discussed their preferences than their older counterparts. Most (93%) discussions occurred with family or friends, but only 3.7% occurred with a health professional. A total of 33% had documented their preferences, with support people, women, and people aged under 65 years significantly more likely to have signed a legal document appointing someone to make medical decisions on their behalf. Views varied about the preferred timing of ACP and end-of-life care discussions (38.3% when cancer is incurable compared to 20% at diagnosis). Only 3.0% did not want to discuss ACP at all. Topics discussed were significantly different based on cohort, gender, age group, treatment status, and region. CONCLUSION: Despite increasing community awareness of ACP, understanding remains low amongst cancer patients and support people, who generally rely on discussions with family and friends rather than health professionals. ACP should be introduced early across multiple interactions with health professionals, discuss a broad range of ACP relevant topics, and involve the cancer patient and their support person.

Corrigendum to: Cancer patients' use of and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis.

ObjectivesAccess to medicinal cannabis is a timely and important issue in cancer care. Recent legislative changes in Australia have increased access to medicinal cannabis, but the views of people with cancer on this topic are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to explore the prevalence of the use of and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis among people with cancer.MethodsA cross-sectional study was performed using an anonymous, 15-item study-specific paper-based survey. The survey was administered over a 2-week period in August 2017 in the waiting rooms of a specialist cancer hospital.ResultsIn all, 339 patients completed the survey (mean (±s.d.) age 59±15 years; 52% male). Fourteen respondents (4%) were currently using cannabis medicinally. Only one of these respondents had a prescription for their cannabis product. Most respondents would consider using a medicinal cannabis product if recommended by their doctor (n=271; 80%).ConclusionThis study is the first of its kind to survey the use of and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis in a broad sample of Australian people with cancer. Few respondents were currently using cannabis for medicinal purposes, but an overwhelming majority were in favour of increasing access and would consider using a prescribed product.What is known about the topic?Cannabis may have a wide variety of medicinal uses, particularly in the cancer setting. Currently, people with cancer in Victoria have limited access to medicinal cannabis despite recent legislative changes.What does this paper add?In a general sample of people with cancer, few were using cannabis for medicinal purposes, but most were in favour of widening access and would consider using a product their doctor prescribed.What are the implications for practitioners?Despite supporting access, patients indicated that the recommendations of doctors and increasing the evidence base are necessary requirements to their use of medicinal cannabis.

18F-FDG PET/CT based spleen to liver ratio associates with clinical outcome to ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint blockade such as ipilimumab and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies have significantly improved survival in advanced melanoma. Biomarkers are urgently needed as a majority of patients do not respond, despite treatment-related toxicities. We analysed pre-treatment 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computerised tomography (FDG PET/CT) parameters to assess its correlation with patient outcome. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated pre-treatment FDG PET/CT scans in a discovery cohort of patients with advanced melanoma treated with ipilimumab or anti-PD1. Pre-treatment scans were assessed for maximum tumoral standardised uptake value (SUVmax), metabolic tumour volume (MTV) and spleen to liver ratio (SLR). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were characterised and modelled using univariable and multivariable analyses. Correlation of SLR and OS was validated in an independent cohort. Blood parameters and stored sera of patients from the discovery cohort was analysed to investigate biological correlates with SLR. RESULTS: Of the 90 evaluable patients in the discovery cohort: 50 received ipilimumab monotherapy, 20 received anti-PD1 monotherapy, and 20 patients received ipilimumab followed by anti-PD1 upon disease progression. High SLR > 1.1 was associated with poor PFS (median 1 vs 3 months; HR 3.14, p = 0.008) for patients treated with ipilimumab. High SLR was associated with poor OS after ipilimumab (median 1 vs 21 months; HR 5.83, p = 0.0001); as well as poor OS after first line immunotherapy of either ipilimumab or anti-PD1 (median 1 vs 14 months; HR 3.92, p = 0.003). The association of high SLR and poor OS after ipilimumab was validated in an independent cohort of 110 patients (median 2.3 months versus 11.9 months, HR 3.74). SLR was associated with poor OS in a multi-variable model independent of stage, LDH, absolute lymphocyte count and MTV. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-treatment Spleen to liver ratio (SLR) > 1.1 was associated with poor outcome after ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. This parameter warrants prospective evaluation.

Cancer patients' use of and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis.

Objectives Access to medicinal cannabis is a timely and important issue in cancer care. Recent legislative changes in Australia have increased access to medicinal cannabis, but the views of people with cancer on this topic are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to explore the prevalence of the use of and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis among people with cancer. Methods A cross-sectional study was performed using an anonymous, 15-item study-specific paper-based survey. The survey was administered over a 2-week period in August 2017 in the waiting rooms of a specialist cancer hospital. Results In all, 339 patients completed the survey (mean (±s.d.) age 59±15 years; 52% male). Fourteen respondents (4%) were currently using cannabis medicinally. Only one of these respondents had a prescription for their cannabis product. Most respondents would consider using a medicinal cannabis product if recommended by their doctor (n=271; 80%). Conclusion This study is the first of its kind to survey the use of and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis in a broad sample of Australian people with cancer. Few respondents were currently using cannabis for medicinal purposes, but an overwhelming majority were in favour of increasing access and would consider using a prescribed product. What is known about the topic? Cannabis may have a wide variety of medicinal uses, particularly in the cancer setting. Currently, people with cancer in Victoria have limited access to medicinal cannabis despite recent legislative changes. What does this paper add? In a general sample of people with cancer, few were using cannabis for medicinal purposes, but most were in favour of widening access and would consider using a product their doctor prescribed. What are the implications for practitioners? Despite supporting access, patients indicated that the recommendations of doctors and increasing the evidence base are necessary requirements to their use of medicinal cannabis.

Parecoxib as an adjunct therapy for the treatment of refractory non-surgical cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the use of short-term daily parenteral parecoxib for refractory or uncontrolled non-surgical cancer pain is limited. This study aimed to characterise the real-world off-label use and report on clinical experiences in an Australian cancer cohort. METHODS: Eligible patients received at least one dose of parecoxib of an intended three-day course between October 2015 and December 2018. Data were collected to characterise the parecoxib treatment cohort (cancer diagnosis, metastases, sites and types of pain and prior analgesia). Parecoxib-related adverse events, pain scores (worst and median), and concurrent opioid use were assessed at 24 h pre (T0) and 24 (T1), 48 (T2), 72 (T3) and 96 h (T4) post first parecoxib dose. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients (39 males and 26 females) and 68 courses of parecoxib (three patients treated twice) were included in analyses: metastatic disease (86%), bone pain (54%) and taking ≥3 classes of analgesic medications (69%). Pain types varied (46% non-specific, 22% neuropathic and 32% other). Most (94%) received parecoxib by subcutaneous administration. Following parecoxib, median 24-h pain scores and worst pain scores improved for 59% (40/68) and 50% (34/68) of patients, respectively. In the first 24 h (T0 to T1), median (4 vs. 2, p < 0.01) and worst (6 vs. 5, p < 0.01) pain scores were reduced and sustained to T4 (4 vs. 2.5, p = 0.01). Breakthrough analgesia requirements reduced for 63% (43/68) of patients, while total concurrent opioid use remained constant. Mean/median oral morphine equivalence for T0 vs. T1 was 111 mg/75 mg vs. 162 mg/90 mg, (p > 0.8). Two patients ceased parecoxib due to renal/liver function abnormalities and two experienced mild injection-site reactions. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, parecoxib was utilised as adjunctive therapy in a select patient cohort to contribute to reduced pain scores with no new safety signals. Prospective randomised studies in larger cohorts would improve understanding of the effects of parecoxib.

Paroxetine for the treatment of intractable and persistent cough in patients diagnosed with cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Intractable and persistent cough is experienced by more than a third of patients with advanced cancer, with a significant negative impact on quality of life. Pharmacological treatment has been of little help in some patients. Limited evidence suggests novel agents such as paroxetine may reduce cough severity. This retrospective study aimed to assess effectiveness and tolerability of paroxetine for the treatment of intractable cough in patients with cancer. METHODS: Single-centre medical record review of paroxetine use in patients with advanced malignancy and cough treated at an Australia tertiary referral cancer centre between 1 October 2012 and 1 October 2017. Data relating to cough type and severity, response and adverse events were extracted from medical records. Cough type was described as non-productive dry cough, productive chesty cough or cough exhibiting both non-productive and productive features (mixed cough). RESULTS: Overall, 24/34 patients (71%) experienced a major or moderate reduction in their cough severity after treatment with paroxetine. Nearly half (47%) described a major improvement and a quarter (24%) moderate improvement. Of the 34 patients, nearly half had a lung primary cancer (16/34, 47%) and nearly all (17/18) of those without lung cancer had lung metastases from another primary cancer. Patients with dry cough reported greater benefit from paroxetine. Of the 56% (19/34) of patients with non-productive dry cough, 80% (15/19) reported an improvement in symptoms post paroxetine. The remaining 15 patients, 44% of the group, presented with either a productive chesty cough (9/34, 27%) or mixed cough (6/34, 18%). Of these patients, 60% (9/15) reported an improvement in symptoms. Two thirds of patients were commenced on paroxetine 10 mg (22/34, 65%), with the remainder starting at 20 mg (14/34, 35%). CONCLUSION: Paroxetine may be an effective, novel, off-label treatment for intractable and persistent cough in patients with advanced cancer.

Clinical and palliative care outcomes for patients of poor performance status treated with antiprogrammed death-1 monoclonal antibodies for advanced melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Antiprogrammed death-1 antibodies (anti-PD1) have response rates of 40% in metastatic melanoma. Patients with poor performance status (PS) were excluded from clinical trials, yet use of anti-PD1 is widespread in clinical practice. Literature regarding clinical and palliative care outcomes in patients with poor PS treated with anti-PD1 is lacking. METHODS: Retrospective review of outcomes for all patients with advanced melanoma treated with anti-PD1 between 2012 and June 2015 at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, a tertiary specialist cancer center in Australia. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2015, 91 patients received anti-PD1: median age 63, 65% males, 77% elevated LDH>1xULN (37/48 patients). Fifty-eight patients had baseline ECOG PS of 0-1 (64%), 24 patients ECOG PS 2-3 (26%) and ECOG PS was not recorded in nine patients (10%). Median overall survival (OS) for the ECOG PS 0-1 group was 19.5 months and 1.8 months for ECOG PS 2-3 (HR 5.5; 95% CI, 9.1-50.3; P = 0.0001). Tumor response was 23/58 (39%) in ECOG PS 0-1, 2/16 (12%) in ECOG PS 2 and 0/8 in ECOG PS 3. Toxicity did not differ between different groups. ECOG PS 2-3 patients were more likely to be treated and hospitalized within the last month of life compared to ECOG PS 0-1 patients, RR 1.75 (95% CI, 1.04-2.56, P = 0.019) and RR 1.73 (95% CI, 1.10-2.16, P = 0.009), respectively. ECOG PS 2-3 patients were more likely to die in an acute hospital RR 2.68 (95% CI, 1.17-6.51, P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with poor baseline PS have a significantly lower OS and reduced response to anti-PD1. Further quality of life and palliative care research is needed.

Subcutaneous Lidocaine Infusion for Pain in Patients with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous lidocaine is effective in treating pain. Limited studies have assessed the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous lidocaine infusions. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients with cancer who received subcutaneous lidocaine infusions for pain. Patient characteristics, pain scores and opioid doses before and after lidocaine, and details of infusions were recorded. We identified three time periods of interest. T0 is defined as the 24-hour period immediately before commencing lidocaine treatment. T1 is defined as the 24-hour period before lidocaine was ceased. T2 is defined as the first 24-hour period after lidocaine was ceased. In addition, the overall impression of the effectiveness of lidocaine was subjectively evaluated by the authors. RESULTS: Twenty patients (13M;7F) received lidocaine. Two patients received it twice, totaling 22 episodes. The median lidocaine dose was 0.67 mg/kg/h with the median duration being 5.5 days. The median worst pain score at T0 and T1 was 8.5 and 5.5, respectively. The difference in the mean pain scores was 3.2 95% CI (2.1, 4.4; p < 0.001). In 15/22 episodes (68%), patients experienced a decrease in pain scores of more than 2. The median morphine oral equivalent (MOE) daily doses at T0, T1, and T2 were 425, 362.5, and 275 mg, respectively. The difference in the mean MOE between T0 and T1 was -126 (95% CI [-281, 28]; p = 0.13). The difference in the mean MOE between T0 and T2 was -207 (95% CI [-370, -44]; p = 0.025). Lidocaine was subjectively deemed effective in 10/22 episodes (45%). There were no documented adverse events attributed to lidocaine. Univariate analyses did not identify any subgroups likely to benefit from lidocaine. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous lidocaine infusions may be used safely in cancer pain management and is effective in some patients.

Daily subcutaneous parecoxib injection for cancer pain: an open label pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory analgesics (NSAIDs) are useful in cancer pain but the specific use of subcutaneous parecoxib has not been previously reported. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study aimed to establish the efficacy and side effect profile of short-term sequential single daily dose subcutaneous parecoxib sodium in patients with severe cancer bone pain. METHODS: Nineteen hospitalized patients with advanced cancer and uncontrolled malignant bone pain (9 males, 10 females) received 24 courses of one, two, or three days sequential therapy with 'off-label' daily subcutaneous parecoxib. All patients were receiving opioid therapy; the median baseline daily oral equivalent dose (OED) of morphine was 180 mg. Pain was assessed at baseline, 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours. Pain scores as assessed on an 11-point numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), any side effects including subcutaneous site reactions, as well as patient satisfaction rating with analgesia were recorded. A clinically significant decrease in pain scores was defined as a reduction of two or more points on the NPRS. RESULTS: Median pain score of all patient treatments decreased from 7 to 4.5 at 24 hours (p<0.001) and 4.0 at 48 hours. A response was seen in 17 (71%) of the 24 treatments at 24 hours. There was no difference between median negative change in pain scores in 19 (79%) treatments where pain was either strongly movement related, or in 22 (94%) treatments where local bone tenderness was more pronounced. No major side effects were observed during treatment. One patient died from pulmonary embolism after cessation of concurrent prophylactic low molecular weight heparin prior to staging liver biopsy. Subcutaneous site reactions occurred in 2 (8%) treatments and were mild and self limiting. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term daily subcutaneous parecoxib injection was effective for malignant bone pain when added to existing analgesic therapy and was well tolerated. Further research is warranted into the short-term use of parecoxib in hospitalized patients with intractable malignant bone pain.

Assessing palliative care unit inpatients for residential aged care placement: is it worth it?

BACKGROUND: Increasing demand for palliative care unit (PCU) admissions has led to a stronger focus on discharge planning. This has resulted in shorter inpatient length of stays (LOS), and stable patients not requiring specialist palliative care services being referred for placement in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). The process of placement is time-consuming and can be distressing to patients and families, so RACF placement should only be proposed in patients whose prognosis is relatively good (i.e., weeks to months). OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to identify the outcomes of palliative care inpatients referred for residential aged care placement. METHODS: A retrospective chart audit was conducted. The patients' outcomes (discharge or death and survival time) were recorded and analyzed using SPSS statistical software. Subjects were 100 consecutive inpatients from a 30-bed PCU who had been referred for RACF placement. RESULTS: Of the 100 patients referred for RACF placement 73 of 100 (73%) patients had a malignant diagnosis, whereas 27 (27%) had a noncancer diagnosis. Thirty-eight (38%) patients died before discharge, including 33 of 73 (45%) patients with cancer and 5 of 27 (13%) patients with nonmalignant conditions. In particular, 12 of 17 (71%) patients with metastatic non-small cell lung (NCSLC) cancer died before or soon after discharge. CONCLUSION: Over one-third of all patients died before discharge to an RACF could take place. The rate of death before discharge was higher among patients who had cancer. Patients suffering from NCSLC need to be more carefully selected for placement as only one-third of these patients survived to discharge.