Symptom expression in advanced cancer patients admitted to hospice or home care with and without delirium

Validation of Modified Models of Objective Prognostic Score in Patients With Advanced Cancer

Background: The objective prognostic score (OPS) needs to be modified to reflect practical palliative care circumstances. Objectives: We aimed to validate modified models of OPS with few or no laboratory tests for patients with advanced cancer. Design: An observational study was performed. Setting/Subjects: A secondary analysis of an international, multicenter cohort study of patients in East Asia was performed. The subjects were inpatients with advanced cancer in the palliative care unit. Measurements: We developed two modified OPS (mOPS) models to predict two-week survival: mOPS-A consisted of two symptoms, two objective signs, and three laboratory results, while mOPS-B consisted of three symptoms, two signs, and no laboratory data. We compared the accuracy of the prognostic models using sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Calibration plots for two-week survival and net reclassification indices (NRIs) were compared for the two models. Survival differences between higher and lower score groups of each model were identified by the log-rank test. Results: We included a total of 1796 subjects having median survival of 19.0 days. We found that mOPS-A had higher specificity (0.805-0.836) and higher AUROCs (0.791-0.797). In contrast, mOPS-B showed higher sensitivity (0.721-0.725) and acceptable AUROCs (0.740-0.751) for prediction of two-week survival. Two mOPSs showed good concordance in calibration plots. Considering NRIs, replacing the original OPS with mOPSs improved overall reclassification (absolute NRI: 0.47-4.15%). Higher score groups of mOPS-A and mOPS-B showed poorer survival than those of lower score groups (p < 0.001). Conclusions: mOPSs used reduced laboratory data and had relatively good accuracy for predicting survival in advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care.

Risk factors for delirium in adult patients receiving specialist palliative care: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Delirium is common and distressing for patients receiving palliative care. Interventions targetting modifiable risk factors in other settings have been shown to prevent delirium. Research on delirium risk factors in palliative care can inform context-specific risk-reduction interventions.

AIM

To investigate risk factors for the development of delirium in adult patients receiving specialist palliative care.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42019157168).

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO (1980-2021) were searched for studies reporting the association of risk factors with delirium incidence/prevalence for patients receiving specialist palliative care. Study risk of bias and certainty of evidence for each risk factor were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 28 included studies, 16 conducted only univariate analysis, 12 conducted multivariate analysis. The evidence for delirium risk factors was limited with low to very low certainty.

POTENTIALLY MODIFIABLE RISK FACTORS

Opioids and lower performance status were positively associated with delirium, with some evidence also for dehydration, hypoxaemia, sleep disturbance, liver dysfunction and infection. Mixed, or very limited, evidence was found for some factors targetted in multicomponent prevention interventions: sensory impairments, mobility, catheter use, polypharmacy (single study), pain, constipation, nutrition (mixed evidence).

NON-MODIFIABLE RISK FACTORS

Older age, male sex, primary brain cancer or brain metastases and lung cancer were positively associated with delirium.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings may usefully inform interventions to reduce delirium risk but more high quality prospective cohort studies are required to enable greater certainty about associations of different risk factors with delirium during specialist palliative care.

Factors Influencing Pain Expression in Patients with Cancer: An Expert Opinion

Pain is a multidimensional experience that requires an appropriate assessment, and simple numbering may not be enough for the different components that are involved in the clinical expression. In consideration of the subjectivity of the symptom, each assessment should start from the way in which the patients perceive the pain and from how they deal with it. Some factors related to individual patient characteristics may make pain management difficult because of interference with the clinical pain expression. These factors may amplify the reporting of pain. Cognitive disorders and psychological distress seem to strongly influence pain expression and may render the analgesic treatment more difficult. Aberrant behaviors, such as alcoholism, smoking, and opioid misuse, may play a role, although geographic differences were found in terms of prevalence of the phenomenon, especially in some countries. Finally, the assessment of patients' expectation and the meaning of the personal feeling of changes in pain intensity provide new concepts in pain assessment, which may allow better personalization of the analgesic therapy. A modern pain assessment should include a multitude of factors influencing the phenotype of pain.

Screening and Assessment Tools for Measuring Delirium in Patients with Cancer in Hospice and Palliative Care: A Systematic Review

Purpose

This study reviewed screening and assessment tools that are used to measure delirium in patients with cancer in hospice and palliative care settings and examined their psychometric properties.

Methods

Four databases were searched for studies using related search terms (delirium, tools, palliative care, cancer, and others). The inclusion criteria were a) studies that included screening/assessment tools for measuring delirium in cancer patients receiving hospice/palliative care, and b) studies published in English or Korean. The exclusion criteria were a) studies that were conducted in an intensive care setting, and b) case studies, qualitative studies, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses.

Results

Out of the 81 studies identified, only 10 examined the psychometric properties of tools for measuring delirium, and 8 tools were ultimately identified. The psychometric properties of the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) were the most frequently examined (n=5), and the MDAS showed good reliability, concurrent validity, and diagnostic accuracy. The Delirium Rating Scale had good reliability and diagnostic accuracy. The Delirium Rating Scale-Revised 98 also showed good reliability and structural validity, but its diagnostic performance was not examined in hospice/palliative care settings. The Nursing Delirium Screening Scale showed relatively low diagnostic accuracy.

Conclusion

The MDAS showed evidence of being a valid assessment tool for assessing delirium in patients with cancer in palliative care. Few studies examined the diagnostic performance of delirium tools. Therefore, further studies are needed to examine the diagnostic performance of screening/assessment tools for the optimal detection of delirium in patients with cancer in hospice/palliative care.

Sinais e sintomas manifestados por pacientes em cuidados paliativos oncológicos na assistência domiciliar: uma revisão integrativa

Resumo Objetivo identificar os principais sinais e sintomas manifestados por pacientes em cuidados paliativos oncológicos na assistência domiciliar. Método revisão integrativa nas bases LILACS, MEDLINE e CINAHL em janeiro de 2020. Perguntou-se: “Quais os principais sinais e sintomas manifestados por pacientes em cuidados paliativos oncológicos destacados nos estudos abrangendo o contexto do domicílio?”. Foram descritores/termos: Sinais e Sintomas/Signs and Symptoms; Assistência Domiciliar/Home Care Services; Cuidados Paliativos/Palliative Care e Neoplasias/Neoplasms. Elencaram-se como critérios de elegibilidade: texto completo; entre 2015 e 2019; em inglês, português ou espanhol e idade adulta. Para o mapeamento dos dados, consideraram-se: título; país; ano; objetivo; método; sinais e sintomas. Os resultados foram categorizados em subgrupos, considerando a classificação conceitual predeterminada (sinal e sintoma). O elemento contagem facilitou a análise e a comparação de dados. Resultados foram selecionados 35 artigos, sendo identificados 25 sinais e 23 sintomas. Os mais frequentes foram: dor, náusea/vômito, dispneia, fadiga, depressão, ansiedade, constipação, perda de apetite, sonolência, bem-estar e insônia. A maioria (39) relacionou-se ao domínio físico. Conclusão a identificação dos principais sinais e sintomas, neste contexto, direciona a prática dos profissionais de saúde para as intervenções mais adequadas e o mais precocemente possível, contribuindo para viabilizar a assistência domiciliar, e alerta para a necessidade de educação permanente sobre este tema.

Distress in delirium: causes, assessment and management

Purpose

Delirium is a common clinical syndrome associated with increased physical and psychological morbidity, mortality, inpatient stay and healthcare costs. There is growing interest in understanding the delirium experience and its psychological impact, including distress, for patients and their relatives, carers and healthcare providers.

Methods

This narrative review focuses on distress in delirium (DID) with an emphasis on its effect on older patients. It draws on qualitative and quantitative research to describe patient and environmental risk factors and variations in DID across a number of clinical settings, including medical and surgical inpatient wards and end of life care. The article provides an overview of the available distress assessment tools, both for clinical and research practice, and outlines their use in the context of delirium. This review also outlines established and emerging management strategies, focusing primarily on prevention and limitation of distress in delirium.

Results

Both significant illness and delirium cause distress. Patients who recall the episode of delirium describe common experiential features of delirium and distress. Relatives who witness delirium also experience distress, at levels suggested to be greater than that experienced by patients themselves. DID results in long-term psychological sequelae that can last months and years. Preventative actions, such pre-episode educational information for patients and their families in those at risk may reduce distress and psychological morbidity.

Conclusions

Improving clinicians’ understanding of the experience and long term psychological harm of delirium will enable the development of targeted support and information to patients at risk of delirium, and their families or carers.

The Patient with Difficult Cancer Pain

Most patients with cancer pain can be managed with relatively simple methods using oral analgesics at relatively low doses, even for prolonged periods of time. However, in some clinical conditions pain may be more difficult to manage. Various factors can interfere with a desirable and favorable analgesic response. Data from several studies assessing factors of negative pain prognosis have indicated that neuropathic pain, incident pain, psychological distress, opioid addiction, and baseline pain intensity were associated with more difficult pain control. In this narrative review, the main factors that make the therapeutic response to opioids difficult are examined.