How successful are we in relieving terminal dyspnea in cancer patients? A real-world multicenter prospective observational study

Effectiveness and safety of morphine administration for refractory dyspnoea among hospitalised patients with advanced heart failure: the Morphine-HF study

OBJECTIVES

Morphine is effective in alleviating dyspnoea in patients with cancer. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of morphine administration for refractory dyspnoea in patients with advanced heart failure (HF).

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre, prospective, observational study of hospitalised patients with advanced HF in whom morphine was administered for refractory dyspnoea. Morphine effectiveness was evaluated by dyspnoea intensity changes, assessed regularly by both a quantitative subjective scale (Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; graded from 0 to 100 mm)) and an objective scale (Support Team Assessment Schedule-Japanese (STAS-J; graded from 0 to 4 points)). Safety was assessed by vital sign changes and new-onset severe adverse events, including nausea, vomiting, constipation and delirium based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.

RESULTS

From 15 Japanese institutions between September 2020 and August 2022, we included 28 hospitalised patients with advanced HF in whom morphine was administered (mean age: 83.8±8.7 years, male: 15 (54%), New York Heart Association class IV: 26 (93%) and mean left ventricular ejection fraction: 38%±19%). Both VAS and STAS-J significantly improved from baseline to day 1 (VAS: 67±26 to 50±31 mm; p=0.02 and STAS-J: 3.3±0.8 to 2.6±1.1 points; p=0.006, respectively), and thereafter the improvements sustained through to day 7. After morphine administration, vital signs including blood pressure, pulse rate and oxygen saturation did not change, and no new-onset severe adverse events occurred through to day 7.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggested acceptable effectiveness and safety for morphine administration in treating refractory dyspnoea in hospitalised patients with advanced HF.

Do Types of Opioids Matter for Terminal Cancer Dyspnea? A Preliminary Multicenter Cohort Study

CONTEXT

Dyspnea is among the most distressing symptoms in the last weeks to days of life (terminal dyspnea). While physicians frequently use parenteral opioids other than morphine for terminal dyspnea, little is known about their effects in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the effectiveness and safety of parenteral morphine, oxycodone, and hydromorphone for cancer patients with terminal dyspnea.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter cohort study that consecutively enrolled advanced cancer patients with moderate/severe terminal dyspnea. Participating palliative care physicians initiated parenteral opioids (morphine/oxycodone/hydromorphone), utilizing a standardized treatment algorithm. We examined the dyspnea intensity (Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale [IPOS]) at 24 and 48 hours.

RESULTS

Of 108 patients (mean age = 72), 66 (61%), 34 (32%), and 8 (7.4%) received morphine, oxycodone, and hydromorphone, respectively. At 24 hours, mean dyspnea IPOS scores significantly decreased from 3.0 (standard error (SE) = 0.1) at the baseline to 1.6 (0.1), 2.9 (0.1) to 2.0 (0.2), and 3.5 (0.2) to 1.2 (0.4) in the morphine (P < 0.001), oxycodone (P < 0.001), and hydromorphone (P = 0.011) groups, respectively. At 48 hours, the IPOS scores significantly reduced from 2.9 (0.1) at the baseline to 1.4 (0.1), 2.9 (0.1) to 1.6 (0.2), and 3.5 (0.2) to 1.2 (0.2) in the morphine (P < 0.001), oxycodone (P < 0.001), and hydromorphone (P = 0.004) groups, respectively. No significant differences in mean scores were found among the three groups at 24 (P = 0.080) and 48 hours (P = 0.322). Adverse events were rare.

CONCLUSION

Parenteral morphine, oxycodone, and hydromorphone may be similarly effective and safe for cancer patients with terminal dyspnea.

Cross-cultural comparison of continuous deep sedation for advanced cancer patients in East Asian countries: prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Cultural, social, and legal factors have been known to affect physicians' practice of continuous deep sedation. There have been few quantitative studies to compare continuous deep sedation practice in Asian countries. We aimed to describe and compare clinical characteristics of continuous deep sedation in Japan, Korea and Taiwan.

METHODS

Patients with advanced cancer admitted to participating palliative care units were enrolled from January 2017 to September 2018. We evaluated and compared (i) the prevalence of continuous deep sedation, (ii) the characteristics of sedated and non-sedated groups in each country, and (iii) continuous deep sedation administration patterns among the three countries.

RESULTS

A total of 2158 participants were included in our analysis, and 264 received continuous deep sedation. The continuous deep sedation prevalence was 10, 16 and 22% in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, respectively. Delirium was the most frequent target symptom in all countries, along with dyspnoea (in Japan) and psychological symptoms (in Korea). Midazolam was most frequently used in Japan and Taiwan, but not in Korea (P < 0.001). Among the patients receiving continuous deep sedation, the hydration amount on the final day was significantly different, with median volumes of 200, 500 and 0 mL in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, respectively (P < 0.001). In Korea, 33% of the continuous deep sedation administration caused a high degree of physicians' discomfort, but 3% in Japan and 5% in Taiwan (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical practices of continuous deep sedation and physicians' discomfort related to continuous deep sedation initiation highly varied across countries. We need to develop optimal decision-making models of continuous deep sedation and hydration during continuous deep sedation in each country.

Current Management Options for Dyspnea in Cancer Patients

OPINION STATEMENT

Dyspnea is one of the most frequent and distressing symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. As dyspnea deteriorates patients' quality of life markedly and tends to worsen as the disease progresses, comprehensive assessment and timely treatment of the underlying etiologies are essential. International guidelines recommend various non-pharmacological and pharmacological management options. However, there is a scarcity of confirmatory clinical trials on cancer dyspnea, and the overall level of evidence is weak. Recently, observational and survey studies indicated a wide range of practice patterns of palliative care specialists, providing important insight into the real-world management of dyspnea. In this paper, we summarize current management options for dyspnea in cancer patients, highlight major controversies in the literature, and propose future research directions toward quality care for patients with dyspnea and their families.

The feasibility and effects of a pharmacological treatment algorithm for cancer patients with terminal dyspnea: A multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

How clinicians treat patients with terminal dyspnea widely varies, which could hamper quality care. We visualized comprehensive pharmacological treatment delivered by palliative care physicians.

AIM

To examine adherence to a comprehensive pharmacological treatment algorithm for patients with terminal dyspnea, and to explore its outcomes during 48 h.

DESIGN

A multicenter cohort study at five sites (February 2020 to June 2021).

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

We prospectively enrolled consecutive patients with advanced cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 3-4, and moderate/severe dyspnea. Participating palliative care physicians initiated algorithm-based treatment. The primary outcome was the proportion of adherence to the treatment algorithm over 24 h (predefined goal, 70%). We evaluated the adherence, goal achievement, and dyspnea level with a numerical rating scale (NRS), as well as adverse events over 48 h.

RESULTS

All 108 patients received algorithm-based pharmacological treatment. Among 96 and 87 patients who were alive at 24 and 48 h, respectively, 96 (100%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 96%-100%) and 82 (94%; 95%CI = 87%-98%) continued to receive the algorithm treatment, respectively, and 66 (69%; 95%CI = 59%-77%) and 64 (74%; 95%CI = 63%-82%) achieved the treatment goals, respectively. Using a complete case analysis with paired t-tests, mean dyspnea NRS scores significantly reduced from 7.3 (standard error, 0.2) at the baseline to 4.9 (0.3) at 24 h (n = 72; p < 0.001), and 7.2 (0.3) at the baseline to 4.6 (0.4) at 48 h (n = 55; p < 0.001). Most adverse events were mild to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

The comprehensive pharmacological treatment algorithm was feasible, and the study data supports its preliminary efficacy and safety. The use of this algorithm may help clinicians improve care for patients with terminal dyspnea.

Visualizing How to Use Antipsychotics for Agitated Delirium in the Last Days of Life

CONTEXT

How physicians use antipsychotics for agitated delirium in the last days of life varies markedly, which could hamper the quality of care.

OBJECTIVES

To examine adherence to an algorithm-based treatment for terminal agitated delirium, and explore its effectiveness and safety.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective, observational study was conducted in a 27-bed palliative care unit in Japan. All adult cancer patients who developed agitated delirium with a modified Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) of +1 or more were included; the palliative care specialists determined that the etiology was irreversible, the estimated survival was three weeks or less, and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was three or four. Patients were treated with an algorithm to visualize how to use antipsychotics, with the treatment goal defined as no agitation (RASS≤0) or acceptable agitation for patients and families. We provided all patients nonpharmacological management to alleviate the symptoms of delirium and administered antipsychotic medications when the nonpharmacological approach was insufficient. We measured the adherence rate, RASS, Nursing Delirium Screening Scale items 2, 3, 4 (Nu-DESC), and Agitation Distress Scale item 2 (ADS) on days 0, 1, 3, 7, 14, 21, and 24 hours before death.

RESULTS

A total of 164 patients were enrolled. Adherence rates were 99, 94, and 89%, and treatment goals were achieved in 66, 83, and 93% on days one, three, and seven, respectively. The mean RASS decreased from +1.41 to -0.84 on day three; Nu-DESC decreased from 4.19 to 1.83, and ADS decreased from 1.54 to 0.38. There were seven severe adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) of 3), including aspiration (n = 3), apnea (n = 2), tremor (n = 1), and muscle rigidity (n = 1) on day three.

CONCLUSION

The algorithm-based treatment could be feasible, effective, and safe. Visualizing how palliative care specialists provide pharmacological management could be beneficial for nonspecialist clinicians, and clinical, educational, and research implications warrant further empirical testing.

Systemic Opioids for Dyspnea in Cancer Patients: A Real-world Observational Study

CONTEXT

Although Systemic opioids are recommended as a pharmacological treatment for cancer-related dyspnea, their effectiveness and safety needs to be investigated in a real-world context OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of systemic regular opioids for dyspnea in cancer patients, in the real-world palliative care practice.

METHODS

This was a multicenter prospective observational study. We consecutively enrolled adult cancer patients starting regular opioids (morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone, or fentanyl) for dyspnea from 12 palliative care services across Japan. We evaluated dyspnea intensity using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS) every 24 hours until 72 hours after starting opioids (T1-T3). We also evaluated common opioid-related adverse events (AEs) and other severe AEs.

RESULTS

We enrolled 402 cancer patients. The proportion of responders was 68.8% (95%confidence intervals (CI): 0.63-0.74) at T1, 75.7% (95%CI: 0.70-0.81) at T2, and 82.1% (95%CI: 0.76-0.87) at T3. The mean differences in dyspnea NRS from baseline were 1.73 (95%CI: 1.46-1.99) at T1, 1.99 (95%CI: 1.71-2.28) at T2, and 2.47 (95%CI:2.13-2.82) at T3. The most common treatment-emergent AE was somnolence with an incidence of the severe form of approximately 10% throughout the study period. In the multivariate analysis, baseline dyspnea NRS ≥6 had a positive correlation with dyspnea relief by systemic regular opioids, while liver metastasis, clinician-predicted survival days, and opioid tolerance had a negative correlation.

CONCLUSION

Regular systemic opioids were effective for dyspnea in real-world cancer patients.

Opioid Management of Dyspnea at End of Life: A Systematic Review

Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to consolidate the existing evidence on opioid use, including administration, dosing, and efficacy, for the relief of dyspnea at end of life. The overarching goal is to optimize clinical management of dyspnea by identifying patterns in opioid use, improving opioid management of dyspnea, and to prioritize future research. Background: Opioids are commonly used in the management of dyspnea at end of life, yet specific administration guidelines are limited. A greater understanding of the effectiveness of opioids in relieving end-of-life dyspnea with consideration of study design, patients, and opioids, including dyspnea evaluation tools and outcomes, will leverage development of standardized administration and dosing. Methods: A PRISMA-guided systematic review using six databases identified quality studies of opioid management for patients with dyspnea at end of life. Results: Twenty-three references met review inclusion criteria, which included terminally ill cancer and noncancer patients with various diagnoses. Studies included two randomized controlled trials, and three nonrandomized experimental, three prospective observational, one cross-sectional, and one case series. Thirteen retrospective chart reviews were also included due to the limited rigorous studies rendered by the search. Thirteen studies evaluated morphine, followed by fentanyl (6), oxycodone (5), general opioid use (4), and hydromorphone (2). Routes of administration were parenteral, oral, combination, and nebulization. Dyspnea was evaluated using self-reporting and non-self-reporting evaluation tools. Sedation was the most reported opioid-related adverse effect. Discussion: Challenges persist in conducting end-of-life research, preventing consensus on standardization of opioid treatment for dyspnea within this specific palliative time frame. Future robust prospective trials using specific, accurate assessment with reassessment of dyspnea/respiratory distress, and consideration of opioid tolerance, polypharmacy, and comorbidities are required.

Factors Related to Family Caregivers’ Readiness for the Hospital Discharge of Advanced Cancer Patients

Background: Many family caregivers of advanced cancer patients worry about being unable to provide in-home care and delay the discharge. Little is known about the influencing factors of discharge readiness. Methods: This study aimed to investigate the influencing factors of family caregivers’ readiness, used a cross-sectional survey, and enrolled 123 sets of advanced cancer patients and family caregivers using convenience sampling from four oncology wards in a medical centre in northern Taiwan. A self-developed five-point Likert questionnaire, the “Discharge Care Assessment Scale”, surveyed the family caregivers’ difficulties with providing in-home care. Results: The study showed that the discharge readiness of family caregivers affects whether patients can be discharged home. Moreover, the influencing factors of family caregivers’ discharge readiness were the patient’s physical activity performance status and expressed discharge willingness; the presence of someone to assist family caregivers with in-home care; and the difficulties of in-home care. The best prediction model accuracy was78.0%, and the Nagelkerke R² was 0.52. Conclusion: Discharge planning should start at the point of admission data collection, with the influencing factors of family caregivers’ discharge readiness. It is essential to help patients increase the likelihood of being discharged home.

Prognostication of the last days of life: Review article

Accurate prediction of impending death (i.e., last few days of life) is essential for terminally-ill cancer patients and their families. International guidelines state that clinicians should identify patients with impending death, communicate the prognosis with patients and families, help them with their end-of-life decision-making, and provide sufficient symptom palliation. Over the past decade, several national and international studies have been conducted that systematically investigated signs and symptoms of impending death as well as how to communicate such a prognosis effectively with patients and families. In this article, we summarize the current evidence on prognostication and communication regarding the last days of life of patients with cancer, and future directions of clinical research.

Visualizing How to Use Parenteral Opioids for Terminal Cancer Dyspnea: A Pilot, Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study

CONTEXT

How physicians use opioids for dyspnea in imminently dying cancer patients (terminal dyspnea) varies markedly, which could hamper quality care.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the adherence to an algorithm-based treatment for terminal dyspnea, and explore its outcomes over 24 hours.

METHODS

This was a pre-planned subgroup analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study. Inclusion criteria were: advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units, ECOG performance status = 3-4, and a dyspnea intensity ≥2 on the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS). We developed an algorithm to visualize how palliative care physicians would use parenteral opioids. Participating physicians (palliative care specialists) initiated parenteral opioids, choosing whether to use the algorithm based on their preference. We measured the adherence rate to the algorithm over 24 hours (predefined goal = 70%), and compared dyspnea IPOS scores and adverse events between patients with and without algorithm-based treatment.

RESULTS

Of 164 patients (median survival = 5 days), 71 (43%) received algorithm-based treatment, and 70 (99%; 95% confidence interval = 92%-100%) adhered to it over 24 hours. In a complete case analysis, mean dyspnea IPOS scores significantly decreased from 2.9 (standard error = 0.1) to 1.5 (0.1) in the algorithm group (n = 54; P < 0.001), and 2.9 (0.1) to 1.6 (0.1) in the non-algorithm group (n = 72; P < 0.001). There was no significant between-group difference in changes in dyspnea IPOS scores (P = 0.65). Adverse events were rare (n = 5).

CONCLUSION

The algorithm-based treatment was feasible, and might be as effective and safe as the usual care by palliative care specialists. Its implementation may help physicians provide quality care for terminal dyspnea.

Assessment of Changes in Symptoms Is Feasible and Prognostic in the Last Weeks of Life: An International Multicenter Cohort Study

Background: Symptoms are not typically part of established various prognostic factors and scoring systems but are among the most frequently assessed issues in patient care. Objectives: To evaluate that, changes in symptoms can provide additional useful prognostic information. Design: A secondary analysis of an international cohort study in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Setting/Subjects: Subjects were adult patients with advanced cancer (n = 2074) who were admitted to 37 palliative care units (PCUs) in 3 countries from January 2017 to September 2018. Measurements: Symptoms (dyspnea, fatigue, dry mouth, and drowsiness) were assessed at admission and one-week later. Dyspnea was assessed by the presence of resting and exertional dyspnea, whereas other symptoms were assessed using the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scales (IPOS) (range 0-4). For analysis, we grouped patients by symptom change, as either Improved, Stable, or Worsened (by having at least a one increment decrease, no change, or at least a one increment increase, respectively). Results: Worsened groups had the shortest survival (median survival 15-21 days) compared with those with Improved (median survival 23-31 days) and Stable symptoms (median survival 27-29 days) across all four symptoms (dyspnea, fatigue, dry mouth, and drowsiness). Survival differences were statistically significantly different across all three groups for all symptoms (all p < 0.001). Interestingly, Improved symptoms were associated with similar survival compared with Stable groups, with no statistical differences. Conclusions: Worsened symptoms at one week after admission were useful predictors of survival for patients with advanced cancer in PCUs during the final weeks of life. Longitudinal assessments are needed to reflect passage of time as well as impact of treatments.

Care Associated With Satisfaction of Bereaved Family Members of Terminally Ill Cancer Patients With Dyspnea: A Cross-sectional Nationwide Survey

CONTEXT

Terminal dyspnea in dying cancer patients is frequent and distressing, and the impact extends to their families. Families are often involved in providing care for terminal dyspnea.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to describe various care strategies for terminal dyspnea in cancer patients hospitalized in palliative care units (PCUs), evaluate families' satisfaction with care for terminal dyspnea, and explore determinants contributing to families' satisfaction.

METHODS

A nationwide, cross-sectional survey was conducted using a self-reported questionnaire among bereaved families of cancer patients who died in PCUs. The questionnaire consisted of questions on the perceptions of care offered to patients with terminal dyspnea and their families, satisfaction with care for terminal dyspnea, family-perceived intensity of terminal dyspnea, use of oxygen, and background data of patients and families.

RESULTS

In total, 533 participants (response rate = 54%) returned the completed questionnaires, and 231 reported that their loved one had experienced terminal dyspnea. Dedicated and compassionate care was perceived by 60%-89% of the participants as the strategy provided for patients. Care for family members was perceived by 58%-69% of the participants. Perception of dedicated and compassionate care for patients and that of care for family members were significantly associated with high satisfaction (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 8.64, 3.85-19.36 and 15.37, 5.00-47.25, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Dedicated and compassionate care may be the essential part of the care for terminal dyspnea. Dedicated and compassionate care for patients and care for family members have a potential of improving the care satisfaction among family caregivers.

Experience of symptom control, anxiety and associating factors in a palliative care unit evaluated with Support Team Assessment Schedule Japanese version

Various physical and psychosocial difficulties including anxiety affect cancer patients. Patient surroundings also have psychological effects on caregiving. Assessing the current status of palliative care intervention, specifically examining anxiety and its associated factors, is important to improve palliative care unit (PCU) patient quality of life (QOL). This study retrospectively assessed 199 patients admitted to a PCU during August 2018–June 2019. Data for symptom control, anxiety level, disease insight, and communication level obtained using Support Team Assessment Schedule Japanese version (STAS-J) were evaluated on admission and after 2 weeks. Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) and laboratory data were collected at admission. Patient anxiety was significantly severer and more frequent in groups with severer functional impairment (p = 0.003) and those requiring symptom control (p = 0.006). Nevertheless, no relation was found between dyspnea and anxiety (p = 0.135). Patients with edema more frequently experienced anxiety (p = 0.068). Patient survival was significantly shorter when family anxiety was higher after 2 weeks (p = 0.021). Symptoms, edema, and disabilities in daily living correlate with patient anxiety. Dyspnea is associated with anxiety, but its emergence might be attributable mainly to physical factors in this population. Family members might sensitize changes reflecting worsened general conditions earlier than the patients.

COVID-19, Suffering and Palliative Care: A Review

According to the WHO guideline, palliative care is an integral component of COVID-19 management. The relief of physical symptoms and the provision of psychosocial support should be practiced by all healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients. In this review, we aim to provide a simple outline on COVID-19, suffering in COVID-19, and the role of palliative care in COVID-19. We also introduce 3 principles of palliative care that can serve as a guide for all healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients, which are (1) good symptom control, (2) open and sensitive communication, and (3) caring for the whole team. The pandemic has brought immense suffering, fear and death to people everywhere. The knowledge, skills and experiences from palliative care could be used to relieve the suffering of COVID-19 patients.

How Successful Is Parenteral Oxycodone for Relieving Terminal Cancer Dyspnea Compared With Morphine? A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

CONTEXT

Parenteral morphine is widely used for dyspnea of imminently dying cancer patients (terminal dyspnea). However, the efficacy of other opioids such as oxycodone remains largely unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the efficacy of parenteral oxycodone vs. morphine by continuous infusion over 24 hours in cancer patients with terminal dyspnea.

METHODS

This was a pre-planned subgroup analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study. Inclusion criteria were advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status = 3-4, and a dyspnea intensity ≥2 on the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) for which oxycodone or morphine was initiated by continuous infusion. We measured dyspnea IPOS scores over 24 hours.

RESULTS

We analyzed 164 patients who received oxycodone (n = 26) and morphine (n = 138) for dyspnea (median survival = 5 days). The mean age was 70 years, 58 patients (35%) had lung cancer, and 97 (59%) had lung metastases. Complete case analysis revealed that mean dyspnea IPOS scores decreased from 3.0 (standard deviation = 0.7) to 1.5 (0.7) in the oxycodone group (difference in means = 1.5; P < 0.001), and from 2.9 (0.7) to 1.6 (1.0) in the morphine group (difference in means = 1.3; P < 0.001). No significant between-group differences existed in the IPOS scores at 24 hours (P = 0.753). Adverse events were seen in no and 5 patients in the oxycodone and morphine groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Parenteral oxycodone may be equally effective and safe as morphine in the treatment of terminal dyspnea in cancer patients. Future randomized controlled trials should confirm the efficacy and safety of opioids other than morphine for terminal dyspnea.

Management of Dyspnea in Advanced Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide guidance on the clinical management of dyspnea in adult patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. An Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) systematic review provided the evidence base for nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions to alleviate dyspnea. The review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with a concurrent comparison group published through early May 2020. The ASCO Expert Panel also wished to address dyspnea assessment, management of underlying conditions, and palliative care referrals, and for these questions, an additional systematic review identified RCTs, systematic reviews, and guidelines published through July 2020.

RESULTS

The AHRQ systematic review included 48 RCTs and two retrospective cohort studies. Lung cancer and mesothelioma were the most commonly addressed types of cancer. Nonpharmacologic interventions such as fans provided some relief from breathlessness. Support for pharmacologic interventions was limited. A meta-analysis of specialty breathlessness services reported improvements in distress because of dyspnea.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A hierarchical approach to dyspnea management is recommended, beginning with dyspnea assessment, ascertainment and management of potentially reversible causes, and referral to an interdisciplinary palliative care team. Nonpharmacologic interventions that may be offered to relieve dyspnea include airflow interventions (eg, a fan directed at the cheek), standard supplemental oxygen for patients with hypoxemia, and other psychoeducational, self-management, or complementary approaches. For patients who derive inadequate relief from nonpharmacologic interventions, systemic opioids should be offered. Other pharmacologic interventions, such as corticosteroids and benzodiazepines, are also discussed. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

Are common delirium assessment tools appropriate for evaluating delirium at the end of life in cancer patients?

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are to investigate how many advanced cancer patients became unconscious or non-communicative after pharmacological treatment for delirium, and to explore whether existing delirium assessment tools can successfully evaluate its severity at the end of life.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a registry study that examined the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics for advanced cancer patients with delirium. A total of 818 patients were recruited from 39 specialized palliative care services in Japan. The severity of delirium was measured using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale-Palliative care version, the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98), and the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC) on Day 3. Data from 302 patients with motor anxiety with an Agitation Distress Scale score ≥2 on Day 0 were analyzed for this study. The patients were categorized into four treatment response groups: complete response (CR: no agitation and fully communicative), partial response (PR: no/mild agitation and partially communicative), unconscious/non-communicative (UC), and no change (NC).

RESULTS

On Day 3, 29 (10%; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 7-13) and 2 (1%; 95% CI, 0-2) patients became unconscious and non-communicative, respectively. Forty-four patients were categorized as CR, 97 as PR, 31 as UC, and 96 as NC. The scores of the DRS-R-98 and Nu-DESC in the UC group were rated higher than patients in the NC group were.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable number of cancer patients with delirium became unconscious or non-communicative. Existing delirium assessment tools may be inappropriate for measuring the severity of delirium in end-of-life.

Unanswered questions and future direction in the management of terminal breathlessness in patients with cancer

Breathlessness is among the most common and deteriorating symptoms in patients with advanced cancer, which may worsen towards the end of life. Breathlessness in patients with estimated life expectancy of weeks to days has unique clinical features: it tends to worsen rapidly over days to hours as death approaches often despite current symptom control measures. Breathlessness in patients during the last weeks to days of life can be called ‘terminal breathlessness’. While evidence has accumulated for the management of breathlessness in patients with cancer who are not dying, such evidence may not be fully applied to terminal breathlessness. Only a few studies have investigated the best practice of terminal breathlessness in patients with cancer. In this paper, we summarise the current evidence for the management of terminal breathlessness, and propose future directions of clinical research.

The Bereaved Families' Preferences for Individualized Goals of Care for Terminal Dyspnea: What Is an Acceptable Balance between Dyspnea Intensity and Communication Capacity?

Background: Toward the individualized care of terminally ill patients with dyspnea (“terminal dyspnea”), it is essential to identify individualized goals of care (GOC) to achieve an acceptable balance between dyspnea intensity and communication capacity.

Objective: To explore preferences for individualized GOC for terminal dyspnea, and factors associated with the preferences.

Design: A nationwide cross-sectional survey.

Setting/Subjects: In total, 1055 bereaved families of cancer patients admitted to 167 inpatient hospices in Japan.

Measurements: Preferences for individualized GOC for terminal dyspnea to achieve an acceptable balance between dyspnea intensity and communication capacity, should individuals experience continuous moderate or severe/overwhelming dyspnea despite optimal palliative care, and perceptions about a good death.

Results: Among 548 participants (response rate = 52%), we analyzed responses of 477 families whose loved one suffered dyspnea in the last week of life. In total, 167 (45%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 40%–50%) and 272 (80%; 95% CI = 75%–84%) participants would prioritize dyspnea relief over communication capacity, should they continuously suffer moderate or severe/overwhelming dyspnea, respectively. In multivariate analyses, the determinants of the prioritization of dyspnea relief were perceiving physical comfort as important for a good death (odds ratio [OR] = 1.389; 95% CI = 1.062–1.818; p = 0.017) in moderate dyspnea, and perceiving physical comfort (OR = 2.505; 95% CI = 1.718–3.651; p < 0.001) and not perceiving mental awareness (OR = 0.695; 95% CI = 0.529–0.913; p = 0.009) as important in severe/overwhelming dyspnea.

Conclusions: Preferences for individualized GOC for terminal dyspnea can vary among individuals and with different symptom intensity, and may be influenced by perceptions about a good death. Outcome measurements incorporating an acceptable balance between dyspnea intensity and communication capacity should be developed.