Chemotherapy during the last 30 days of life and the role of palliative care referral, a single center experience.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy use closer to the end of life is a marker of poor-quality care. There are now multiple studies and local reviews addressing this issue. Understanding the practice locally will give valuable insight and opportunity for improvement. METHODS: The study is a retrospective chart review of patients on chemotherapy at the Windsor Regional Cancer Center who died between April 1st, 2016 to December 31st, 2018. Information on demographics, type of cancer, type, intent and route of chemotherapy, line of chemotherapy, referral to hospice and palliative care services was collected. RESULTS: A total of 681 patients on chemotherapy died between April 1st, 2016 to Dec 13th, 2018. Of these, 119 (17.4 %) died within 30 days following chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was parenteral (Intravenous and Subcutaneous) for the majority (75.2%) of the patients. Most (66.4%) of the patients died of disease progression. Intent for chemotherapy was palliative in 85% of patients, adjuvant/neoadjuvant in 6.6% and curative in 8.4% of the patients. Chemotherapy was 1st, 2nd, 3rd line or more in 67.4%, 21.3% and 11.3% of the patients respectively. The type of chemotherapy was conventional in 74.3% of patients and targeted/immunotherapy in 25.7% of patients. Of the variables studied, lack of palliative referral and having lung cancer or melanoma were significantly associated with higher risk of getting chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life. The odds of getting chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life was 0.35, 95% CI (0.24-0.53), P <0.001 for those who were referred to palliative care. On the other hand, the odds of getting chemotherapy were 4.18, 95% CI (1.17-13.71), P = 0.037 and 2.21, 95% CI (1.24-4.01), P = 0.037 for those with melanoma and lung cancer respectively. In addition, those with early referral to palliative care (90 days or more prior to death) were least likely to receive chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life. CONCLUSION: Administration of chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life could cause unnecessary suffering to patients and cost to society. Early referral to palliative care was significantly associated with reduced risk of getting chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life in this study. Prospective study is recommended to further investigate the role of early palliative referral on use of chemotherapy during the last 30 days of life.

Exploring the Impact of Prostate Cancer Radiation Treatment on Functions, Bother, and Well-Being.

Though many studies have explored the effects of radiation therapy on urinary, sexual, and bowel function and/or bother, few have focused on symptom experiences from diagnosis through the first year following completion of radiation therapy. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of 3 types of radiation treatment on functions, bother, and well-being in men with prostate cancer at 1, 6, and 12 months after completion of treatment. A repeated measures survey (N = 73) found that none of the function, bother, emotional, social, or functional well-being scores were significantly different among the 3 groups. However, within-subjects-only repeated measures ANCOVA suggested that emotional well-being and social well-being are different over time. The findings show that clinical treatment of prostate cancer has an impact on functions, bother, and well-being of patients. Thus, it is important that nurses and other healthcare providers listen to what patients are saying before, during, and after treatment.

Bien que de nombreuses études aient examiné les effets de la radiothérapie sur les fonctions ou les gênes urinaires, sexuelles et intestinales, peu ont mis l'accent sur les symptômes ressentis à partir du diagnostic jusqu'à la fin de l'année suivant le traitement. L'objectif de cette étude était de comparer les effets de trois types de radiothérapie sur les fonctions, les gênes et le bien-être d'hommes atteints d'un cancer de la prostate un mois, six mois et douze mois après la fin du traitement. Un sondage intégrant des mesures répétées (N = 73) a permis de constater qu'il n'y avait pas de variation importante entre les trois groupes quant aux mesures touchant les fonctions corporelles, les gênes physiques ou le bien-être social, émotionnel ou fonctionnel. Toutefois, l'analyse de covariance des mesures répétées touchant les sujets uniquement laisse entendre que le bien-être émotionnel et le bien-être social évoluent dans le temps. Les conclusions de l'étude indiquent que le traitement clinique du cancer de la prostate a une incidence sur les fonctions corporelles, les gênes physiques et le bien-être des patients. Il est par conséquent important que le personnel infirmier et les autres professionnels de la santé prennent le temps d'écouter les patients avant, pendant et après leur traitement.

A descriptive study of functions, symptoms, and perceived health state after radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To explore the impact of prostate cancer treatment on: (a) the experience of symptoms (i.e. sexual, urinary, and bowel), and (b) perceived health state of men with prostate cancer one month following their radiation treatment. METHODS: A prospective pre-test-post-test descriptive survey was conducted on a convenience sample of 73 men with prostate cancer who were recruited from a Regional Cancer Centre in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. Participants receiving radiation treatment (brachy therapy, high dose radiation [HDR] and external beam radiation [EBR], or EBR alone) completed a questionnaire that elicited information pertaining to quality of life (QOL), symptom experiences, and perceived health state prior to, and one month after completion of their radiation treatment. RESULTS: Post-treatment scores showed increased problems with urinary bother (p<0.001) and function (p<0.001), bowel bother (p=0.002) and function (p=0.001), and sexual function (p<0.001). The results also suggested that urinary bother, sexual bother, and pain were independent predictors of the perceived health state of participants after radiation treatment. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that prostate cancer treatment presents a challenge with regard to symptom experiences and perceived health state in men with prostate cancer. Therefore, strategies for patient education to assist men to cope with their symptoms and to provide them with support in the initial weeks following treatment are discussed.

Is single fraction 15 Gy the preferred high dose-rate brachytherapy boost dose for prostate cancer?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: High dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy is most commonly administered as a boost in two or more fractions combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT). Our purpose is to compare outcomes with a single fraction HDR boost to that with a standard fractionated boost in intermediate risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Results of two sequential phase II clinical trials are compared. The Single Fraction protocol consists of 15 Gy HDR in one fraction followed by 37.5 Gy EBRT in 15 fractions over 3 weeks; the Standard Fractionation protocol consisted of two HDR fractions each of 10 Gy, 1 week apart, followed by 45 Gy EBRT in 25 fractions. Patients had intermediate risk disease, and were well balanced for prognostic factors. Patients were followed prospectively for efficacy, toxicity and health-related quality of life (Expanded Prostate Index Composite). Efficacy was assessed biochemically using the Phoenix definition, and by biopsy at 2 years. RESULTS: The Single Fraction protocol accrued 123 patients and the Standard Fractionation protocol, 60. With a median follow-up of 45 and 72 months, respectively, the biochemical disease-free survival was 95.1% and 97.9% in the Single and Standard Fractionation trials (p=0.3528). Two-year prostate biopsy was positive in only 4% and 8%, respectively. There was no difference in late urinary or rectal toxicity rates, or in health-related quality of life between the two protocols. CONCLUSIONS: The Single Fraction HDR protocol results in high disease control rate and low toxicity similar to our previous protocol using two HDR insertions, with significant savings in resources. While mature results with longer follow-up are awaited, a single 15 Gy may be considered as a standard fractionation regimen in combination with EBRT for men with intermediate risk disease.