Symptom burden and lived experiences of patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals on the management of malignant bowel obstruction: A qualitative systematic review

Experiences of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis-related complex care needs and their caregivers

BACKGROUND

Patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) frequently undergo palliative procedures, yet these patients and their caregivers report being unprepared to manage ostomies, drains, and other complex care needs at home. The purpose of this study was to characterize the unique needs of these patients and their caregivers during care transitions.

METHODS

Patients completed measures of health status and advance care planning, caregivers completed measures of preparedness and burden, and all participants completed measures of depression and anxiety. Participants detailed their experiences in individual, semi-structured interviews. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients and 39 caregivers completed baseline measures. Twenty-four (39.3%) patients acknowledged their terminal illness and seven (11.5%) had discussed end-of-life care preferences with clinicians. Most (26/39, 66.7%) caregivers provided daily care. Among caregivers who managed symptoms, few were taught how to do so (6/20, 30%). Seven patients (11.5%) and seven caregivers (17.9%) met case criteria for anxiety, while 15 patients (24.6%) and two caregivers (5.1%) met case criteria for depression. Interview participants described a diagnosis of PC as a turning point for which there is no road map and identified the need for health systems change to minimize suffering.

CONCLUSION

Patients with PC and their caregivers are highly burdened by symptoms and care needs. Patients' prognostic understanding and advance care planning are suboptimal. Interventions that train patients with PC and their caregivers to perform clinical care tasks, facilitate serious illness conversations, and provide psychosocial support are needed.

Exploring pathways to optimise care in malignant bowel obstruction (EPOC): Protocol for a three-phase critical realist approach to theory-led intervention development for shared decision-making

INTRODUCTION

Malignant bowel obstruction is a distressing complication of cancer, causing pain, nausea and vomiting, and often has a poor prognosis. Severe and rapidly developing symptoms, a lack of robust clinical guidelines and the need for multidisciplinary input make treatment decision-making challenging. Sharing decision-making with people with malignant bowel obstruction and their caregivers can be difficult, and inconsistent communication creates serious deficiencies in care by amplifying patients' distress and uncertainty. Little attention has been paid to the implicit influences on this process-for example, the role of discipline-related norms and the beliefs of decision-makers. This study will explore how these processes work and develop interventions to improve shared decision-making.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Exploring Pathways to Optimise Care (EPOC) is a three-phase study set within a critical realist framework: (i) realist review, to develop explanatory theory describing collaborative decision-making in the management of malignant bowel obstruction; (ii) an in-depth interview study using modified grounded theory to explore the active ingredients of this collaboration in practice settings; and (iii) the presentation to stakeholders (practitioners, patients and caregivers) of integrated results from Phase I (theory developed from the literature) and Phase II (theory developed from current practice) as a basis for intervention mapping. We aim to produce recommendations to address the challenges, and to develop a set of tools to (i) aid interaction around shared decision-making and (ii) aid interprofessional interaction around the management of this condition. Registration details: The realist review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022308251).

Surgical versus non-surgical management for patients with malignant bowel obstruction (S1316): a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial

BACKGROUND

Malignant small bowel obstruction has a poor prognosis and is associated with multiple related symptoms. The optimal treatment approach is often unclear. We aimed to compare surgical versus non-surgical management with the aim to determine the optimal approach for managing malignant bowel obstruction.

METHODS

S1316 was a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial done within the National Cancer Trials Network at 30 hospital and cancer research centres in the USA, Mexico, Peru, and Colombia. Participants had an intra-abdominal or retroperitoneal primary cancer confirmed via pathological report and malignant bowel disease; were aged 18 years or older with a Zubrod performance status 0-2 within 1 week before admission; had a surgical indication; and treatment equipoise. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to surgical or non-surgical treatment using a dynamic balancing algorithm, balancing on primary tumour type. Patients who declined consent for random assignment were offered a prospective observational patient choice pathway. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital (good days) at 91 days. Analyses were based on intention-to-treat linear, logistic, and Cox regression models combining data from both pathways and adjusting for potential confounders. Treatment complications were assessed in all analysed patients in the study. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02270450.

FINDINGS

From May 11, 2015, to April 27, 2020, 221 patients were enrolled (143 [65%] were female and 78 [35%] were male). There were 199 evaluable participants: 49 in the randomised pathway (24 surgery and 25 non-surgery) and 150 in the patient choice pathway (58 surgery and 92 non-surgery). No difference was seen between surgery and non-surgery for the primary outcome of good days: mean 42·6 days (SD 32·2) in the randomised surgery group, 43·9 days (29·5) in the randomised non-surgery group, 54·8 days (27·0) in the patient choice surgery group, and 52·7 days (30·7) in the patient choice non-surgery group (adjusted mean difference 2·9 additional good days in surgical versus non-surgical treatment [95% CI -5·5 to 11·3]; p=0·50). During their initial hospital stay, six participants died, five due to cancer progression (four patients from the randomised pathway, two in each treatment group, and one from the patient choice pathway, in the surgery group) and one due to malignant bowel obstruction treatment complications (patient choice pathway, non-surgery). The most common grade 3-4 malignant bowel obstruction treatment complication was anaemia (three [6%] patients in the randomised pathway, all in the surgical group, and five [3%] patients in the patient choice pathway, four in the surgical group and one in the non-surgical group).

INTERPRETATION

In our study, whether patients received a surgical or non-surgical treatment approach did not influence good days during the first 91 days after registration. These findings should inform treatment decisions for patients hospitalised with malignant bowel obstruction.

FUNDING

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Cancer Institute.

TRANSLATION

For the Spanish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for the research and assessment of inoperable malignant bowel obstruction

BACKGROUND

Malignant bowel obstruction is experienced by 15% of people with advanced cancer, preventing them from eating and drinking and causing pain, nausea and vomiting. Surgery is not always appropriate. Management options include tube or stent drainage of intestinal contents and symptom control using medication. Published literature describing palliative interventions uses a broad range of outcome measures, few of which are patient-relevant. This hinders evidence synthesis, and fails to consider the perspectives of people undergoing treatment.

AIMS

To develop a Core Outcome Set for the assessment of inoperable malignant bowel obstruction with clinician, patient and caregiver involvement, using COMET methodology (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials).

METHODS

A systematic review of clinical trials and observational studies, a rapid review of the qualitative literature and in-depth patient and clinician interviews were conducted to identify a comprehensive list of outcomes. Outcomes were compared and consolidated by the study Steering Group and Patient and Public Involvement contributors, and presented to an international clinical Expert Panel for review. Outcomes from the finalised list were rated for importance in a three-round international Delphi process: results of two survey rounds were circulated to respondents, and two separate consensus meetings were conducted with clinicians and with patients and caregivers via virtual conferencing, using live polling to reach agreement on a Core Outcome Set.

RESULTS

130 unique outcomes were identified. Following the independent Expert Panel review, 82 outcomes were taken into round 1 of the Delphi survey; 24 outcomes reached criteria for critical importance across all stakeholder groups and none reached criteria for dropping. All outcomes rated critically important were taken forward for re-rating in round 2 and all other outcomes dropped. In round 2, all outcomes were voted critically important by at least one stakeholder group. Round 2 outcomes were presented again at online consensus meetings, categorised as high ranking (n = 9), middle ranking (n = 7) or low ranking (n = 8). Stakeholders reached agreement on 16 core outcomes across four key domains: Symptom control, Life impact, Treatment outcomes, and Communication and patient preferences.

CONCLUSION

Use of this Core Outcome Set can help to address current challenges in making sense of the evidence around treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction to date, and underpin a more robust future approach. Clearer communication and an honest understanding between all stakeholders will help to provide a basis for responsible decision-making in this distressing situation in clinical practice.

GI Symptoms in Pancreatic Cancer

This review will apply a multidisciplinary approach to GI symptoms with attention to symptom assessment (instruments and qualitative aspects), differential diagnosis, and recent findings relevant to management of symptoms and underlying diseases. We conclude that further development of supportive interventions for GI symptoms for both patient and caregivers has the potential to reduce distress from GI symptoms, and anticipate better symptom control with advances in scientific knowledge and improvement of the evidence base.

Inoperable Bowel Obstruction in Ovarian Cancer: Prevalence, Impact and Management Challenges

Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is one of the most severe complications in patients with advanced ovarian cancer, with an estimated incidence up to 50%. Its presence is related to poor prognosis and a life expectancy measured in weeks for inoperable cases. Symptoms are usually difficult to manage and often require hospitalization, which carries a high burden on patients, caregivers and the healthcare system. Management is complex and requires a multidisciplinary approach to improve clinical outcomes. Patients with inoperable MBO are treated medically with analgesics, antiemetics, steroids and antisecretory agents. Parenteral nutrition and gut decompression with nasogastric tube, venting gastrostomy or stenting may be used as supportive therapy. Treatment decision-making is challenging and often based on clinical expertise and local policies, with lack of high-quality evidence to optimally standardize management. The present review summarizes current literature on inoperable bowel obstruction in ovarian cancer, focusing on epidemiology, prognostic factors, clinical outcomes, medical management, multidisciplinary interventions and quality of life.

The range and suitability of outcome measures used in the assessment of palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Malignant bowel obstruction, a complication of certain advanced cancers, causes severe symptoms which profoundly affect quality of life. Clinical management remains complex, and outcome assessment is inconsistent.

AIM

To identify outcomes evaluating palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction, as part of a four-phase study developing a core outcome set.

DESIGN

The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA); PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019150648). Eligible studies included at least one subgroup with obstruction below the ligament of Treitz undergoing palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction. Study quality was not assessed because the review does not evaluate efficacy.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Database, CINAHL, PSYCinfo Caresearch, Open Grey and BASE were searched for trials and observational studies in October 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 4769 studies were screened, 290 full texts retrieved and 80 (13,898 participants) included in a narrative synthesis; 343 outcomes were extracted verbatim and pooled into 90 unique terms across six domains: physiological, nutrition, life impact, resource use, mortality and survival. Prevalent outcomes included adverse events (78% of studies), survival (54%), symptom control (39%) and mortality (31%). Key individual symptoms assessed were vomiting (41% of studies), nausea (34%) and pain (33%); 19% of studies assessed quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment focuses on survival, complications and overall symptom control. There is a need for definitions of treatment 'success' that are meaningful to patients, a more consistent approach to symptom assessment, and greater consideration of how to measure wellbeing in this population.