Dyspnea in palliative care: expanding the role of corticosteroids

Cancer and multiple sclerosis: 2023 recommendations from the French Multiple Sclerosis Society

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological data reveal that 45% of persons with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) in France are more than 50 years. This population more than 50 is more susceptible to cancer, and this risk may be increased by frequent use of immunosuppressive drugs. Consequently, concerns have arisen about the potential increased risk of cancer in PwMS and how patients should be screened and managed in terms of cancer risk.

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based recommendations to manage the coexistence of cancer and multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS

The French Group for Recommendations in MS collected articles from PubMed and university databases covering the period January 1975 through June 2022. The RAND/UCLA method was employed to achieve formal consensus. MS experts comprehensively reviewed the full-text articles and developed the initial recommendations. A group of multidisciplinary health care specialists then validated the final proposal.

RESULTS

Five key questions were addressed, encompassing various topics such as cancer screening before or after initiating a disease-modifying therapy (DMT), appropriate management of MS in the context of cancer, recommended follow-up for cancer in patients receiving a DMT, and the potential reintroduction of a DMT after initial cancer treatment. A strong consensus was reached for all 31 recommendations.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations propose a strategic approach to managing cancer risk in PwMS.

Patient-reported outcomes with durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (POSEIDON)

OBJECTIVES

In the phase 3 POSEIDON study, first-line tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Treatment-naïve patients were randomized 1:1:1 to tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy, durvalumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy. PROs (prespecified secondary endpoints) were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item core quality of life questionnaire version 3 (QLQ-C30) and its 13-item lung cancer module (QLQ-LC13). We analyzed time to deterioration (TTD) of symptoms, functioning, and global health status/quality of life (QoL) from randomization by log-rank test and improvement rates by logistic regression.

RESULTS

972/1013 (96 %) patients randomized completed baseline QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 questionnaires, with scores comparable between treatment arms. Patients receiving tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy had longer median TTD for all PRO items. Hazard ratios for TTD favored tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy for all items except diarrhea; 95 % confidence intervals did not cross 1.0 for global health status/QoL, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, pain, nausea/vomiting, insomnia, constipation, hemoptysis, dyspnea, and pain in other parts. For durvalumab plus chemotherapy, median TTD was longer versus chemotherapy for all items except nausea/vomiting and diarrhea. Hazard ratios favored durvalumab plus chemotherapy for all items except appetite loss; 95 % confidence intervals did not cross 1.0 for global health status/QoL, physical functioning, role functioning, dyspnea, and pain in other parts. For both immunotherapy plus chemotherapy arms, improvement rates in all PRO items were numerically higher versus chemotherapy, with odds ratios > 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy delayed deterioration in symptoms, functioning, and global health status/QoL compared with chemotherapy. Together with significant improvements in survival, these results support tremelimumab plus durvalumab and chemotherapy as a first-line treatment option in metastatic NSCLC.

The role of corticosteroids in the palliation of dyspnea in cancer patients: an evidence-based review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an evidence-based review on the use of corticosteroids for dyspnea in cancer patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Corticosteroids are commonly used for palliation of dyspnea; however, there is wide variation in how they are prescribed due to the paucity of high-quality evidence. Some clinicians would offer corticosteroids routinely regardless of the causes of dyspnea, while others would only prescribe corticosteroids selectively for specific indications, such as lymphangitic carcinomatosis, upper airway obstruction, superior vena cava obstruction, and cancer treatment-induced pneumonitis. Few mechanistic studies have been conducted to support the use of corticosteroids in cancer patients. Two double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trials have examined the routine use of high-dose dexamethasone for dyspnea in cancer patients. A pilot study suggested some benefits, but the larger confirmatory trial revealed no improvement compared to the placebo and significantly more adverse events. The selective use of corticosteroids use is only based on observational studies such as case series.

SUMMARY

The unfavorable risk:benefit ratio of high-dose dexamethasone suggests that it should not be routinely prescribed for dyspnea in cancer patients. More research is needed to assess the selective use of corticosteroids and identify patients most likely be benefit from corticosteroid use.

Effects of glucocorticoid use on survival of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the second most common cancer worldwide, with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounting for the majority of cases. Patients with NSCLC have achieved great survival benefits from immunotherapies targeting immune checkpoints. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are frequently used for palliation of cancer-associated symptoms, as supportive care for non-cancer-associated symptoms, and for management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The aim of this study was to clarify the safety and prognostic significance of glucocorticoid use in advanced patients with NSCLC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

METHODS

The study searched publications from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine disc, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database up to March 1st, 2022, and conducted a meta-analysis to assess the effects of glucocorticoid use on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in NSCLC patients treated with ICIs through the available data. The study calculated the pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

This study included data from 25 literatures that were mainly retrospective, with 8713 patients included. Patients taking GCs had a higher risk for tumor progression and death compared with those not taking GCs (PFS: HR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.33-1.86, P <0.001; OS: HR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.41-1.88, P <0.001). GCs used for cancer-associated symptoms caused an obviously negative effect on both PFS and OS (PFS: HR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.32-2.29, P <0.001; OS: HR = 1.76, 95% CI: 1.52-2.04, P <0.001). However, GCs used for irAEs management did not negatively affect prognosis (PFS: HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.46-1.00, P = 0.050; OS: HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34-0.83, P = 0.005), and GCs used for non-cancer-associated indications had no effect on prognosis (PFS: HR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.63-1.32, P = 0.640; OS: HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.59-1.41, P = 0.680).

CONCLUSIONS

In advanced NSCLC patients treated with ICIs, the use of GCs for palliation of cancer-associated symptoms may result in a worse PFS and OS, indicating that they increase the risk of tumor progression and death. But, in NSCLC patients treated with ICIs, the use of GCs for the management of irAEs may be safe, and the use of GCs for the treatment of non-cancer-associated symptoms may not affect the ICIs' survival benefits. Therefore, it is necessary to be careful and evaluate indications rationally before administering GCs in individualized clinical management.

Glucocorticoid Effect in Cancer Patients

The use of glucocorticoids is very varied in the context of cancer patients and includes the treatment of symptoms related to cancer, but also the management of the most common side effects of antitumor treatments or adverse events related to the immune system. There is a quantity of experimental evidence demonstrating that cancer cells are immunogenic. However, the effective activation of anticancer T cell responses closely depends on an efficient antigen presentation carried out by professional antigen-presenting cells such as dendritic cells (DCs). The classic strategies to improve the medical management of inflammation are aimed at exacerbating the host's immune response. Although successful in treating a number of diseases, these drugs have limited efficacy and variable responses can lead to unpredictable results. The ideal therapy should reduce inflammation without inducing immunosuppression and remains a challenge for healthcare personnel.

Effect of dexamethasone on dyspnoea in patients with cancer (ABCD): a parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Systemic corticosteroids are commonly prescribed for palliation of dyspnoea in patients with cancer, despite scarce evidence to support their use. We aimed to assess the effect of high-dose dexamethasone versus placebo on cancer-related dyspnoea.

METHODS

The parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, controlled ABCD (Alleviating Breathlessness in Cancer Patients with Dexamethasone) trial was done at the at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the general oncology clinic at Lyndon B Johnson General Hospital (both in Houston, TX, USA). Ambulatory patients with cancer, aged 18 years or older, and with an average dyspnoea intensity score on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS; 0=none, 10=worst) over the past week of 4 or higher were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive dexamethasone 8 mg orally every 12 h for 7 days followed by 4 mg orally every 12 h for 7 days, or matching placebo capsules for 14 days. Pharmacists did permuted block randomisation with a block size of six, and patients were stratified by baseline dyspnoea score (4-6 vs 7-10) and study site. Patients, research staff, and clinicians were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was change in dyspnoea NRS intensity over the past 24 h from baseline to day 7 (±2 days). Analyses were done by modified intention-to-treat (ie, including all patients who were randomly assigned and started the study treatment, regardless of whether they completed the study). Enrolment was stopped after the second preplanned interim analysis, when the futility criterion was met. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03367156) and is now completed.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 11, 2018, and April 23, 2021, we screened 2867 patients, enrolled 149 patients, and randomly assigned 128 to dexamethasone (n=85) or placebo (n=43). The mean change in dyspnoea NRS intensity from baseline to day 7 (±2 days) was -1·6 (95% CI -2·0 to -1·2) in the dexamethasone group and -1·6 (-2·3 to -0·9) in the placebo group, with no significant between-group difference (mean 0 [95% CI -0·8 to 0·7]; p=0·48). The most common all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were infections (nine [11%] of 85 patients in the dexamethasone group vs three [7%] of 43 in the placebo group), insomnia (seven [8%] vs one [2%]), and neuropsychiatric symptoms (three [4%] vs none [0%]). Serious adverse events, all resulting in hospital admissions, were reported in 24 (28%) of 85 patients in the dexamethasone group and in three (7%) of 43 patients in the placebo group. No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group.

INTERPRETATION

High-dose dexamethasone did not improve dyspnoea in patients with cancer more effectively than placebo and was associated with a higher frequency of adverse events. These data suggest that dexamethasone should not be routinely given to unselected patients with cancer for palliation of dyspnoea.

FUNDING

US National Cancer Institute.

Do Patients Benefit from a Trial of Corticosteroids at the End of Life?

OPINION STATEMENT

Patients with advanced cancer in the last 6 months of their lives have a higher frequency of distressing and debilitating physical and psychosocial symptoms such as cancer pain, cancer-related fatigue (CRF), anorexia, shortness of breath, poor sleep, anxiety, and depression. Often these symptoms significantly impact the patients' quality of life, and therefore require prompt assessment and effective treatment. There are specific treatments for certain distressing cancer-related symptoms (e.g., opioids for pain), but for the other symptoms such as CRF, anorexia-cachexia, and shortness of breath, there are limited or no evidence-based treatments. Also, in the management of cancer pain in this population, many patients are refractory to opioids. Hence, corticosteroids are one of the most common adjuvant medications prescribed for the management of this distressing symptom. However, there is limited evidence in regard to the effectiveness of corticosteroids in the improvement of the symptoms, side-effect profile, most optimal duration of use, dose, type of steroid, and most recently, the use with immunotherapy in advanced cancer patients at the end of life. These factors significantly limit the use of this important medication in terminally ill cancer patients. Further research is therefore critical to provide the optimal prescription of corticosteroids in this highly distressed population.

Impact of Glucocorticoid Use in Oncology in the Immunotherapy Era

Thanks to their anti-inflammatory, anti-oedema, and anti-allergy properties, glucocorticoids are among the most widely prescribed drugs in patients with cancer. The indications for glucocorticoid use are very wide and varied in the context of cancer and include the symptomatic management of cancer-related symptoms (compression, pain, oedema, altered general state) but also prevention or treatment of common side effects of anti-cancer therapies (nausea, allergies, etc.) or immune-related adverse events (irAE). In this review, we first give an overview of the different clinical situations where glucocorticoids are used in oncology. Next, we describe the current state of knowledge regarding the effects of these molecules on immune response, in particular anti-tumour response, and we summarize available data evaluating how these effects may interfere with the efficacy of immunotherapy using immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Association of Systemic Steroid Treatment and Outcome in Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Real-World Analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are inflammatory side effects, which can occur during immune-checkpoint(s) inhibitors (ICIs) therapy. Steroids are the first-line agents to manage irAEs because of their immunosuppressive properties. However, it is still debated whether or when steroids can be administered without abrogating the therapeutic efforts of immunotherapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 146 patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), melanoma and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with ICIs. We assessed the progression-free survival (PFS) of patients treated with steroids due to an irAE compared to a no-steroid group.

RESULTS

The early treatment with steroid (within the first 30 days from the beginning of immunotherapy) was not related to a shorter PFS (p = 0.077). Interestingly, patients who were treated with steroids after 30 days from the start of immunotherapy had significantly longer PFS (p = 0.017). In a multivariate analysis, treatment with steroids after 30 days was an independent prognostic factor for PFS (HR: 0.59 [95% CI 0.36-0.97], p = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective study points out that early systemic steroids administration to manage irAEs might not have a detrimental effect on patient clinical outcome in NSCLC, melanoma and RCC patients.

Exploring the immune-checkpoint inhibitors' efficacy/tolerability in special non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) populations: focus on steroids and autoimmune disease

The advent of immune-checkpoint inhibitors targeting the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) axis, both as monotherapy and in combination strategies, produced a paradigm change of the treatment algorithm for metastatic, non-oncogene addicted, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Although the great efficacy and the optimal tolerability emerging from clinical studies has been confirmed for the majority of patients treated in the real-word scenario, however the potential activity and safety profile of these agents in uncommon NSCLC populations remains still controversial. Particularly, patients with previously diagnosed autoimmune disease or concomitant steroids treatment at the time of immunotherapy initiation represent two special subgroups of patients not unusual in the real-word practice, to whom the clinical implication of immune-checkpoint inhibitors administration is largely unknown. In this review we provided an updated literature overview, summarizing available evidence and reporting practical suggestions, which may guide physicians in their clinical management of these NSCLC sub-populations.

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 .

Effect of Systemic Corticosteroid Therapy on the Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab in the Treatment of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Corticosteroids are used to treat immune-related adverse events (irAEs) associated with nivolumab. However, patients with non-small-cell lung cancer who are administered corticosteroids before the initiation of nivolumab treatment are commonly excluded from clinical trials. The appropriate timing for corticosteroid administration in relation to nivolumab treatment, effects of corticosteroids on the efficacy of nivolumab, and resulting adverse events are not clearly understood. In this study, the effects of differences in the timing of corticosteroid administration on nivolumab efficacy and the resulting adverse events were examined.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted with 109 patients who were treated with nivolumab at Sapporo Minami-Sanjo Hospital between December 2015 and March 2018.

RESULTS

Of the 109 patients treated with nivolumab, 12 patients were administered corticosteroids before the first cycle of nivolumab (pre-CS), and 33 patients were administered corticosteroids after the first cycle of nivolumab (post-CS). These 2 groups were compared with the control group comprising 64 patients who were not administered corticosteroids (non-CS). The objective response rate in the post-CS group was significantly higher than that in the non-CS group, and the disease control rate in the pre-CS group was significantly lower than that in the non-CS group. The overall survival time and progression-free survival time in the pre-CS group were significantly shorter than those observed in the non-CS group; however, these did not differ from those in the post-CS group.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that corticosteroids administered to patients with non-small-cell lung cancer after initiation of nivolumab treatment did not affect the disease prognosis. Thus, corticosteroids can be administered immediately for rapid treatment of irAEs.

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.

Association of Steroids use with Survival in Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can elicit toxicities by inhibiting negative regulators of adaptive immunity. Sometimes, management of toxicities may require systemic glucocorticoids. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to evaluate the correlation between steroids use, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) in cancer patients treated with ICIs. Publications that compared steroids with non-steroid users in cancer patients treated with ICIs from inception to June 2019 were identified by searching the EMBASE, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Patients (studies, n = 16; patients, n = 4045) taking steroids were at increased risk of death and progression compared to those not taking steroids (HR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.24-1.91; p = 0.01 and HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.02-1.76; p = 0.03, respectively). The main negative effect on OS was associated with patients taking steroids for supportive care (HR = 2.5, 95% CI 1.41-4.43; p < 0.01) or brain metastases (HR = 1.51, 95% CI 1.22-1.87; p < 0.01). In contrast, steroids used to mitigate adverse events did not negatively affect OS. In conclusion, caution is needed when steroids are used for symptom control. In these patients, a negative impact of steroid use was observed for both OS and PFS.

[Progress of Steroids Effect on Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors]

免疫检查点抑制剂（immune checkpoint inhibitors, ICIs）包括程序性死亡受体-1/配体-1单抗和细胞毒性T淋巴细胞相关抗原-4单抗等，因其良好的抗肿瘤活性，目前已被批准用于多种晚期恶性肿瘤的治疗。对于接受ICIs治疗的患者，由于肿瘤的部分并发症、免疫治疗相关不良反应以及免疫联合化疗前预处理等，通常会在ICIs治疗过程中使用糖皮质激素进行干预及处理。但超生理剂量的糖皮质激素会对机体产生一定的免疫抑制作用，甚至可能影响ICIs的疗效。因而临床上对于ICIs治疗患者激素的使用存在一定争论。本文就糖皮质激素对ICIs疗效影响的研究进展进行综述。

Systemic corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related breathlessness (dyspnoea) in adults

BACKGROUND

Dyspnoea is a common symptom in advanced cancer, with a prevalence of up to 70% among patients at end of life. The cause of dyspnoea is often multifactorial, and may cause considerable psychological distress and suffering. Dyspnoea is often undertreated and good symptom control is less frequently achieved in people with dyspnoea than in people with other symptoms of advanced cancer, such as pain and nausea. The exact mechanism of action of corticosteroids in managing dyspnoea is unclear, yet corticosteroids are commonly used in palliative care for a variety of non-specific indications, including pain, nausea, anorexia, fatigue and low mood, despite being associated with a wide range of adverse effects. In view of their widespread use, it is important to seek evidence of the effects of corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related dyspnoea.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of systemic corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related breathlessness (dyspnoea) in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index Web of Science, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) and clinical trial registries, from inception to 25 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that included adults aged 18 years and above. We included participants with cancer-related dyspnoea when randomised to systemic corticosteroids (at any dose) administered for the relief of cancer-related dyspnoea or any other indication, compared to placebo, standard or alternative treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Five review authors independently assessed trial quality and three extracted data. We used means and standard deviations for each outcome to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the risk of bias and quality of evidence using GRADE. We extracted primary outcomes of sensory-perceptual experience of dyspnoea (intensity of dyspnoea), affective distress (quality of dyspnoea) and symptom impact (burden of dyspnoea or impact on function) and secondary outcomes of serious adverse events, participant satisfaction with treatment and participant withdrawal from trial.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 157 participants (37 participants in one study and 120 in the other study), of whom 114 were included in the analyses. The studies compared oral dexamethasone to placebo, followed by an open-label phase in one study. One study lasted seven days, and the duration of the other study was 15 days.We were unable to conduct many of our predetermined analyses due to different agents, dosages, comparators and outcome measures, routes of drug delivery, measurement scales and time points. Subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not possible.Primary outcomesWe included two studies (114 participants) with data at one week in the meta-analysis for change in dyspnoea intensity/dyspnoea relief from baseline. Corticosteroid therapy with dexamethasone resulted in an MD of lower dyspnoea intensity compared to placebo at one week (MD -0.85 lower dyspnoea (scale 0-10; lower score = less breathlessness), 95% CI -1.73 to 0.03; very low-quality evidence), although we were uncertain as to whether corticosteroids had an important effect on dyspnoea as results were imprecise. We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels from high to very low due to very serious study limitations and imprecision.One study measured affective distress (quality of dyspnoea) and results were similar between groups (29 participants; very low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the evidence three times for imprecision, inconsistency, and serious study limitations.Both studies assessed symptom impact (burden of dyspnoea or impact on function) (113 participants; very low-quality evidence). In one study, it was unclear whether dexamethasone had an effect on dyspnoea as results were imprecise. The second study showed more improvement for physical well-being scores at days eight and 15 in the dexamethasone group compared with the control group, but there was no evidence of a difference for FACIT social/family, emotional or functional scales. We downgraded the quality of the evidence three times for imprecision, inconsistency, and serious study limitations.Secondary outcomesDue to the lack of homogenous outcome measures and inconsistency in reporting, we could not perform quantitative analysis for any secondary outcomes. In both studies, the frequency of adverse events was similar between groups, and corticosteroids were generally well tolerated. The withdrawal rates for the two studies were 15% and 36%. Reasons for withdrawal included lost to follow-up, participant or carer (or both) refusal, and death due to disease progression. We downgraded the quality of evidence for these secondary outcomes by three levels from high to very low due to serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision.Neither study examined participant satisfaction with treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are few studies assessing the effects of systemic corticosteroids on cancer-related dyspnoea in adults with cancer. We judged the evidence to be of very low quality that neither supported nor refuted corticosteroid use in this population. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine if corticosteroids are efficacious in this setting.

Impact of Baseline Steroids on Efficacy of Programmed Cell Death-1 and Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Blockade in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Treatment with programmed cell death-1 or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-(L)1) inhibitors is now standard therapy for patients with lung cancer. The immunosuppressive effect of corticosteroids may reduce efficacy of PD-(L)1 blockade. On-treatment corticosteroids for treatment of immune-related adverse events do not seem to affect efficacy, but the potential impact of baseline corticosteroids at the time of treatment initiation is unknown. Clinical trials typically excluded patients who received baseline corticosteroids, which led us to use real-world data to examine the effect of corticosteroids at treatment initiation.

METHODS

We identified patients who were PD-(L)1-naïve with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer from two institutions-Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Gustave Roussy Cancer Center-who were treated with single-agent PD-(L)1 blockade. Clinical and pharmacy records were reviewed to identify corticosteroid use at the time of beginning anti-PD-(L)1 therapy. We performed multivariable analyses using Cox proportional hazards regression model and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Ninety (14%) of 640 patients treated with single-agent PD-(L)1 blockade received corticosteroids of ≥ 10 mg of prednisone equivalent daily at the start of the PD-(L)1 blockade. Common indications for corticosteroids were dyspnea (33%), fatigue (21%), and brain metastases (19%). In both independent cohorts, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (n = 455) and Gustave Roussy Cancer Center (n = 185), baseline corticosteroids were associated with decreased overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival with PD-(L)1 blockade. In a multivariable analysis of the pooled population, adjusting for smoking history, performance status, and history of brain metastases, baseline corticosteroids remained significantly associated with decreased progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.3; P = .03), and overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.7; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Baseline corticosteroid use of ≥ 10 mg of prednisone equivalent was associated with poorer outcome in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer who were treated with PD-(L)1 blockade. Prudent use of corticosteroids at the time of initiating PD-(L)1 blockade is recommended.

Glucocorticoids as an adjunct to oncologic treatment in solid malignancies - Not an innocent bystander

Glucocorticoids are steroidal hormones which exert their action via genomic and non-genomic mechanisms. In the clinical setting, glucocorticoids are utilized for their anti-inflammatory, anti-allergenic and immunomodulatory effects and for their well-established, pro-apoptotic effects on hematological malignancies. In the treatment of solid tumors, glucocorticoids serve primarily for alleviation of tumor- and treatment-related symptoms and in most cases are not considered to have a direct effect on tumor growth and spread. However, significant pre-clinical data suggest that glucocorticoids have diverse effects on tumor progression, both pro- and anti- tumorigenic. In contrast, the clinical data regarding the pro- and anti-tumorigenic effects of glucocorticoids on solid tumors is scarce, and summarized in this review. The following review presents the suggested glucocorticoids mechanism of action and the effects of glucocorticoids on tumor cells, on the tumor microenvironment and on tumor response to cytotoxic therapy, in the pre-clinical and clinical settings.

Palliative and End-of-Life Care for Patients with Malignancy

Patients with cancer continue to have unmet palliative care needs. Concurrent palliative care is tailored to the needs of patients as well as their families to relieve suffering. Specialty palliative care referral is associated with improved symptom management, improved end-of-life quality, and higher family-rated satisfaction. Optimal timing for palliative care referral has not been determined. Barriers to palliative care referral include workforce limitations, provider attitudes and perceptions, and potential ethnic and racial disparities in access to palliative care. Future work should focus on novel, patient-centered approaches to identify and address unmet palliative care needs for patients living with cancer.

Metastatic pancreatic carcinoma masquerading as cystic lung disease: a rare presentation

This 52‐year‐old male ex‐smoker presented with a six‐month history of progressive breathlessness and weight loss. He deteriorated acutely, and was admitted with severe type 1 respiratory failure. Apart from diffuse coarse crackles on chest auscultation, physical examination was unremarkable. High‐resolution computed tomography (HRCT) showed diffuse cystic changes throughout the lungs. A diagnosis of pulmonary Langerhans cell histiocytosis (PLCH) was considered. Further workup identified a coincidental pancreatic lesion of uncertain significance, which remained indeterminate on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and on positron emission tomography (PET). Transbronchial biopsy revealed enteric differentiated adenocarcinoma exhibiting lepidic spread, and autopsy later confirmed primary pancreatic malignancy. This case demonstrates that metastatic pancreatic malignancy can present with severe respiratory failure and masquerade as cystic lung disease.

Range of Effective Corticosteroid Doses for Alleviating Dyspnea in Terminal Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Review

This study aimed to determine the range of mean cumulative corticosteroid doses that could effectively palliate dyspnea in opioid-treated patients with terminal cancer and to investigate the demographic or biochemical factors predictive of corticosteroid responsiveness. To this end, responders and nonresponders were compared with regard to corticosteroid dose and whether they had initiated opioid use before or concomitantly with corticosteroid use. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess the impacts of demographic and biochemical factors on corticosteroid effectiveness. The final sample comprised 20 patients who satisfied the selection criteria. The responders accounted for 70% of the total sample (n = 14) and experienced the strongest effect with regard to dyspnea palliation at a mean cumulative dose equivalent to 64.4 mg prednisolone. However, no factors predictive of response were identified. In summary, this retrospective study identified effective corticosteroid doses for dyspnea alleviation in terminal cancer patients. Although our study sample was limited in size, the results support further prospective research.

Dexamethasone for Dyspnea in Cancer Patients: A Pilot Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial

CONTEXT

Dexamethasone is often used to treat dyspnea in cancer patients, but evidence is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

We determined the feasibility of conducting a randomized trial of dexamethasone in cancer patients and estimated the efficacy of dexamethasone in the treatment of dyspnea.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, patients with dyspnea ≥4 were randomized to receive either dexamethasone 8 mg twice daily × four days then 4 mg twice daily × three days or placebo for seven days, followed by an open-label phase for seven days. We documented the changes in dyspnea (0-10 numeric rating scale), spirometry measures, quality of life, and toxicities.

RESULTS

A total of 41 patients were randomized and 35 (85%) completed the blinded phase. Dexamethasone was associated with a significant reduction in dyspnea numeric rating scale of -1.9 (95% CI -3.3 to -0.5, P = 0.01) by Day 4 and -1.8 (95% CI -3.2 to -0.3, P = 0.02) by Day 7. In contrast, placebo was associated with a reduction of -0.7 (95% CI -2.1 to 0.6, P = 0.38) by Day 4 and -1.3 (95% CI -2.4 to -0.2, P = 0.03) by Day 7. The between-arm difference was not statistically significant. Drowsiness improved with dexamethasone. Dexamethasone was well tolerated with no significant toxicities.

CONCLUSION

A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of dexamethasone was feasible with a low attrition rate. Our preliminary data suggest that dexamethasone may be associated with rapid improvement in dyspnea and was well tolerated. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.govNCT01670097.