Symptom control

Exploratory analysis of the effect of a dexamethasone-sparing regimen for prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced emesis on food intake (LUNG-NEPA study)

We demonstrated the non-inferiority of a dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing (single-dose) regimen with NEPA, a netupitant/palonosetron fixed combination, for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) caused by cisplatin. This pre-planned exploratory analysis assessed the effect of the DEX-sparing regimen on a patient's food intake. Chemotherapy-naïve patients undergoing cisplatin (≥ 70 mg/m2) were given NEPA and DEX (12 mg) on day 1 and randomized to receive either no further DEX (DEX1), or oral DEX (4 mg BID) on days 2-4 (DEX4). Patient-reported endpoint maintenance of usual daily food intake was assessed during the 5-days post-chemotherapy. The relationship between usual daily food intake and CINV control, pre-chemotherapy self-rated food intake and BMI-adjusted weight loss (WL) were evaluated. One-hundred fifty-two patients (76/group) were assessable. The proportion of patients reporting maintenance of usual daily food intake was similar in both groups: 69.7% (95% CI, 58.6-78.9) for DEX1 vs. 72.4% (95% CI, 61.4-81.2) for DEX4. Only CINV control was significantly associated with maintenance of usual daily food intake (P ≤ 0.001) during the overall phase. The DEX-sparing regimen does not adversely affect patient-reported daily food intake post-chemotherapy. The current analysis adds further insights into antiemetic efficacy of DEX sparing beyond day 1 in the challenging setting of cisplatin.Trial registration: The parent study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04201769).

Symptom trajectories during chemotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the function of prolonging low dose dexamethasone in promoting enhanced recovery after chemotherapy

Background

Lung cancer, mainly non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Currently, chemotherapy is still the most significant treatment strategy for NSCLC. However, scant attention has been paid in previous studies to those patients who often experience various symptoms and discomfort during chemotherapy treatment cycles.

Methods

This study included 127 NSCLC patients who completed an EORTC QLQ‐C30 questionnaire and specifically designed symptom diary. Chi‐square test, factor analysis, Pearson correlation coefficient and hierarchical cluster analysis were used to perform multivariate analysis.

Results

We identified the top five most‐frequent symptoms within the chemotherapy cycle which included fatigue, insomnia, cough and sputum, appetite loss and hypodipsia. These symptoms were at a moderate level on chemotherapy treatment days 3–7, and were then reduced to a stable and lower level in the following two weeks. A statistically significant difference in adverse events (AEs) was found between 54 patients who received dexamethasone (treatment group) and the control group: fatigue (risk ratio [RR]: 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.120–1.961; p = 0.006), insomnia (RR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.016–1.778; p = 0.038), cough and sputum (RR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.484–2.695; p < 0.001), appetite loss (RR: 1.28; 95% CI: 0.959–1.696; p = 0.095). In total, 62 patients completed the EORTC QLQ‐C30 scale. The functioning scales of the treatment group were higher than the control population within positive effect sizes (ES: 0.1–0.8). Apart from diarrhea scales, most symptom scales were lower than the control group within negative effect sizes (ES: 0.1–0.9).

Conclusions

In this study we identified the top five most frequent post‐chemotherapy AEs in a chemotherapy treatment cycle and found that dexamethasone was well tolerated by NSCLC patients who received platinum‐based chemotherapy and substantially alleviated the symptom burden and improved the health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 16 February 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 16 February 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 16 February 2011), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 16 February 2011), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 16 February 2011), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 16 February 2011) were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions to prevent oral mucositis in patients receiving treatment for cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures, results and risk of bias were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for further details where these were unclear. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios calculated using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 131 studies with 10,514 randomised participants are now included. Overall only 8% of these studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias. Ten interventions, where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis, showed some statistically significant evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis, compared to either a placebo or no treatment. These ten interventions were: aloe vera, amifostine, cryotherapy, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), intravenous glutamine, honey, keratinocyte growth factor, laser, polymixin/tobramycin/amphotericin (PTA) antibiotic pastille/paste and sucralfate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ten interventions were found to have some benefit with regard to preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for further well designed, and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of Cochrane Oral Health Group and PaPaS Trials Registers (to 1 June 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 1 June 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 1 June 2010), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 1 June 2010), CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 1 June 2010), OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005) and LILACS via the Virtual Health Library (1980 to 1 June 2010) were undertaken. Reference lists from relevant articles were searched and the authors of eligible trials were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions to prevent oral mucositis in patients receiving treatment for cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures, results and risk of bias were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for further details where these were unclear. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios calculated using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 131 studies with 10,514 randomised participants are now included. Nine interventions, where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis, showed some statistically significant evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis, compared to either a placebo or no treatment. These nine interventions were: allopurinol, aloe vera, amifostine, cryotherapy, glutamine (intravenous), honey, keratinocyte growth factor, laser, and polymixin/tobramycin/amphotericin (PTA) antibiotic pastille/paste.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Nine interventions were found to have some benefit with regard to preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for further well designed, and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.

Memorial symptom assessment scale

Patients with advanced illnesses often have multiple symptoms. As interest in palliative care and interventions for symptom control increase, the ability to assess multiple symptoms has become more important. A number of instruments have been developed to meet this need in cancer patients. This article reviews the development and applications of a multidimensional instrument, the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale. The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale has 32 symptoms and three dimensions of frequency, severity, and distress. Shorter versions - The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale Short Form (32 symptoms with one dimension) and the Condensed Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (14 symptoms with one dimension), and a version for children aged 7-12 years, have also been developed. A distinctive feature is the summary subscales for physical distress, psychological distress, and The Global Distress Index. The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale has proven useful in description of symptom epidemiology, the role of symptoms in pain, fatigue, and spirituality; as a predictor of survival, and in proxy assessments of pain. The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale has been used in studies of cancer and AIDS patients, and patients with advanced medical illnesses. Possible future roles of instruments such as the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale include use in clinical trials, for pharmacoeconomic analyses, definition of symptom clusters and symptom burden, the development of symptom outcome measures, symptom monitoring, and improving care for patients. Continued research is needed for the versions of the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale and other symptom instruments in different populations and applications.

Patients' Perceptions of Physician-Patient Discussions and Adverse Events with Cancer Therapy

Objectives

Patients with cancer who are treated with chemotherapy report adverse events during their treatment, which can affect their quality of life and increase the likelihood that their treatment will not be completed. In this study, patients' perceptions of the physician-patient relationship and communication about cancer-related issues, particularly adverse events were examined.

Methods

We surveyed 508 patients with cancer concerning the occurrence of adverse events and their relationship and communication with their physicians regarding cancer, treatment, and adverse events.

Results

Most individuals surveyed (>90%) discussed diagnosis, treatment plan, goals, and schedule, and potential adverse events with their physicians before initiating chemotherapy; approximately 75% of these individuals understood these topics completely or very well. Physician-patient discussions of adverse events were common, with tiredness, nausea and vomiting, and loss of appetite discussed prior to chemotherapy in over 80% of communications. These events were also the most often experienced (ranging in 95% to 64% of the respondents) along with low white blood cell counts (WBCs), which were experienced in 67% of respondents. Approximately 75% of the individuals reported that their overall quality of life was affected by adverse events.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that discussions alone do not provide patients with sufficient understanding of the events, nor do they appear to adequately equip patients to cope with them. Therefore, efforts to improve cancer care should focus on developing tools to improve patients' understanding of the toxicities of chemotherapy, as well as providing resources to reduce the effects of adverse events.

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

BACKGROUND

Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long-term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of eligible studies were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: April 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random allocation of participants; participants - anyone with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy treatment for cancer; interventions - agents prescribed to prevent oral mucositis; outcomes - prevention of mucositis, pain, amount of analgesia, dysphagia, systemic infection, length of hospitalisation, cost and patient quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information regarding methods, participants, interventions and outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group statistical guidelines were followed and risk ratios (RR) calculated using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

Two hundred and two studies were eligible. One hundred and thirty two were excluded for various reasons, usually as there was no useable information on mucositis. Of the 71 useable studies all had data for mucositis comprising 5217 randomised patients. Interventions evaluated were: acyclovir, allopurinol mouthrinse, aloe vera, amifostine, antibiotic pastille or paste, benzydamine, beta carotene, calcium phosphate, camomile, chlorhexidine, clarithromycin, folinic acid, glutamine, GM-CSF, honey, hydrolytic enzymes, ice chips, iseganan, keratinocyte GF, misonidazole, oral care, pentoxifylline, povidone, prednisone, propantheline, prostaglandin, sucralfate, traumeel and zinc sulphate. Of the 29 interventions included in trials, 10 showed some evidence of a benefit (albeit sometimes weak) for either preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis. Interventions where there was more than one trial in the meta-analysis finding a significant difference when compared with a placebo or no treatment were: amifostine which provided minimal benefit in preventing moderate and severe mucositis RR = 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.95) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.97), antibiotic paste or pastille demonstrated a moderate benefit in preventing mucositis RR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.97), hydrolytic enzymes reduced moderate and severe mucositis with RRs = 0.52 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.74) and 0.17 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.52), and ice chips prevented mucositis at all levels RR = 0.63 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.91), 0.43 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.81), 0.27 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.68). Other interventions showing some benefit with only one study were: benzydamine, calcium phosphate, honey, oral care protocols, povidone and zinc sulphate. The number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one patient experiencing moderate or severe mucositis over a baseline incidence of 60% for amifostine is 10 (95% CI 7 to 33), antibiotic paste or pastille 13 (95% CI 8 to 56), hydrolytic enzyme 4 (95% CI 3 to 6) and ice chips 5 (95% CI 3 to 19). When the baseline incidence is 40%/90% the NNTs for amifostine are 16/7, for antibiotic paste or pastille 19/7, for hydrolytic enzyme 5/3 and for ice chips 7/3. The general reporting of RCTs was poor. However, the assessments of the quality of the randomisation improved when the authors provided additional information.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Several of the interventions were found to have some benefit at preventing or reducing the severity of mucositis associated with cancer treatment. The strength of the evidence was variable and implications for practice include consideration that benefits may be specific for certain cancer types and treatment. There is a need for well designed and conducted trials with sufficient numbers of participants to perform subgroup analyses by type of disease and chemotherapeutic agent.

Occurrence, severity, and longitudinal course of twelve common symptoms in 1129 consecutive patients during radiotherapy for cancer

Little is known about the frequency, severity, and course of symptoms experienced by patients receiving radiotherapy (RT). For this descriptive study, 1129 patients with a variety of cancer diagnoses completed a 12-item Symptom Inventory (SI) at the start of RT; 419 of these patients also completed the SI weekly for an additional 4 weeks (five data points). Eighty-four percent of the 1129 patients were already experiencing symptoms when treatment began. All symptoms significantly increased in frequency over a typical 5 week RT course (all Ps<0.001). Skin problems showed the largest increase. The most common symptoms (fatigue, drowsiness, and sleep problems) were also the most severe. Female patients and patients younger than the median age (59 years) reported significantly more symptoms than males and those 59 years or older. Symptom frequency and severity varied significantly by cancer diagnosis. Improved understanding about the time course and dose response of radiation-induced toxicity will permit more accurate presentation of side effect risk at the time patient consent is obtained.

Palliative chemotherapy: Historical perspective, applications, and controversies

Despite advances in cancer detection and treatment, cancer continues to be a major public health burden in the United States, and patients with advanced or refractory cancers carry much of this burden. The primary goal of cancer treatment is cure. However, most patients with advanced, metastatic, or recurrent disease do not benefit from this intent. Recent research studies have documented the role of chemotherapy in providing symptom control, preventing complications, prolonging life, and improving quality of life (QOL) in patients with incurable cancers. Although chemotherapy under these conditions is palliative, patients receiving chemotherapy or participating in research trials are excluded from receiving much needed palliative services, such as Hospice, based on current definitions, limitations, and models of palliative care. Application of palliative services on a continuum from the time of diagnosis through the end of life (EOL) has been recognized as beneficial in the treatment of patients with terminal diseases and has been addressed through trials assessing mixed management models, providing palliative and therapeutic options.

Access to communication technologies in a sample of cancer patients: an urban and rural survey

Background

There is a growing awareness among providers of the symptom burden experienced by cancer patients. Systematic symptom screening is difficult. Our plan was to evaluate a technology-based symptom screening process using touch-tone telephone and Internet in our rural outreach cancer program in Indiana. Would rural patients have adequate access to technologies for home-based symptom reporting?

Objectives

1) To determine access to touch-tone telephone service and Internet for patients in urban and rural clinics; 2) to determine barriers to access; 3) to determine willingness to use technology for home-based symptom reporting.

Methods

Patients from representative clinics (seven rural and three urban) in our network were surveyed. Inclusion criteria were age greater than 18, able to read, and diagnosis of malignancy.

Results

The response rate was 97%. Of 416 patients completing the survey (230 rural, 186 urban), 95% had access to touch-tone telephone service, while 46% had Internet access (56% of urban patients, 38% of rural patients). Higher rates of Internet access were related to younger patient age, current employment, and higher education and income. The primary barrier to Internet access was lack of interest. Use of the Internet for health related activities was less than 50%. The preferred means of symptom reporting in patients with internet access were the touch-tone telephone (70%), compared to reporting by the Internet (28%).

Conclusion

Access to communication technologies appears adequate for home-based symptom reporting. The use of touch-tone telephone and Internet reporting, based upon patient preference, has the potential of enhancing symptom detection among cancer patients that is not dependent solely upon clinic visits and clinician inquiry.