Delirium in advanced cancer leading to distress in patients and family caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Information is limited about the experiences of delirium among patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers, which makes designing interventions to relieve delirium-related distress difficult. To better understand the experience and thus permit the design of effective interventions, we collected and analyzed data from patients with advanced cancer who had recovered from delirium and their family caregivers. METHOD: Phenomenological interviews were conducted separately with 37 caregivers and 34 patients. One investigator reviewed verbatim transcripts of the audio-taped interviews to identify themes, which the research team confirmed. RESULTS: Most patients and all caregivers had vivid memories of the experience; their descriptions were consistent. Most also attributed the confusion to pain medication. Caregivers had concerns about how best to help patients, patients' imminent deaths, and their own well-being. CONCLUSIONS: The main finding that delirium leads to distress for both patients and caregivers indicates the importance of recognizing, treating, and, if possible, preventing delirium in this population. Concerns about pain medications also indicate the need to educate patients and caregivers about symptom management. Caregivers also need emotional support.

The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System as a screening tool for depression and anxiety.

PURPOSE: Mood disorders are among the most important psychiatric problems in patients with cancer. However, they are frequently underdiagnosed and therefore undertreated. This may lead to difficulties with symptom control, social withdrawal, and poor quality of life. This study was conducted to evaluate the screening performance of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) for depression and anxiety, compared to Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed and analyzed ESAS and HADS data collected from three previous clinical trials conducted by our group. The diagnosis of depression and/or anxiety, and moderate/severe depression and/or anxiety made when patients scored 8 or more, and 11 or more in HADS questionnaire, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values for ESAS were calculated. RESULTS: Of 216 patients analyzed, the median (range) score for depression was 2 (0-10) and anxiety 3 (0-10) using ESAS, and 6 (0-16) and 7 (0-19) using HADS, respectively. A cut off of 2 out of 10 or more in the ESAS gave a sensitivity of 77% and 83% with a specificity of 55% and 47% for depression and moderate/severe depression, respectively. A cutoff of 2 out of 10 or more in the ESAS gave a sensitivity of 86% and 97%, and a specificity of 56% and 43% for anxiety and moderate/severe anxiety, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the ideal cutoff point of ESAS for the screening of depression and anxiety in palliative care is 2 out of 10 or more. More research is needed to define the ideal cutoff point for screening of severe depression and anxiety.

Errors in symptom intensity self-assessment by patients receiving outpatient palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Patient-based symptom scores are the standard method for assessment in palliative care. There has been limited research on the frequency of errors upon using this approach. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) is a reliable and valid assessment tool routinely used for symptom intensity assessment in our cancer center. OBJECTIVE: To determine if patients were scoring the symptoms on the ESAS in the way it was supposed to be scored. SETTINGS: The study was carried out at the outpatient palliative care center. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Retrospective review of 60 consecutive patient charts was done where the patient had initially scored the ESAS. The physician looked at this scoring on the ESAS and went back to the patient to do the scoring again to see if the patient had scored it in the way it was intended to be scored. The same physician did the assessment on all of the patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: Level of agreement (weighted kappa) before versus after the physician visit; Screening performance of patient completed ESAS for mild and moderate symptom intensity. RESULTS: Complete agreement ranged from 58% (sleep) to 82% (well-being); the weighted kappa ranged from 0.49 (drowsiness) to 0.78 (well-being). There was more agreement for symptoms such as dyspnea, nausea, anxiety, and depression and less agreement for symptoms such as lack of sleep and lack of appetite. The screening performance of the initial patient self assessment showed less sensitivity for nausea, drowsiness if the intensity was mild and less sensitivity for pain, nausea, anxiety, and drowsiness if the intensity was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Vigilance needs to be maintained about the ESAS scores done by the patients particularly for symptoms of sleep, appetite, and pain. There is a likelihood of error if doctors or nurses do not routinely check the way patients have completed the assessment form. More research is needed to determine the best way to teach patients how to minimize errors in self-reporting of symptoms.

Objective evaluation of physical function in patients with advanced lung cancer: a preliminary report.

PURPOSE: This prospective study was designed in order to compare the most common subjective measurements of physical function in patients with advanced lung cancer with an objective physical functional test (Simmonds Functional Assessment Tool [SFA]). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred patients agreed to participate and complete the study before or after their outpatient medical oncology appointment. Patients underwent assessment using the Karnofsky, the Brief fatigue Inventory, The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung patients (FACT-L) and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). These results were compared to the SFA tool. The SFA consists of six tasks: tying a belt, putting coins in a cup, reaching above head, standing up/sitting down, reaching forward and walking 50 feet. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients completed the study over 8 months: median Karnofsky performance status was 85 (70 to 100), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) score (0 to 10) was generally low (0.5 to 2.8). SFA scores were significantly different in patients compared to a control group. The correlation between the subscales of the SFA and the Karnofsky, the Brief Fatigue Inventory, The FACT-L and the ESAS was generally low to moderate (r values: 0.22 to 0.38). There was generally a moderate correlation between the different subjective scales (r values: 0.3 to 0.62). CONCLUSION: Adherence to the SFA tool was excellent. The low to moderate correlation between the abnormalities found in the objective SFA and the subjective fatigue tests suggest that objective evaluation of the functional capacity provides a potentially useful and independent end-point for clinical trials and therapeutic interventions. These assessment tools should be used complementary to each other to better assess the functional status of patients with advanced lung cancer. Large trials of objective functional assessment are justified.