Concepts and definitions for "actively dying," "end of life," "terminally ill," "terminal care," and "transition of care": a systematic review.

CONTEXT: The terms "actively dying," "end of life," "terminally ill," "terminal care," and "transition of care" are commonly used but rarely and inconsistently defined. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review to examine the concepts and definitions for these terms. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL for published peer-reviewed articles from 1948 to 2012 that conceptualized, defined, or examined these terms. Two researchers independently reviewed each citation for inclusion and then extracted the concepts/definitions when available. We also searched 10 dictionaries, four palliative care textbooks, and 13 organization Web sites, including the U.S. Federal Code. RESULTS: One of 16, three of 134, three of 44, two of 93, and four of 17 articles defined or conceptualized actively dying, end of life, terminally ill, terminal care, and transition of care, respectively. Actively dying was defined as "hours or days of survival." We identified two key defining features for end of life, terminally ill, and terminal care: life-limiting disease with irreversible decline and expected survival in terms of months or less. Transition of care was discussed in relation to changes in 1) place of care (e.g., hospital to home), 2) level of professions providing the care (e.g., acute care to hospice), and 3) goals of care (e.g., curative to palliative). Definitions for these five terms were rarely found in dictionaries, textbooks, and organizational Web sites. However, when available, the definitions were generally consistent with the concepts discussed previously. CONCLUSION: We identified unifying concepts for five commonly used terms in palliative care and developed a preliminary conceptual framework toward building standardized definitions.

Concepts and definitions for "supportive care," "best supportive care," "palliative care," and "hospice care" in the published literature, dictionaries, and textbooks.

PURPOSE: Commonly used terms such as "supportive care," "best supportive care," "palliative care," and "hospice care" were rarely and inconsistently defined in the palliative oncology literature. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to further identify concepts and definitions for these terms. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and CINAHL for published peer-reviewed articles from 1948 to 2011 that conceptualized, defined, or examined these terms. Two researchers independently reviewed each citation for inclusion and then extracted the concepts/definitions when available. Dictionaries/textbooks were also searched. RESULTS: Nine of 32 "SC/BSC," 25 of 182 "PC," and 12 of 42 "HC" articles focused on providing a conceptual framework/definition. Common concepts for all three terms were symptom control and quality-of-life for patients with life-limiting illness. "SC" focused more on patients on active treatment compared to other categories (9/9 vs. 8/37) and less often involved interdisciplinary care (4/9 vs. 31/37). In contrast, "HC" focused more on volunteers (6/12 vs. 6/34), bereavement care (9/12 vs. 7/34), and community care (9/12 vs. 6/34). Both "PC" and "SC/BSC" were applicable earlier in the disease trajectory (16/34 vs. 0/9). We found 13, 24, and 17 different definitions for "SC/BSC," "PC," and "HC," respectively. "SC/BSC" was the most variably defined, ranging from symptom management during cancer therapy to survivorship care. Dictionaries/textbooks showed similar findings. CONCLUSION: We identified defining concepts for "SC/BSC," "PC," and "HC" and developed a preliminary conceptual framework unifying these terms along the continuum of care to help build consensus toward standardized definitions.

Updated clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of mucositis.

Considerable progress in research and clinical application has been made since the original guidelines for managing mucositis in cancer patients were published in 2004, and the first active drug for the prevention and treatment of this condition has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies in Europe and Australia. These changes necessitate an updated review of the literature and guidelines. Panel members reviewed the biomedical literature on mucositis published in English between January 2002 and May 2005 and reached a consensus based on the criteria of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Changes in the guidelines included recommendations for the use of palifermin for oral mucositis associated with stem cell transplantation, amifostine for radiation proctitis, and cryotherapy for mucositis associated with high-dose melphalan. Recommendations against specific practices were introduced: Systemic glutamine was not recommended for the prevention of gastrointestinal mucositis, and sucralfate and antimicrobial lozenges were not recommended for radiation-induced oral mucositis. Furthermore, new guidelines suggested that granulocyte-macrophage-colony stimulating factor mouthwashes not be used for oral mucositis prevention in the transplantation population. Advances in mucositis treatment and research have been complemented by an increased rate of publication on mucosal injury in cancer. However, additional and sustained efforts will be required to gain a fuller understanding of the pathobiology, impact on overall patient status, optimal therapeutic strategies, and improved educational programs for health professionals, patients, and caregivers. These efforts are likely to have significant clinical and economic impact on the treatment of cancer patients. Cancer 2007;109:820-31. (c) 2007 American Cancer Society.

Alimentary tract mucositis in cancer patients: impact of terminology and assessment on research and clinical practice.

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE: The field of terminology and assessment of oral and gastrointestinal mucosal injury caused by high-dose cancer therapies in cancer patients has undergone important evolution in recent years. The advances are important for several clinical and research reasons. These reasons include improved patient management and design and conduct of clinical trials based on molecularly targeted therapies. For several decades leading up to the 1980s, terminology was characterized by varying use of "mucositis" and "stomatitis" to describe oral mucosal inflammatory changes and ulceration caused by cancer treatments. In addition, oral mucositis was viewed principally as an epithelial event and one that likely did not intersect with causative mechanisms associated with gastrointestinal mucositis. The term "stomatitis" was directed to oral toxicities and seemed to isolate these conditions from parallel events occurring throughout the alimentary tract and potentially other tissues as well. These perspectives and varying use of these terms resulted in several dilemmas, including (1) difficulty in accurately reporting incidence and severity of oral mucositis and, (2) an under-appreciation of potential significance of alimentary tract mucosal toxicity relative to overall course of therapy, patient quality of life, and in some cases, survivorship. These and related components of the model relative to mucositis have undergone strategic shifts over the past 15 years. A 1989 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference targeted oral mucositis research as one of the key areas for investigation relative to causation, clinical impact, and potential links with other complications in cancer patients. Research in this area over the past 15 years has evolved such that oral and gastrointestinal mucositis are now appropriately framed as a continuum of pathobiologic changes over time, with clinical impact that may well contribute to overall symptom clustering in selected patient cohorts. OBJECTIVES: This paper will review history, current status, and new research directions associated with terminology and assessment of mucosal injury in cancer patients in the context described above.