Cellulitis in chronic oedema of the lower leg: an international cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Cellulitis and chronic oedema are common conditions with considerable morbidity. The number of studies designed to assess the epidemiology of cellulitis in chronic oedema is scarce. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence and risk factors of cellulitis in chronic leg oedema, including lymphoedema. METHODS: A cross-sectional study included 40 sites in nine countries during 2014-17. Adults with clinically proven unilateral or bilateral chronic oedema (oedema > 3 months) of the lower leg were included. The main outcome measures were frequency and risk factors for cellulitis within the last 12 months. RESULTS: Out of 7477 patients, 15·78% had cellulitis within the last 12 months, with a lifetime prevalence of 37·47%. The following risk factors for cellulitis were identified by multivariable analysis: wounds [odds ratio (OR) 2·37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2·03-2·78], morbid obesity (OR 1·51, 95% CI 1·27-1·80), obesity (OR 1·21, 95% CI 1·03-1·41), midline swelling (OR 1·32, 95% CI 1·04-1·66), male sex (OR 1·32, 95% CI 1·15-1·52) and diabetes (OR 1·27, 95% CI 1·08-1·49). Controlled swelling was associated with a reduced risk (OR 0·59, 95% CI 0·51-0·67). In a subgroup analysis, the risk increased with the stage of oedema [International Society of Lymphology, stage II OR 2·04 (95% CI 1·23-3·38) and stage III OR 4·88 (95% CI 2·77-8·56)]. CONCLUSIONS: Cellulitis in chronic leg oedema is a global problem. Several risk factors for cellulitis were identified, of which some are potentially preventable. Our findings suggest that oedema control is one of these. We also identified that advanced stages of oedema, with hard/fibrotic tissue, might be an important clinical indicator to identify patients at particular risk.

Prognosticating in patients with advanced cancer--observational study comparing the accuracy of clinicians' and patients' estimates of survival.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians' prognoses in patients with advanced cancer are imprecise. The aim of this study was to compare doctors', nurses' and patients' survival predictions and to identify factors which influence accuracy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Some 1018 patients with advanced cancer were recruited. Survival estimates were obtained from the attending doctor, nurse, multidisciplinary team (MDT) and patient (n = 829, 954, 987 and 290 estimates, respectively) and were compared with actual survival. Clinician and patient characteristics were recorded. RESULTS: MDTs', doctors' and nurses' predictions were accurate 57.5%, 56.3% and 55.5% of occasions, respectively. Nurses were less accurate than the MDT (P = 0.007) but were no worse than doctors (P = 0.284). Estimates of clinicians and patients were more optimistic (doctors: 31%; nurses: 34%; MDT: 31.1%; patients: 45.1%) than pessimistic (12.7%, 11%, 11.4% and 2.7%). Nurses' accuracy increased if they had reviewed the patient within 24 h. Most patients (61.4%) wanted to know their prognosis. Only 37.1% were willing to offer an estimate regarding their own survival. Patients' prognostic estimates were less accurate than health care professionals' (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MDTs were better at predicting survival than doctors' or nurses' alone. Patients were substantially worse. Among nurses, recency of review was related to improved prognostic accuracy.

The classification and diagnostic algorithm for primary lymphatic dysplasia: an update from 2010 to include molecular findings.

Historically, primary lymphoedema was classified into just three categories depending on the age of onset of swelling; congenital, praecox and tarda. Developments in clinical phenotyping and identification of the genetic cause of some of these conditions have demonstrated that primary lymphoedema is highly heterogenous. In 2010, we introduced a new classification and diagnostic pathway as a clinical and research tool. This algorithm has been used to delineate specific primary lymphoedema phenotypes, facilitating the discovery of new causative genes. This article reviews the latest molecular findings and provides an updated version of the classification and diagnostic pathway based on this new knowledge.

The Prognosis in Palliative care Study II (PiPS2): A prospective observational validation study of a prognostic tool with an embedded qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Prognosis in Palliative care Study (PiPS) models predict survival probabilities in advanced cancer. PiPS-A (clinical observations only) and PiPS-B (additionally requiring blood results) consist of 14- and 56-day models (PiPS-A14; PiPS-A56; PiPS-B14; PiPS-B56) to create survival risk categories: days, weeks, months. The primary aim was to compare PIPS-B risk categories against agreed multi-professional estimates of survival (AMPES) and to validate PiPS-A and PiPS-B. Secondary aims were to assess acceptability of PiPS to patients, caregivers and health professionals (HPs). METHODS AND FINDINGS: A national, multi-centre, prospective, observational, cohort study with nested qualitative sub-study using interviews with patients, caregivers and HPs. Validation study participants were adults with incurable cancer; with or without capacity; recently referred to community, hospital and hospice palliative care services across England and Wales. Sub-study participants were patients, caregivers and HPs. 1833 participants were recruited. PiPS-B risk categories were as accurate as AMPES [PiPS-B accuracy (910/1484; 61%); AMPES (914/1484; 61%); p = 0.851]. PiPS-B14 discrimination (C-statistic 0.837) and PiPS-B56 (0.810) were excellent. PiPS-B14 predictions were too high in the 57-74% risk group (Calibration-in-the-large [CiL] -0.202; Calibration slope [CS] 0.840). PiPS-B56 was well-calibrated (CiL 0.152; CS 0.914). PiPS-A risk categories were less accurate than AMPES (p<0.001). PiPS-A14 (C-statistic 0.825; CiL -0.037; CS 0.981) and PiPS-A56 (C-statistic 0.776; CiL 0.109; CS 0.946) had excellent or reasonably good discrimination and calibration. Interviewed patients (n = 29) and caregivers (n = 20) wanted prognostic information and considered that PiPS may aid communication. HPs (n = 32) found PiPS user-friendly and considered risk categories potentially helpful for decision-making. The need for a blood test for PiPS-B was considered a limitation. CONCLUSIONS: PiPS-B risk categories are as accurate as AMPES made by experienced doctors and nurses. PiPS-A categories are less accurate. Patients, carers and HPs regard PiPS as potentially helpful in clinical practice. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13688211.

Prognostic tools or clinical predictions: Which are better in palliative care?

PURPOSE: The Palliative Prognostic (PaP) score; Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI); Feliu Prognostic Nomogram (FPN) and Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) have all been proposed as prognostic tools for palliative cancer care. However, clinical judgement remains the principal way by which palliative care professionals determine prognoses and it is important that the performance of prognostic tools is compared against clinical predictions of survival (CPS). METHODS: This was a multi-centre, cohort validation study of prognostic tools. Study participants were adults with advanced cancer receiving palliative care, with or without capacity to consent. Key prognostic data were collected at baseline, shortly after referral to palliative care services. CPS were obtained independently from a doctor and a nurse. RESULTS: Prognostic data were collected on 1833 participants. All prognostic tools showed acceptable discrimination and calibration, but none showed superiority to CPS. Both PaP and CPS were equally able to accurately categorise patients according to their risk of dying within 30 days. There was no difference in performance between CPS and FPN at stratifying patients according to their risk of dying at 15, 30 or 60 days. PPI was significantly (p<0.001) worse than CPS at predicting which patients would survive for 3 or 6 weeks. PPS and CPS were both able to discriminate palliative care patients into multiple iso-prognostic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although four commonly used prognostic algorithms for palliative care generally showed good discrimination and calibration, none of them demonstrated superiority to CPS. Prognostic tools which are less accurate than CPS are of no clinical use. However, prognostic tools which perform similarly to CPS may have other advantages to recommend them for use in clinical practice (e.g. being more objective, more reproducible, acting as a second opinion or as an educational tool). Future studies should therefore assess the impact of prognostic tools on clinical practice and decision-making.

A new classification system for primary lymphatic dysplasias based on phenotype.

Traditional classification systems for lymphoedema are of limited use for the diagnosis of specific forms of primary lymphoedema. The understanding of primary lymphoedema has been impeded by confusing terminology and a tendency to simply divide patients into three categories based on the age of onset: lymphoedema congenita manifests at or shortly after birth, lymphoedema praecox is apparent before the age of 35 years and lymphoedema tarda manifests thereafter. The clinical presentation in the spectrum of primary lymphoedema disorders is very variable; the phenotypes of primary lymphoedema conditions vary in the age of onset, site of the oedema, inheritance patterns, associated features and genetic causes. Different inheritance patterns are recognised and there are numerous associated anomalies. Some subgroups, such as Milroy disease and Lymphoedema distichiasis, are well characterised, but others are not. A new clinical classification for primary lymphoedema has been developed as a diagnostic algorithm. Its use is demonstrated on 333 probands referred to our lymphoedema clinic. Grouping patients by accurate phenotyping facilitates molecular investigations, understanding of inheritance patterns, and the natural history of different types of primary lymphoedema. Descriptions of the diagnostic categories, some of which have not been previously clearly defined as distinct clinical entities, are illustrated by clinical cases.

Potential for drug interactions involving cytochrome P450 in patients attending palliative day care centres: a multicentre audit.

AIM: To determine the potential for drug interactions involving cytochrome P450 (CYP) in patients receiving palliative day care. METHODS: Drugs used by patients attending four specialist palliative day care centres were reviewed to identify combinations that could result in a pharmacokinetic interaction via any of the five main human forms of CYP. RESULTS: Of 160 patients, 145 (91%) were prescribed at least one drug that was a substrate, inhibitor or inducer of one of the five main CYP isoforms. Twenty-four drug combinations, involving 34 patients, could have given rise to a clinically important interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribers should be aware that in this group of patients, one in five are at risk of a clinically important CYP-mediated drug interaction.

A new quality assurance package for hospital palliative care teams: the Trent Hospice Audit Group model.

Cancer patients in hospitals are increasingly cared for jointly by palliative care teams, as well as oncologists and surgeons. There has been a considerable growth in the number and range of hospital palliative care teams (HPCTs) in the United Kingdom. HPCTs can include specialist doctors and nurses, social workers, chaplains, allied health professionals and pharmacists. Some teams work closely with existing cancer multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) while others are less well integrated. Quality assurance and clinical governance requirements have an impact on the monitoring of such teams, but so far there is no standardised way of measuring the amount and quality of HPCTs' workload. Trent Hospice Audit Group (THAG) is a multiprofessional research group, which has been developing standards and audit tools for palliative care since the 1990s. These follow a format of structure-process-outcome for standards and measures. We describe a collaborative programme of work with HPCTs that has led to a new set of standards and audit tools. Nine HPCTs participated in three rounds of consultation, piloting and modification of standard statements and tools. The final pack of HPCT quality assurance tools covers: policies and documentation; medical notes review; questionnaires for ward-based staff. The tools measure the HPCT workload and casemix; the views of ward-based staff on the supportive role of the HPCT and the effectiveness of HPCT education programmes, particularly in changing practice. The THAG HPCT quality assurance pack is now available for use in cancer peer review.