Prognostic Impact of Malignant Wounds in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant wounds are lesions caused by metastasis from distant primary cancers or by direct invasion of the cutaneous structures of a primary cancer, and are most common in patients with breast or head and neck cancers. Malignant wounds not only cause physical symptoms, but also affect survival. Recognizing prognosis in terminal-stage cancer patients is necessary for both patients and health care providers. The prognostic impact of malignant wounds in patients with head and neck cancer has been poorly investigated. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of the results of a prospective cohort study that investigated the dying process in patients with advanced cancer in 23 palliative care units in Japan. The primary outcome of this study was the prognostic impact of malignant wounds in patients with head and neck cancer. The difference in survival between patients with head and neck cancer who had malignant wounds and those who did not was compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Of 1896 patients admitted to palliative care units, 68 had head and neck cancer, and 29 of these had malignant wounds. Overall survival was significantly shorter in patients with malignant wounds than that in those without (median: 19.0 days vs 32.0 days, P = 0.046). CONCLUSION: Patients with head and neck cancer who had malignant wounds had worse overall survival than those who did not.

Myofascial pain syndrome in patients with cancer: a narrative review.

PURPOSE: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a chronic musculoskeletal pain syndrome. The purpose of this review is to describe the epidemiological and treatment evidence and to address the future research agenda in patients with cancer. METHODS: A narrative review of previous reports investigating the prevalence and treatment of MPS in the oncology field is presented. The target population is patients with cancer and cancer survivors. RESULTS: There have been three prospective and two retrospective studies investigating the prevalence of MPS. MPS is as high as 38%-45% in patients with advanced or incurable cancer and 11.9%-44.8% in cancer survivors. A total of nine reports investigated the efficacy of the following interventions: trigger point injection (TPI), myofascial techniques and ischaemic compression. TPI has been reported to be effective in four observational studies. One randomised study reported the efficacy of myofascial techniques, but two randomised studies reported no added beneficial effects of it in breast cancer survivors. Two randomised studies investigated the efficacy of ischaemic compression, but the obtained results were contradictory. CONCLUSIONS: MPS is highly prevalent. We should know that non-cancer pain is also common in both patients with cancer and survivors. In treating such pain, careful physical examination is essential. Then, non-pharmacological treatment should be considered as well as pharmacotherapy. As evidence regarding MPS in the oncology field is scarce, further research is warranted.

Opioid analgesic dose and route conversion ratio studies: a scoping review to inform an eDelphi guideline.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians regularly prescribe opioids to manage acute and chronic cancer pain, frequently to address acute postoperative pain, and occasionally to manage chronic non-cancer pain. Clinical efficacy may be suboptimal in some patients due to side effects and/or poor response, and opioid rotation/switching (conversions) is frequently necessary. Despite the widespread practice, opioid conversion ratios are inconsistent between clinicians, practices, and countries. Therefore, we performed a scoping systematic review of opioid conversion studies to inform an international eDelphi guideline. METHODS: To ensure a comprehensive review, we conducted a systematic search across multiple databases (OVID Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, EBM-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Registered Trials, LILACS, IMEMR, AIM, WPRIM) using studies published up to June 2022. Additionally, we performed hand and Google Scholar searches to verify the completeness of our findings. Our inclusion criteria encompassed randomized and non-randomized studies with no age limit, with only a few pediatric studies identified. We included studies on cancer, non-cancer, acute, and chronic pain. The level and grade of evidence were determined based on the Multinational Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) criteria. RESULTS: Our search yielded 21,118 abstracts, including 140 randomized (RCT) and 68 non-randomized (NRCT) clinical trials. We compared these results with recently published conversion ratios. Modest correlations were noted between published reviews and the present scoping systematic review. CONCLUSION: The present scoping systematic review found low-quality evidence to support an opioid conversion guideline. We will use these data, including conversion ratios and type and route of administration, to inform an eDelphi guideline.

The safety and effectiveness of naldemedine for opioid-induced constipation in patients with advanced cancer in real-world palliative care settings: a multicenter prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of naldemedine for treating opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in patients with advanced cancer, who are receiving palliative care, and particularly explored its early effects. METHODS: Palliative care teams and inpatient palliative care units across 14 institutions in Japan were included in this multicenter, prospective, observational study. Patients who were newly prescribed a daily oral dose of 0.2 mg naldemedine were enrolled. The spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) within 24 h after the first dose of naldemedine was considered the primary outcome, whereas, the secondary outcomes included weekly changes in SBM frequency and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were enrolled and 184 completed the 7-day study. The average age of the participants (103 males, 101 females) was 63 ± 14 years. The primary cancer was detected in the lungs (23.5%), gastrointestinal tract (13.7%), and urological organs (9.3%). A considerable proportion of patients (34.8%) had ECOG performance status of 3-4. Most patients were undergoing active cancer treatment, however, 40.7% of the patients were receiving the best supportive care. Within 24 h of the first naldemedine dose, 146 patients (71.6%, 95% CI: 65.4-77.8%) experienced SBMs. The weekly SBM counts increased in 62.7% of the participants. The major adverse events included diarrhea and abdominal pain, detected in 17.6% and 5.4% of the patients, respectively. However, no serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: Conclusively, naldemedine is effective and safe for OIC treatments in real-world palliative care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000031381, registered 20/02/2018.

2023 Japan Society of clinical oncology clinical practice guidelines update for antiemesis.

BACKGROUND: The Japan Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis 2023 was extensively revised to reflect the latest advances in antineoplastic agents, antiemetics, and antineoplastic regimens. This update provides new evidence on the efficacy of antiemetic regimens. METHODS: Guided by the Minds Clinical Practice Guideline Development Manual of 2017, a rigorous approach was used to update the guidelines; a thorough literature search was conducted from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2020. RESULTS: Comprehensive process resulted in the creation of 13 background questions (BQs), 12 clinical questions (CQs), and three future research questions (FQs). Moreover, the emetic risk classification was also updated. CONCLUSIONS: The primary goal of the present guidelines is to provide comprehensive information and facilitate informed decision-making, regarding antiemetic therapy, for both patients and healthcare providers.

Non-pharmacological treatments for anticipatory nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis 2023.

BACKGROUND: Anticipatory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a conditioned response influenced by the severity and duration of previous emetic responses to chemotherapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of non-pharmacologic interventions for anticipatory CINV among patients with cancer. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search in databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Ichushi-Web, from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2020. Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized designs, observational studies, or case-control studies that utilized non-pharmacological therapies were included. The primary outcomes were anticipatory CINV, with an additional investigation into adverse events and the costs of therapies. The risk-of-bias for each study was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software. RESULTS: Of the 107 studies identified, six met the inclusion criteria. Three types of non-pharmacological treatments were identified: systematic desensitization (n = 2), hypnotherapy (n = 2), and yoga therapy (n = 2). Among them, systematic desensitization significantly improved anticipatory CINV as compared to that in the control group (nausea: risk ratio [RR] = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49-0.72, p < 0.00001; vomiting: RR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.32-0.91, p = 0.02). However, heterogeneity in outcome measures precluded meta-analysis for hypnotherapy and yoga. Additionally, most selected studies had a high or unclear risk of bias, and adverse events were not consistently reported. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that systematic desensitization may effectively reduce anticipatory CINV. However, further research is warranted before implementation in clinical settings.

Factors associated with multimodal care practices for cancer cachexia among registered dietitians.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine factors associated with multimodal care practices for cancer cachexia among registered dietitians (RDs) working in cancer care. METHODS: A secondary analysis was performed using RDs' data. Data on knowledge, skills, and confidence in multimodal care were obtained. Nine items regarding multimodal care practices were evaluated. Subjects were divided into two groups based on their answers associated with the nine items. Comparisons were obtained using the Mann-Whitney U test or chi-squared test. Multiple regression analysis was performed to identify the critical factors involved in practicing multimodal care by determining the variables with significant differences between the two groups. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-two RDs were included in this study. Significant differences were observed in their primary area of practice (p = 0.023), the number of clinical guidelines used (p < 0.001), the number of items used in cancer cachexia assessment (p = 0.002), the number of symptoms used in cancer cachexia assessment (p = 0.039), training for cancer cachexia (p < 0.001), knowledge of cancer cachexia (p < 0.001), and confidence in cancer cachexia management (p < 0.001). The number of symptoms used in cancer cachexia assessment (B = 0.42, p = 0.019), knowledge of cancer cachexia (B = 6.60, p < 0.001), and confidence in cancer cachexia management (B = 4.31, p = 0.010) were identified as critical factors according to the multiple regression analysis. CONCLUSION: The RDs' knowledge and confidence in cancer cachexia management were associated with their multimodal care practices.

Investigating the efficacy and safety of olanzapine prophylaxis for opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (JORTC-PAL20): a study protocol for an open-label, single-arm exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: In opioid therapy for cancer pain, opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) occur in 20%-40% of patients during initial opioid treatment or increasing opioid doses. OINV result in failure to achieve pain relief due to poor opioid adherence. Therefore, antiemetics are used to prevent OINV, but their efficacy and safety in this context have not yet been fully elucidated. Olanzapine is a promising antiemetic for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This single-arm, single-centre exploratory study will evaluate the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy and safety of 5 mg olanzapine in patients with cancer pain who are withholding initial regular opioid therapy. Thirty-five patients will be enrolled. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients achieving complete control (CC) of OINV during 5 days of opioid treatment. CC was defined as the absence of emetic episodes, no need for rescue medication to treat nausea, and minimal or no nausea (3 or less on an 11-point categorical scale). Secondary endpoints include the complete response, defined as no emetic episodes and no use of rescue medication during the overall assessment period, the time from opioid initiation to first emetic episode, the time from opioid initiation to first rescue antiemetic administration, and adverse events graded by Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 1.0 and CTCAE version 5.0. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol was approved by National Cancer Center Hospital Certified Review Board. The results will be used as preliminary data to conduct a validation study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT) jRCTs031220008.

Comparison of Pharmacological Treatments for Agitated Delirium in the Last Days of Life.

CONTEXT: Antipsychotics are often used in managing symptoms of terminal delirium, but evidence is limited. OBJECTIVES: To explore the comparative effectiveness of haloperidol with as-needed benzodiazepines (HPD) vs. chlorpromazine (CPZ) vs. levomepromazine (LPZ) for agitated delirium in the last days. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted in two palliative care units in Japan. Adult cancer patients who developed agitated delirium with a modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS-PAL) of one or more were included; palliative care specialist physicians determined that the etiology was irreversible; and estimated survival was 3 weeks or less. Patients treated with HPD, CPZ, or LPZ were analyzed. We measured RASS, NuDESC, Agitation Distress Scale (ADS), and Communication Capacity Scale (CCS) on Days 1 and 3. RESULTS: A total of 277 patients were enrolled, and 214 were analyzed (112 in HPD, 50 in CPZ, and 52 in LPZ). In all groups, the mean RASS-PAL score significantly decreased on Day 3 (1.37 to -1.01, 1.87 to -1.04, 1.79 to -0.62, respectively; P < 0.001); the NuDESC and ADS scores also significantly decreased. The percentages of patients with moderate to severe agitation and those with full communication capacity on Day 3 were not significantly different. The treatments were well-tolerated. While one-fourth of HPD group changed antipsychotics, 88% or more of CPZ and LPZ groups continued the initial antipsychotics. CONCLUSION: Haloperidol with as-needed benzodiazepine, chlorpromazine, or levomepromazine may be effective and safe for terminal agitation. Chlorpromazine and levomepromazine may have an advantage of no need to change medications.

Cancer Pain Management in Patients Receiving Inpatient Specialized Palliative Care Services.

CONTEXT: Cancer pain is a common complication that is frequently undertreated in patients with cancer. OBJECTIVES: This study is aimed at assessing the time needed to achieve cancer pain management goals through specialized palliative care (SPC). METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study of inpatients with cancer pain who received SPC. Patients were continuously followed up until they considered cancer pain management successful, and we estimated this duration using the Kaplan-Meier method. We investigated the effectiveness of pain management using multiple patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and quantitative measures, including pain intensity change in the Brief Pain Inventory. A paired-sample t-test was used to compare the pain intensity at the beginning and end of the observation period. RESULTS: Cancer pain management based on the PROs was achieved in 87.9% (385/438) of all cases. In 94.5% (364/385) of these cases, cancer pain management was achieved within 1 week, and the median time to pain management was 3 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 2-3). The mean worst pain intensity in the last 24 h at the start and end of observation were 6.9 ± 2.2 and 4.0 ± 2.3, respectively, with a difference of -2.9 (95% CI, -3.2 to -2.6; p < 0.01). Overall, 81.6% of the patients reported satisfaction with cancer pain management, and 62 adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: SPC achieved cancer pain management over a short period with a high level of patient satisfaction resulting in significant pain reduction and few documented adverse events.

Malignancy-related ascites in palliative care units: prognostic factor analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The prognostic factors in patients with malignancy-related ascites (MA) have been poorly investigated. This study aimed to evaluate both the prognostic impact of MA on terminally ill patients with cancer and the prognostic factors in those with MA. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a multicentre, prospective cohort study. Patients with advanced cancer admitted to palliative care units at 23 institutions and aged≥18 years were enrolled between January and December 2017. Overall survival (OS) was compared according to MA. A multivariate analysis was conducted to explore prognostic factors in patients with MA. RESULTS: Of 1896 eligible patients, gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary pancreatic cancers accounted for 42.5%. 568 (30.0%) of the total had MA. Patients with MA had significantly shorter OS than those without MA (median, 14 vs 22 days, respectively; HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.39 to 1.72; p<0.01). A multivariate analysis showed that MA was a poor prognostic factor (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.50; p<0.01) and that among patients with MA, significant poor prognostic factors were liver metastasis, moderately to severely reduced oral intake, delirium, oedema, gastric cancer, high serum creatinine, high serum C reactive protein, high serum total bilirubin, dyspnoea and fatigue, while significant good prognostic factors were female sex, good performance status, high serum albumin and colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: MA had a negative impact on survival in terminally ill patients with cancer. A multivariate analysis revealed several prognostic factors in patients with terminal cancer and MA.

Feasibility of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Tool for Screening Distress and Supportive Care Needs of Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer.

Purpose: Although adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients are digital natives and have high digital communication needs, previous studies of screening tools for AYAs have primarily used paper when measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs). There are no reports on using an electronic PRO (ePRO) screening tool with AYAs. This study evaluated the feasibility of such a tool in clinical settings, and assessed the prevalence of AYAs' distress and supportive care needs. Methods: An ePRO tool based on the Distress Thermometer and Problem List (DTPL)-Japanese (DTPL-J) version for AYAs was implemented in a clinical setting for 3 months. To determine the prevalence of distress and need for supportive care, descriptive statistics were calculated for participant characteristics, selected items, and Distress Thermometer (DT) scores. Response rates, referral rates to an attending physician and other experts, and time required to complete PRO tools were assessed to evaluate feasibility. Results: From February to April 2022, 244 (93.8%) of 260 AYAs completed the ePRO tool based on the DTPL-J for AYAs. Based on a DT cutoff of ≥5, 65 of 244 patients (26.6%) had high distress. Worry (n = 81, 33.2%) was the most frequently selected item. Primary nurses referred 85 (32.7%) patients to an attending physician or other experts. The referral rate resulting from ePRO screening was significantly higher than that after PRO screening (χ2(1) = 17.99, p < 0.001). The average response time did not differ significantly between ePRO and PRO screening (p = 0.252). Conclusion: This study suggests the feasibility of an ePRO tool based on the DTPL-J for AYAs.

Psychological symptom burden associated with malignant wounds: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with malignant wounds suffer from physical and psychological symptom burden. Despite psychological support being required, the impact of malignant wounds on patients' psychological distress is poorly investigated. We evaluated psychological distress associated with malignant wounds for patients at their end of life. METHODS: This study used the secondary analysis of the results of a large prospective cohort study, which investigated the dying process among patients with advanced cancer in 23 palliative care units in Japan. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of moderate to severe psychological symptom burden, evaluated by the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS)-feeling at peace scores of 2-4. In addition, the factors affecting psychological symptoms were investigated. The quality of death was also evaluated upon death using the Good Death Scale score. RESULTS: Out of the total 1896 patients, 156 had malignant wounds (8.2%). Malignant wounds were more common in female and young people. The breast, head, and neck were the most prevalent primary sites. More patients with malignant wounds had IPOS-feeling at peace scores of 2-4 than patients without malignant wounds (41.0% vs. 31.3%, p = 0.024). Furthermore, psychological distress was associated with moderate to severe IPOS-pain and the frequency of dressing changes. The presence of malignant wounds did not affect the quality of death. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This study showed increased psychological distress due to malignant wounds. Patients with malignant wounds require psychological support in addition to the treatment of physical symptoms for maintaining their quality of life.

Preliminary Effectiveness of an In-Hospital Peer Support Program, Adolescent and Young Adult Hiroba, on Anxiety in Adolescent and Young Adult Patients with Cancer.

Purpose: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer have few opportunities to connect with patients of the same generation while hospitalized. Although anxiety is frequently reported by them, there are no reports on the psychological effectiveness of an in-hospital patient support program based on peer support. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a program, termed Adolescent and Young Adult Hiroba (AYA Hiroba), for anxiety in AYA patients with cancer. Methods: This single-center, prospective, observational study in 24 AYA patients with cancer was conducted at the National Cancer Center Hospital in Japan. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (HADS-A) was used to evaluate the primary outcome, anxiety. The Distress Thermometer (DT) was used to evaluate the secondary outcome, distress. The two outcomes were assessed before and after participation in AYA Hiroba. The Net Promoter Score (NPS) was used to evaluate satisfaction after participation in AYA Hiroba. Participants' free-text descriptions of the program were categorized according to similarities and differences. Results: The HADS-A and DT scores were significantly lower after the program than before (p < 0.001), as was the percentage of AYA patients with cancer with high distress (p = 0.04). The NPS was 27, which was lower than the value of 52 obtained in our previous study. Requests and suggestions to improve the program were grouped into three categories: content, facilitation, and online connection environment. Conclusion: This study suggests the preliminary effectiveness of the in-hospital peer support program for anxiety in AYA patients with cancer. The Clinical Trial Registration number: UMIN000045779.

Prevalence of opioid-induced adverse events across opioids commonly used for analgesic treatment in Japan: a multicenter prospective longitudinal study.

PURPOSE: Although opioids have been shown to be effective for cancer pain, opioid-induced adverse events (AEs) are common. To date, little is known about the differences in risks of AEs by opioid type. This study was performed to compare the prevalence of AEs across opioids commonly used for analgesic treatment in Japan. METHODS: This study was conducted as a preplanned secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective longitudinal study of inpatients with cancer pain who received specialized palliative care for cancer pain relief. We assessed daily AEs until termination of follow-up. We rated the severity of AEs based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. We computed adjusted odds ratios for each AE (constipation, nausea and vomiting, delirium, and drowsiness) with the following variables: opioid, age, sex, renal dysfunction, and primary cancer site. RESULTS: In total, 465 patients were analyzed. Based on the descriptive analysis, the top four most commonly used opioids were included in the analysis: oxycodone, hydromorphone, fentanyl, and tramadol. With respect to the prevalence of AEs among all analyzed patients, delirium (n = 25, 6.3%) was the most frequent, followed by drowsiness (n = 21, 5.3%), nausea and vomiting (n = 19, 4.8%), and constipation (n = 28, 4.6%). The multivariate logistic analysis showed that no single opioid was identified as a statistically significant independent predictor of any AE. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in the prevalence of AEs among oxycodone, fentanyl, hydromorphone, and tramadol, which are commonly used for analgesic treatment in Japan.

The effect of palliative care team intervention and symptom improvement using patient-reported outcomes: a multicenter prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Hospital-based palliative care teams (HPCTs) are widespread internationally, but multicenter studies about their effectiveness, using patient-reported outcomes (PROs), are limited to Australia and a few other countries. We conducted a multicenter, prospective observational study in Japan to explore the effectiveness of the HPCTs using PROs. METHODS: Nationwide, eight hospitals participated in the study. We included newly referred patients for one month in 2021 and followed them for one month. We asked the patients to complete the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale or the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System as PROs at the time of the intervention, three days later, and weekly after the intervention. RESULTS: A total of 318 participants were enrolled, of whom 86% were patients with cancer, 56% were undergoing cancer treatment, and 20% received the Best Supportive Care. After one week, the following 12 symptoms showed more than a 60% improvement from severe to moderate or less: vomiting (100%), shortness of breath (86%), nausea (83%), practical problems (80%), drowsiness (76%), pain (72%), poor sharing of feelings with family or friends (72%), weakness (71%), constipation (69%), not feeling at peace (64%), lack of information (63%), and sore or dry mouth (61%). Symptoms with improvement from severe/moderate to mild or less were vomiting (71%) and practical problems (68%). CONCLUSION: This multicenter study showed that HPCTs effectively improved symptoms in several severe conditions, as assessed by PROs. This study also demonstrated the difficulty of relieving symptoms in patients in palliative care and the need for improved care.

Factors Associated With Practice of Multimodal Care for Cancer Cachexia Among Physicians and Nurses Engaging in Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: Multimodal care for cancer cachexia is needed. This study examined factors associated with practicing multimodal cachexia care among physicians and nurses engaging in cancer care. METHODS: This was a preplanned secondary analysis of a survey investigating clinicians' perspectives on cancer cachexia. Data of physicians and nurses were used. Data on knowledge, skills, and confidence in multimodal cachexia care were obtained. Nine items on practicing multimodal cachexia care were evaluated. Participants were divided into two groups as practicing multimodal cachexia care (above median value for the nine items) or not. Comparisons were made using the Mann-Whitney U test or chi-square test. Multiple regression analysis was performed to identify the factors of practicing the multimodal care. RESULTS: Total of 233 physicians and 245 nurses were included. Significant differences were observed between the groups: female sex (P = .025), palliative care versus oncology specialization (P < .001), the number of clinical guidelines used (P < .001), the number of symptoms used (P = .005), training for cancer cachexia (P = .008), knowledge on cancer cachexia (P < .001), and confidence in cancer cachexia management (P < .001). Palliative care specialization (partial regression coefficient [B] = 0.85; P < .001), the number of clinical guidelines used (B = 0.44; P < .001), knowledge on cancer cachexia (B, 0.94; P < .001), and confidence in cancer cachexia management (B = 1.59; P < .001) were statistically significant in multiple regression analysis. CONCLUSION: Specialization in palliative care, specific knowledge, and confidence were associated with the practice of multimodal care for cancer cachexia.

Do Types of Opioids Matter for Terminal Cancer Dyspnea? A Preliminary Multicenter Cohort Study.

CONTEXT: Dyspnea is among the most distressing symptoms in the last weeks to days of life (terminal dyspnea). While physicians frequently use parenteral opioids other than morphine for terminal dyspnea, little is known about their effects in cancer patients. OBJECTIVES: To explore the effectiveness and safety of parenteral morphine, oxycodone, and hydromorphone for cancer patients with terminal dyspnea. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter cohort study that consecutively enrolled advanced cancer patients with moderate/severe terminal dyspnea. Participating palliative care physicians initiated parenteral opioids (morphine/oxycodone/hydromorphone), utilizing a standardized treatment algorithm. We examined the dyspnea intensity (Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale [IPOS]) at 24 and 48 hours. RESULTS: Of 108 patients (mean age = 72), 66 (61%), 34 (32%), and 8 (7.4%) received morphine, oxycodone, and hydromorphone, respectively. At 24 hours, mean dyspnea IPOS scores significantly decreased from 3.0 (standard error (SE) = 0.1) at the baseline to 1.6 (0.1), 2.9 (0.1) to 2.0 (0.2), and 3.5 (0.2) to 1.2 (0.4) in the morphine (P < 0.001), oxycodone (P < 0.001), and hydromorphone (P = 0.011) groups, respectively. At 48 hours, the IPOS scores significantly reduced from 2.9 (0.1) at the baseline to 1.4 (0.1), 2.9 (0.1) to 1.6 (0.2), and 3.5 (0.2) to 1.2 (0.2) in the morphine (P < 0.001), oxycodone (P < 0.001), and hydromorphone (P = 0.004) groups, respectively. No significant differences in mean scores were found among the three groups at 24 (P = 0.080) and 48 hours (P = 0.322). Adverse events were rare. CONCLUSION: Parenteral morphine, oxycodone, and hydromorphone may be similarly effective and safe for cancer patients with terminal dyspnea.