Chemotherapy and palliative care near end-of life: examining the appropriateness at a cancer institute for colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate cessation of chemotherapy and timely referral of patients to hospice services are crucial for the quality of care near death. We investigated the quality of care in our Cancer Institute in very advanced metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated in real life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of electronic medical data of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were candidates for chemotherapy during the study period (1 January 2007-30 June 2014) and died before 31 December 2014. Quality-of-cancer-care indicators were calculated for the overuse of chemotherapy and referral to hospice. Predictive factors of chemotherapy discontinuation and hospice referral in end-of life care were investigated using parametric and nonparametric methods. RESULTS: Of the 365 patients who died before 31 December 2014, 26 (7.1%) received chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life and 36 (9.8%) started a new chemotherapy regimen in the last 30 days of life. Factors associated with the overuse of chemotherapy were being < 70 years of age for both indicators and not having received advanced chemotherapy treatments for the former indicator. The majority of patients (74.7%) had access to hospice services, of whom only a small percentage (7.2%) accessed them very near to death. CONCLUSIONS: According to the criteria used, our Institute provides a good quality of cancer care for dying colorectal cancer patients, measured by the use of chemotherapy and referral to hospice in their last days of life.

Impact of admission to hospice on pain intensity and type of pain therapies administered.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate pain intensity changes in patients admitted to a hospice. The secondary objective was to evaluate whether these changes in pain were accompanied by modifications in therapies and drugs used to treat pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 96 patients admitted to a hospice for a minimum of 7 days who received pain therapy. An 11-point (0-10) numerical rating scale (NRS) was used to assess pain on a daily basis. A repeated measures analysis of variance was performed to evaluate pain intensity changes over time. RESULTS: Mean ± SD pain NRS values of the entire group were 2.58 ± 2.61 on day 1 and 1.40 ± 1.72 on day 7 (P = 0.002). Restricting the analysis to patients with moderate to severe pain at the time of hospice admission, results were even more significant. In fact, mean ± SD pain NRS was 5.51 ± 1.24 for patients with pain ≥4 at admission and 1.76 ± 1.91 for the same patients after 7 days (P < 0.001). A significant increase in the number of patients receiving morphine was observed from day 1 to day 7 (24 to 41, respectively, P = 0.001) and in those receiving drugs via parenteral routes (subcutaneous or intravenous) from 10 to 27 (P = 0.002) CONCLUSIONS: Admission to a hospice and the hospice environment led to a significant reduction in reported pain intensity for the patients included in this study, mainly those with moderate to severe pain at the time of admission. This decrease in pain was accompanied by a significant increase in the use of morphine, especially via parenteral routes, but not by a higher mean equivalent daily dose of oral morphine per patient.

Palliative sedation in end-of-life care and survival: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Palliative sedation is a clinical procedure aimed at relieving refractory symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. It has been suggested that sedative drugs may shorten life, but few studies exist comparing the survival of sedated and nonsedated patients. We present a systematic review of literature on the clinical practice of palliative sedation to assess the effect, if any, on survival. METHODS: A systematic review of literature published between January 1980 and December 2010 was performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Search terms included palliative sedation, terminal sedation, refractory symptoms, cancer, neoplasm, palliative care, terminally ill, end-of-life care, and survival. A manual search of the bibliographies of electronically identified articles was also performed. RESULTS: Eleven published articles were identified describing 1,807 consecutive patients in 10 retrospective or prospective nonrandomized studies, 621 (34.4%) of whom were sedated. One case-control study was excluded from prevalence analysis. The most frequent reason for sedation was delirium in the terminal stages of illness (median, 57.1%; range, 13.8% to 91.3%). Benzodiazepines were the most common drug category prescribed. Comparing survival of sedated and nonsedated patients, the sedation approach was not shown to be associated with worse survival. CONCLUSION: Even if there is no direct evidence from randomized clinical trials, palliative sedation, when appropriately indicated and correctly used to relieve unbearable suffering, does not seem to have any detrimental effect on survival of patients with terminal cancer. In this setting, palliative sedation is a medical intervention that must be considered as part of a continuum of palliative care.

Prospective comparison of prognostic scores in palliative care cancer populations.

PURPOSE: Predicting prognosis in advanced cancer aids physicians in clinical decision making and can help patients and their families to prepare for the time ahead. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter, observational, prospective, nonrandomized population-based study evaluated life span prediction of four prognostic scores used in palliative care: the original palliative prognostic score (PaP Score), a variant of PaP Score including delirium (D-PaP Score), the Palliative Performance Scale, and the Palliative Prognostic Index. RESULTS: A total of 549 patients were enrolled onto the study. Median survival of the entire group was 22 days (95% confidence intervals [95% CI] = 19-24). All four prognostic models discriminated well between groups of patients with different survival probabilities. Log-rank tests were all highly significant (p < .0001). The PaP and D-PaP scores were the most accurate, with a C index of 0.72 (95% CI = 0.70-0.73) and 0.73 (95% CI = 0.71-0.74), respectively. CONCLUSION: It can be confirmed that all four prognostic scores used in palliative care studies accurately identify classes of patients with different survival probabilities. The PaP Score has been extensively validated and shows high accuracy and reproducibility in different settings.

Impact of palliative care unit admission on symptom control evaluated by the edmonton symptom assessment system.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of palliative care on patients' symptoms, using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) to measure symptom intensity at the time of admission and variations registered during the first 7 days' hospitalization. Three hundred fourteen patients were admitted to the unit during its first year of activity. Of these, 162 patients (51.6%) completed, 62 (19.7%) partially completed, and 90 (28.7%) did not complete the ESAS. The mean (+/-SD) value of the Symptom Distress Score (SDS) (sum of the values of the different symptoms) for the 162 evaluable patients on Day 1 was 33.93 (+/-16.24). On Day 7 the mean was 28.14 (+/-15.11) (ANOVA for repeated measurements, P < 0.0001). ESAS values for patients with moderate-severe symptom intensity (average values Day 1-Day 7 and P value, ANOVA for repeated measurements) were as follows: pain (7.12-4.23, P < 0.0001), fatigue (7.46-5.68, P < 0.0001), nausea (7.12-1.96, P < 0.0001), depression (7.26-5.28, P < 0.0001), anxiety (7.13-5.14, P < 0.0001), drowsiness (7.42-6.40, P = 0.002), anorexia (7.33-4.33, P < 0.0001), well-being (6.83-3.85, P < 0.0001), and dyspnea (7.08-3.86, P < 0.0001). These data seem to indicate that the patients who benefit most from inpatient palliative care are those with the most complex symptomatology.