A Prospective Evaluation of Symptom Prevalence and Overall Symptom Burden Among Cohort of Critically Ill Cancer Patients

Management of Nausea and Vomiting in Palliative Care - Real Life Data From a Palliative Care Unit in Germany

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting significantly impact the quality of life in palliative care. Due to various underlying causes, treatment approaches vary. However, scientific evidence on pharmacotherapeutic management is limited, complicating treatment decisions. Objective is to assess the current antiemetic treatment approach in palliative care in Germany.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study (15 months) was conducted, evaluating clinical records of adult patients admitted to palliative care in a German hospital. Symptom burden (Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS®)), suspected aetiology, antiemetics, treatment quality and drug-related problems (DRPs) were evaluated.

RESULTS

We included 330 patients (median age 71 years, 50.9% female), of which 172 (52%) experienced nausea/vomiting in 230 treatment episodes. Symptoms were more prevalent in cancer-patients (P = 0.002) and women (P = 0.002). Main aetiologies were intestinal obstruction (59/230, 25.7%), hypomotility (31/230, 16.1%), and raised intracranial pressure (23/230, 10.0%). Nearly 70% experienced a reduction of symptom burden within the first 3 days, with faster symptom relief and shorter episodes in cancer patients compared to non-cancer patients (median length 3d vs 2d). DRPs were documented in 213/230 episodes (92.6%), indicating high interaction potential of antiemetics (87.4%). Manifest DRPs affected patients due to ineffective treatment (29.0%) or side effects (6.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

One-third experienced inadequate symptom control with the current treatment, underscoring the complexity of managing nausea/vomiting in palliative care and the need for a systematic approach. This study emphasizes the importance of evidence-based guidelines and further research into underutilized antiemetics, along with improved medical education in an interdisciplinary team to enhance treatment quality.

Exploring the Influence of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Implementation in Palliative Care Patients: A Systematic Review

One of the most essential elements of providing high-quality palliative care is good symptom control, which is guided through an assessment of the evolution of the patient's level of distress over time. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) was created to measure diverse symptoms in palliative care patients. It is a user-friendly, validated, and reliable multi-item instrument. Globally, ESAS is extensively used to direct daily clinical care and foster communication across multidisciplinary teams, ensuring coordinated patient management, facilitating referrals to specialized programs, and evaluating the quality of care. In this systematic review, we aim to evaluate the influence of using ESAS on symptom assessment and control among palliative care patients and settings. We have employed both manual and electronic search strategies among databases to determine relevant studies. This systematic review included original studies published between 2013 and 2023 that implemented the ESAS as part of palliative care for adult patients with terminal illness or advanced disease. Studies recruiting pediatric patients, case reports with limited sample sizes and no descriptive statistics, and nonhuman or laboratory studies were excluded. The ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions) tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies, which assessed the methodological quality and potential risk of bias in non-randomized clinical studies. We included eight studies that recruited a total of 3184 patients. Fatigue followed by pain were the symptoms with the highest score on ESAS among all the studies, while the lowest score was recorded for nausea and dyspnea in most of the studies. ESAS scores showed improvement in the follow-up visits. Two of the included studies reported satisfaction with the utilization of the ESAS tool. As stated in our results, it can improve the overall quality of life for patients receiving palliative care by assisting healthcare professionals, family members, and caregivers in methodically assessing and treating symptoms over time. By fostering better communication among care teams and involving caregivers in the process, the use of ESAS promotes a more patient-centered approach to care, ensuring that both the patient's needs and the perspectives of their loved ones are considered.

Initiation of Palliative Care Referral from the Intensive Care Unit for Advanced Stage Metastatic Cancer Patients: A Quality Improvement Process from a Tertiary Referral Cancer Institute from South India

Objectives

Critically ill cancer patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) did not have any palliative care (PC) intervention as there was no PC referral from the ICU. The project aimed to initiate PC referral for at least 50% of progressive palliative intent cancer patients in intensive care to enhance communication with patients and caregivers. We included PC physicians, oncologists, and psychologists in the team for this project.

Material and Methods

We used the A3 problem-solving method of quality improvement (QI) and also used the Plan Do Check Act process. The first baseline assessment over 6 months of ICU deaths of patients who could have benefited from PC referral was collected; this made us realise that PC could have been initiated for some patients. Process maps of patient admission into the ICU and the process of their discharge were constructed. Analysis of root causes that were barriers to referral was examined. We made a PC trigger tool after team consultations and consensus and started using it to initiate PC referrals. PC discharge protocol was also initiated. Educational discussions were held with residents and nurses to ensure the continued use of the trigger tool.

Results

PC referral from intensive care slowly went up from 0% to beyond 50% by November 2019 and reached over 70% by March 2020; patients getting discharged had details of PC centres near their homes.

Conclusion

Structured QI process and introducing the PC trigger tool led to the outcome of 50% PC referral for critically ill patients in ICU.

Update on Prevalence of Pain in Patients with Cancer 2022: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Experiencing pain and insufficient relief can be devastating and negatively affect a patient's quality of life. Developments in oncology such as new treatments and adjusted pain management guidelines may have influenced the prevalence of cancer pain and severity in patients. This review aims to provide an overview of the prevalence and severity of pain in cancer patients in the 2014-2021 literature period. A systematic literature search was performed using the databases PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Titles and abstracts were screened, and full texts were evaluated and assessed on methodological quality. A meta-analysis was performed on the pooled prevalence and severity rates. A meta-regression analysis was used to explore differences between treatment groups. We identified 10,637 studies, of which 444 studies were included. The overall prevalence of pain was 44.5%. Moderate to severe pain was experienced by 30.6% of the patients, a lower proportion compared to previous research. Pain experienced by cancer survivors was significantly lower compared to most treatment groups. Our results imply that both the prevalence of pain and pain severity declined in the past decade. Increased attention to the assessment and management of pain might have fostered the decline in the prevalence and severity of pain.

A Systematic Review of Risk Factors for Sleep Disruption in Critically Ill Adults

OBJECTIVES

Numerous risk factors for sleep disruption in critically ill adults have been described. We performed a systematic review of all risk factors associated with sleep disruption in the ICU setting.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language studies of any design published between 1990 and April 2018 that evaluated sleep in greater than or equal to 10 critically ill adults (> 18 yr old) and investigated greater than or equal to 1 potential risk factor for sleep disruption during ICU stay. We assessed study quality using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

DATA EXTRACTION

We abstracted all data independently and in duplicate. Potential ICU sleep disruption risk factors were categorized into three categories based on how data were reported: 1) patient-reported reasons for sleep disruption, 2) patient-reported ratings of potential factors affecting sleep quality, and 3) studies reporting a statistical or temporal association between potential risk factors and disrupted sleep.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 5,148 citations, we included 62 studies. Pain, discomfort, anxiety/fear, noise, light, and ICU care-related activities are the most common and widely studied patient-reported factors causing sleep disruption. Patients rated noise and light as the most sleep-disruptive factors. Higher number of comorbidities, poor home sleep quality, home sleep aid use, and delirium were factors associated with sleep disruption identified in available studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review summarizes all premorbid, illness-related, and ICU-related factors associated with sleep disruption in the ICU. These findings will inform sleep promotion efforts in the ICU and guide further research in this field.

Critically ill patients with cancer: A clinical perspective

Cancer patients account for 15% of all admissions to intensive care unit (ICU) and 5% will experience a critical illness resulting in ICU admission. Mortality rates have decreased during the last decades because of new anticancer therapies and advanced organ support methods. Since early critical care and organ support is associated with improved survival, timely identification of the onset of clinical signs indicating critical illness is crucial to avoid delaying. This article focused on relevant and current information on epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of the main clinical disorders experienced by critically ill cancer patients.

Effects of a Web-based Health Education Program on Quality of Life and Symptom Distress of Initially Diagnosed Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with chemotherapy experience functional decline and decreased quality of life. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a web-based health education program on global quality of life, quality of life-related functional dimensions, and symptom distress of initially diagnosed advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients. This study used a randomized, pre- and post-repeated measures design. A total of 55 participants were randomly assigned to an experimental group (n = 27) and a control group (n = 28). The experimental group participated in a web-based health education program, and the control group received usual care. Patients were assessed at 4 time points: baseline assessment (T0), and then 1, 2, and 3 months (T1, T2, and T3) after participating in the web-based health education program or receiving usual care. Patients in the experimental group had significantly greater global quality of life and emotional function, and significantly less top ten significant symptom distresses compared to those in the control group. There were no differences between the groups and within groups with respect to physical function, role function, cognitive function, and social function. The web-based health education can improve global quality of life, emotional function, and top ten significant symptom distresses in patients receiving chemotherapy during the first 3 months after initial diagnosis of advanced NSCLC. Web-based health education can improve quality of life and lessen distress of initially diagnosed NSCLC patients treated with chemotherapy.

The nature of nausea: prevalence, etiology, and treatment in patients with advanced cancer not receiving antineoplastic treatment

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of nausea/vomiting in patients with advanced cancer has a wide range. Due to a very low level of evidence regarding antiemetic treatment, current guidelines recommend an etiology-based approach. The evidence for this approach is also slim and research is urgently needed.

OBJECTIVES

(Part One) to elucidate the prevalence of nausea and the possible associations with sociodemographic and clinical variables and (Part Two) to investigate possible etiologies of nausea and antiemetic treatments initiated in patients with nausea.

METHODS

Patients with advanced cancer and no recent antineoplastic treatment were included in a prospective two-part study. In Part One, patients completed an extended version of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL. Nauseated patients could then be included in Part Two in which possible etiologies and antiemetic treatment were recorded and a follow-up questionnaire was completed.

RESULTS

Eight hundred twenty-one patients were included and 46% reported any degree of nausea. Younger age and female sex were associated with a higher degree of nausea. Common etiologies included constipation, opioid use, and "other," and treatments associated with a statistically significant decrease in nausea/vomiting were olanzapine, laxatives, corticosteroids, domperidone, and metoclopramide.

CONCLUSION

Nausea was a common symptom in this patient population and many different etiologies were suggested. Most patients reported a lower degree of nausea at follow-up. More research in treatment approaches and specific antiemetics is strongly needed.

Nausea in advanced cancer: relationships between intensity, burden, and the need for help

PURPOSE

This study aimed at expanding the knowledge of nausea in patients with advanced cancer by elucidating (a) the prevalences of patients having nausea, experiencing nausea as a problem, and having a need for help with their nausea, respectively, (b) determining variables associated with nausea, and (c) investigating the relation between nausea and the need for help regarding nausea.

METHODS

In 2004-2006, the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Three-Levels-of-Needs Questionnaire (3LNQ) were mailed to 2364 patients with advanced cancer who had been in contact with one of the 54 hospital departments within the past year. Further information was collected from medical records.

RESULTS

Patient-response rate was 61%. Twenty-two percent reported having had some degree of nausea within the past week, with a mean nausea score of 10.4 and a two-item combined nausea and vomiting score of 7.5 (0-100, 100 = "very much"). Factors associated with nausea on the multivariate level were contact type (inpatient/outpatient) and treatment status (receiving ongoing oncologic treatment yes/no). "Nausea intensity" and "nausea problem burden" showed acceptable abilities to distinguish between patients having or not having an unmet need for help regarding nausea with areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.81 and 0.82, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Around one in four patients with advanced cancer reported nausea within the past week, highest in patients who were inpatients or undergoing active oncologic treatment. Almost all patients reporting nausea on the EORTC QLQ-C30 experienced this to be a problem, and the 3LNQ can therefore be restricted to cases where additional details are needed.

Utility of the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) and the Patient-Reported Functional Status (PRFS) in lung cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Symptom palliation is an important objective of treatment in advanced/metastatic lung cancer (LC). Significant psychological, minor physical symptoms and several social/emotional issues often go unnoticed. This prospective study aimed to evaluate utility of patients' perspectives [self-reported symptom assessment by revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) and self-reported functional status by Patient-Reported Functional Status (PRFS)] amongst LC patients undergoing chemotherapy.

METHODS

Consecutive newly diagnosed treatment-naïve LC patients attending a tertiary referral center in North India from January 2014 to March 2015 were included. All patients received standard histology-guided platinum-doublet chemotherapy. ESAS-r and PRFS questionnaires were administered under guidance, once at the time of initial assessment/diagnosis, repeated at start of chemotherapy, before C4, and after completion of chemotherapy (end of chemotherapy (EOCTx)). Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) questionnaire was also administered. Baseline and post-treatment scores were compared.

RESULTS

Majority of 133 patients enrolled were males (86.5%,n = 115), were current/ex-smokers (81.2%, n = 108), had advanced stage [IIIB = 30.1% (n = 40), IV = 52.6% (n = 70)], and were of non-small-cell type (NSCLC;84.2%,n = 112). On baseline ESAS-r, the highest mean symptom scores were observed for tiredness followed by anorexia. Mean ESAS-r scores before C4 as well as at EOCTX were significantly better than baseline ESAS-r scores in all its components except nausea. Similarly, PRFS before C4 and EOCTx was significantly improved compared to baseline. However, Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status assessed at baseline did not show significant improvement at treatment completion. FACT-L score at EOCTx showed significant improvement from baseline in physical and functional well-being domains but not for social/family and emotional well-being domains.

CONCLUSION

This study validated utility of ESAS-r and PRFS in Indian LC patients. These instruments should be used in routine clinical practice besides physicians' assessment of PS (KPS/ECOG).

Predictive model of complexity in early palliative care: a cohort of advanced cancer patients (PALCOM study)

PROPOSAL

Model of early palliative care (PC) integrated in oncology is based on shared care from the diagnosis to the end of life and is mainly focused on patients with greater complexity. However, there is no definition or tools to evaluate PC complexity. The objectives of the study were to identify the factors influencing level determination of complexity, propose predictive models, and build a complexity scale of PC.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

We performed a prospective, observational, multicenter study in a cohort of advanced cancer patients with an estimated prognosis ≤ 6 months. An ad hoc structured evaluation including socio-demographic and clinical data, symptom burden, functional and cognitive status, psychosocial problems, and existential-ethic dilemmas was recorded systematically. According to this multidimensional evaluation, investigator classified patients as high, medium, or low palliative complexity, associated to need of basic or specialized PC. Logistic regression was used to identify the variables influencing determination of level of PC complexity and explore predictive models.

RESULTS

We included 324 patients; 41% were classified as having high PC complexity and 42.9% as medium, both levels being associated with specialized PC. Variables influencing determination of PC complexity were as follows: high symptom burden (OR 3.19 95%CI: 1.72-6.17), difficult pain (OR 2.81 95%CI:1.64-4.9), functional status (OR 0.99 95%CI:0.98-0.9), and social-ethical existential risk factors (OR 3.11 95%CI:1.73-5.77). Logistic analysis of variables allowed construct a complexity model and structured scales (PALCOM 1 and 2) with high predictive value (AUC ROC 76%).

CONCLUSION

This study provides a new model and tools to assess complexity in palliative care, which may be very useful to manage referral to specialized PC services, and agree intensity of their intervention in a model of early-shared care integrated in oncology.

Integration of Specialized Pain Control Services in Palliative Care: A Nationwide Web-based Survey

Introduction:

Pain control is an important part of palliative care (PC), and conventional analgesics do not provide adequate pain relief to all patients. Many patients present with complex pain syndromes that require interventional pain control measures usually deployed by pain specialists. There is adequate integration of specialized pain control services with PC elsewhere, but information about the same in our country is lacking.

Materials and Methods:

An internet survey was conducted among palliative specialists regarding the need and availability of pain specialists for their patients suffering from complex pain syndromes. Their attitude toward integrating specialized pain control services in their practice was also explored.

Results:

Majority of palliative physicians came across situations where specialists in pain would control the patients’ pain better. There was a poor availability of such services, and when available, the cost was significant. It is heartening to note that though there is poor integration of specialized pain control services with palliation, palliative physicians acknowledge the need for pain specialists and their techniques for providing pain relief for their patients.

Conclusions:

Effective pain control is needed in palliation, barriers however exist, and there is a need to make pain specialists and interventional techniques more freely available.