A National Survey of Palliative Care Team Compositions.

Objective: It is unclear how well palliative care teams are staffed at US cancer centers. Our primary objective was to compare the composition of palliative care teams between National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and non-NCI-designated cancer centers in 2018. We also assessed changes in team composition between 2009 and 2018. Methods: This national survey examined the team composition in palliative care programs at all 61 NCI-designated cancer centers and in a random sample of 60 of 1252 non-NCI-designated cancer centers in 2018. Responses were compared to those from our 2009 survey. The primary outcome was the presence of an interprofessional team defined as a palliative care physician, nurse, and psychosocial member. Secondary outcomes were the size and number of individual disciplines. Results: In 2018, 52/61 (85%) of NCI-designated and 27/38 (71%) non-NCI-designated cancer centers in the primary outcome comparison responded to the survey. NCI-designated cancer centers were more likely to have interprofessional teams than non-NCI-designated cancer centers (92% vs 67%; P = .009). Non-NCI-designated cancer centers were more likely to have nurse-led teams (14.8% vs 0.0%; P = .01). The median number of disciplines did not differ between groups (NCI, 6.0; non-NCI, 5.0; P = .08). Between 2009 and 2018, NCI-designated and non-NCI-designated cancer centers saw increased proportions of centers with interprofessional teams (NCI, 64.9% vs 92.0%, P < .001; non-NCI, 40.0% vs 66.7%; P = .047). Conclusion: NCI-designated cancer centers were more likely to report having an interprofessional palliative care team than non-NCI-designated cancer centers. Growth has been limited over the past decade, particularly at non-NCI-designated cancer centers.

Financial Toxicity in People Living with Advanced Cancer: A New, Deadly, and Poorly Addressed Effect of Cancer and Necessary Treatment.

OBJECTIVES: Advances in cancer treatments have allowed improved outcomes, even with advanced disease. However, this progress has resulted in a new toxic effect termed 'financial toxicity.' Financial toxicity severely impacts quality of life, even among those insured. The purpose of this article is to gain better understanding of this relatively new concept to better care for our patients, presented primarily from a US perspective. DATA SOURCES: These include medical databases (PubMed, Scopus) and researcher experience. CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity is highly prevalent in patients with advanced cancer, and it is associated with multiple worsened outcomes. Those with advancing cancer are at accumulating risk of financial toxicity, exacerbated by other known risk factors. The effects of financial toxicity are debilitating, resulting in deleterious physical, psychological, spiritual, and social effects drastically affecting quality of life. Coping strategies such as taking less than prescribed therapy, delays seeking care, and poorly managed comorbid conditions potentially cause increased symptoms and worse outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Careful assessments by multidisciplinary health care teams could allow early intervention, timely referral to health professionals including social work or financial navigators, and provision of emotional support. Further studies are needed to explore solutions on an institutional and national level that can guide health policy and the creation of practice models that can reduce the harm of financial toxicity.

Patterns of Storage, Use, and Disposal of Prescription Opioids by Young Adults with Cancer.

Studies have demonstrated that adults with cancer and parents of children with cancer do not use and store prescription opioids safely. Most YAs (135/146, 92%) unsafely stored opioids. Fifty-two of 146 patients (36%) unsafely used, and 16 of 146 patients (11%) unsafely disposed of opioids. YAs with hematologic malignancies (p < 0.05) were more likely to use opioids safely compared with YAs with other types of malignancies. More research is necessary to understand the scope of this issue. Our data suggest that universal educational interventions regarding the safe storage, use, and disposal of opioids are justified for YAs.

Neuroleptic strategies for terminal agitation in patients with cancer and delirium at an acute palliative care unit: a single-centre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of neuroleptics for terminal agitated delirium is controversial. We assessed the effect of three neuroleptic strategies on refractory agitation in patients with cancer with terminal delirium. METHODS: In this single-centre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised trial, patients with advanced cancer, aged at least 18 years, admitted to the palliative and supportive care unit at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA), with refractory agitation, despite low-dose haloperidol, were randomly assigned to receive intravenous haloperidol dose escalation at 2 mg every 4 h, neuroleptic rotation with chlorpromazine at 25 mg every 4 h, or combined haloperidol at 1 mg and chlorpromazine at 12·5 mg every 4 h, until death or discharge. Rescue doses identical to the scheduled doses were administered at inception, and then hourly as needed. Permuted block randomisation (block size six; 1:1:1) was done, stratified by baseline Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores. Research staff, clinicians, patients, and caregivers were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was change in RASS score from time 0 to 24 h. Comparisons among group were done by modified intention-to-treat analysis. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03021486. FINDINGS: Between July 5, 2017, and July 1, 2019, 998 patients were screened for eligibility, with 68 being enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment; 45 received the masked study interventions (escalation n=15, rotation n=16, combination n=14). RASS score decreased significantly within 30 min and remained low at 24 h in the escalation group (n=10, mean RASS score change between 0 h and 24 h -3·6 [95% CI -5·0 to -2·2]), rotation group (n=11, -3·3 [-4·4 to -2·2]), and combination group (n=10, -3·0 [-4·6 to -1·4]), with no difference among groups (p=0·71). The most common serious toxicity was hypotension (escalation n=6 [40%], rotation n=5 [31%], combination n=3 [21%]); there were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Our data provide preliminary evidence that the three strategies of neuroleptics might reduce agitation in patients with terminal agitation. These findings are in the context of the single-centre design, small sample size, and lack of a placebo-only group. FUNDING: National Institute of Nursing Research.

Chronic Non-Malignant Pain in Patients with Cancer Seen at a Timely Outpatient Palliative Care Clinic.

Palliative care is seeing cancer patients earlier in the disease trajectory with a multitude of chronic issues. Chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP) in cancer patients is under-studied. In this prospective study, we examined the prevalence and management of CNMP in cancer patients seen at our supportive care clinic for consultation. We systematically characterized each pain type with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and documented current treatments. The attending physician made the pain diagnoses according to the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) task force classification. Among 200 patients (mean age 60 years, 69% metastatic disease, 1-year survival of 77%), the median number of pain diagnosis was 2 (IQR 1-2); 67 (34%, 95% CI 28-41%) had a diagnosis of CNMP; 133 (67%) had cancer-related pain; and 52 (26%) had treatment-related pain. In total, 12/31 (39%) patients with only CNMP and 21/36 (58%) patients with CNMP and other pain diagnoses were on opioids. There was a total of 94 CNMP diagnoses among 67 patients, including 37 (39%) osteoarthritis and 20 (21%) lower back pain; 30 (32%) were treated with opioids. In summary, CNMP was common in the timely palliative care setting and many patients were on opioids. Our findings highlight the need to develop clinical guidelines for CNMP in cancer patients to standardize its management.

Patterns of Storage, Use, and Disposal of Prescription Opioids by Parents of Children With Cancer.

CONTEXT: Multiple studies have demonstrated that adults do not store prescription opioids safely. Increased prescription opioid rates have led to an increased incidence of opioid poisonings in children and adolescents. OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether parents practiced safe storage, use, and disposal techniques of opioids that were prescribed to their child with cancer-related pain. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional survey of parents whose children were prescribed opioids and asked them about their patterns of storage, use, and disposal of prescription opioids. RESULTS: Virtually, all parents (106 of 109; 97%) completed the survey. Most parents (95 of 106; 90%) did not store opioids safely. Six of 106 parents (6%) gave their child's opioid pain medication to someone else with pain, and three of 106 parents (3%) personally took some of their child's opioid. Parents who personally took their child's opioid (P = 0.01) or gave it to another person (P < 0.001) were more likely to use opioids unsafely with their child. A minority of parents (22 of 106; 21%) did not use opioids safely in their child. A small number of parents (3 of 22; 14%) did not dispose of opioids safely. CONCLUSION: Universal education about the safe use and disposal of opioids should be adopted when prescribing opioids. Pediatricians need to maintain vigilance about the nonmedical use of prescription opioid use by parents of children.

Safe Opioid Use, Storage, and Disposal Strategies in Cancer Pain Management.

Opioids are required by a majority of patients with advanced cancer. Oncologists and palliative care clinicians are faced with the challenge of safely prescribing opioids in the current environment of an opioid crisis. Many patients with cancer use opioids unsafely, store them in unsecure locations, and do not dispose of unused opioids, leading to increased availability of these opioids for others to misuse. More than 50% of people who misuse opioids obtain the drugs from a friend or relative with or without their consent. Patient and provider education has been shown to improve safe opioid use, promote secure storage, and also increase disposal of unused opioids safely in drug take-back programs that are now widely available. This article highlights the importance of patient education and cautious opioid prescribing in patients with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The current opioid crisis makes it challenging to effectively manage cancer pain. Providers play a prominent role in minimizing opioid misuse. Cautious prescribing with limits enforced on the quantity of opioids prescribed, close follow-up, and consistent and frequent provision of opioid education are a must. Evidence points to the impact of patient education in promoting safety around opioid use. Most people who misuse prescription opioids obtain them from family or friends. Storing opioids in the open or not disposing of unused opioids increases the availability of these opioids for misuse by others. The importance of not sharing, always locking up, and disposing of unused and expired opioids must be highlighted as part of the opioid education that must be delivered every time that opioids are prescribed. Information about local drug take-back programs may also help increase disposal of unused opioids.

Symptom frequency and change of oldest old cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The oldest old, described as those aged 85 and older, is a growing cancer population. There are limited studies evaluating the symptoms of the oldest old cancer patient population. Our study aimed to evaluate symptom frequency and clinical symptom change as assessed by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) of the oldest old (≥ 85) compared to older adult (65-84) and general adult (18-64) outpatient cancer patients on initial consult and follow-up visit. METHODS: Retrospective review of a total of 441 patients, 200 randomly sampled patients in the general and older adult group and 41 consecutive patients in the oldest old group. Chart review was performed for demographic and clinical information including ESAS. RESULTS: The oldest old group had less advanced tumors and worse performance status and was receiving less cancer therapy. Eighty percent or more of these patients reported fatigue, sleep disturbance, appetite, and drowsiness. They experienced lower frequencies of pain (p < 0.0001), fatigue (p = 0.0338), nausea (p = 0.0151), feeling of well-being (p = 0.0245), sleep disturbance (p = 0.0484), financial distress (p = 0.0002), and spiritual distress (p = 0.0010) compared to the younger groups. Twenty-six to fifty-one percent of the oldest old patients' symptoms improved on the first follow-up visit. CONCLUSIONS: Oldest old cancer patients have high frequencies of multiple symptoms on initial referral. However, these symptom frequencies are lower when compared to younger age groups. Additionally, many of their symptoms improved on first follow-up visit in the palliative care clinic. More research is needed to address the needs of this growing cancer population and focus symptoms that can improve with palliative care intervention.

Effect of Lorazepam With Haloperidol vs Haloperidol Alone on Agitated Delirium in Patients With Advanced Cancer Receiving Palliative Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The use of benzodiazepines to control agitation in delirium in the last days of life is controversial. Objective: To compare the effect of lorazepam vs placebo as an adjuvant to haloperidol for persistent agitation in patients with delirium in the setting of advanced cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-center, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial conducted at an acute palliative care unit at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas, enrolling 93 patients with advanced cancer and agitated delirium despite scheduled haloperidol from February 11, 2014, to June 30, 2016, with data collection completed in October 2016. Interventions: Lorazepam (3 mg) intravenously (n = 47) or placebo (n = 43) in addition to haloperidol (2 mg) intravenously upon the onset of an agitation episode. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score (range, -5 [unarousable] to 4 [very agitated or combative]) from baseline to 8 hours after treatment administration. Secondary end points were rescue neuroleptic use, delirium recall, comfort (perceived by caregivers and nurses), communication capacity, delirium severity, adverse effects, discharge outcomes, and overall survival. Results: Among 90 randomized patients (mean age, 62 years; women, 42 [47%]), 58 (64%) received the study medication and 52 (90%) completed the trial. Lorazepam + haloperidol resulted in a significantly greater reduction of RASS score at 8 hours (-4.1 points) than placebo + haloperidol (-2.3 points) (mean difference, -1.9 points [95% CI, -2.8 to -0.9]; P < .001). The lorazepam + haloperidol group required less median rescue neuroleptics (2.0 mg) than the placebo + haloperidol group (4.0 mg) (median difference, -1.0 mg [95% CI, -2.0 to 0]; P = .009) and was perceived to be more comfortable by both blinded caregivers and nurses (caregivers: 84% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 37% for the placebo + haloperidol group; mean difference, 47% [95% CI, 14% to 73%], P = .007; nurses: 77% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 30% for the placebo + haloperidol group; mean difference, 47% [95% CI, 17% to 71%], P = .005). No significant between-group differences were found in delirium-related distress and survival. The most common adverse effect was hypokinesia (3 patients in the lorazepam + haloperidol group [19%] and 4 patients in the placebo + haloperidol group [27%]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this preliminary trial of hospitalized patients with agitated delirium in the setting of advanced cancer, the addition of lorazepam to haloperidol compared with haloperidol alone resulted in a significantly greater reduction in agitation at 8 hours. Further research is needed to assess generalizability and adverse effects. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01949662.

Snapshot of an Outpatient Supportive Care Center at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Integration of palliative care (PC) in oncology have been found to improve symptom distress, quality of life, and survival in patients with advanced cancer. Early integration is most appropriate in the outpatient setting. However, most PC services in the United States do not have an outpatient component. Our study aims to provide a snapshot of the type of patients and families who are referred to this novel setting for the delivery of early PC. CONCLUSION: Traditionally, PC has been delivered predominantly to patients with advanced disease and to aid in transition to end of life. In recent years, outpatient centers have dramatically changed the nature of PC work as in our snapshot, which shows that in addition to patients regarded as more traditional patients, such as those transitioning to end of life, there are now patients who come in very soon after arrival to a cancer center requiring specialized care to address a variety of symptom and educational needs, thus requiring adaptation of structure and processes to allow access for frequent follow-ups, counseling, and flexibility for walk-in visits. Our findings suggest that Supportive Care Clinic needs to practice in a very different way, which requires certain skills and assessment tools that are not conventionally present in traditional oncology clinic settings. More research is needed to identify the type of patients who would benefit most from a PC referral.

Increased Symptom Expression among Patients with Delirium Admitted to an Acute Palliative Care Unit.

INTRODUCTION: Delirium is the most common neuropsychiatric condition in very ill patients and those at the end of life. Previous case reports found that delirium-induced disinhibition may lead to overexpression of symptoms. It negatively affects communication between patients, family members, and the medical team and can sometimes lead to inappropriate interventions. Better understanding would result in improved care. Our aim was to determine the effect of delirium on the reporting of symptom severity in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: We reviewed 329 consecutive patients admitted to the acute palliative care unit (APCU) without a diagnosis of delirium from January to December 2011. Demographics, Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance status, and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) on two time points were collected. The first time point was on admission and the second time point for group A was day one (+two days) of delirium. For group B, the second time point was within two to four days before discharge from the APCU. Patients who developed delirium and those who did not develop delirium during the entire course of admission were compared using chi-squared test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Paired t-test was used to assess if the change of ESAS from baseline to follow-up was associated with delirium. RESULTS: Ninety-six of 329 (29%) patients developed delirium during their admission to the APCU. The median time to delirium was two days. There was no difference in the length of stay in the APCU for both groups. Patients who did not have delirium expressed improvement in all their symptoms, while those who developed delirium during hospitalization showed no improvement in physical symptoms and worsening in depression, anxiety, appetite, and well-being. CONCLUSION: Patients with delirium reported no improvement or worsening symptoms compared to patients without delirium. Screening for delirium is important in patients who continue to report worsening symptoms despite appropriate management.

The Impact of an Educational Program on Patient Practices for Safe Use, Storage, and Disposal of Opioids at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Improper use, storage, and disposal of prescribed opioids can lead to diversion or accidental poisoning. Our previous study showed a large proportion of cancer patients have unsafe opioid practices. Our objective was to determine whether an improvement occurred in the patterns of use, storage, and disposal of opioids among cancer outpatients after the implementation of a patient educational program. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our palliative care (PC) clinic provides every patient with educational material (EM) on safe opioid use, storage, and disposal every time they receive an opioid prescription. We prospectively assessed 300 adult cancer outpatients receiving opioids in our PC clinic, who had received the EM, and compared them with 300 patients who had not received the EM. The previously used surveys pertaining to opioid use, storage, and disposal were administered, and demographic information was collected. Sharing or losing their opioids was defined as unsafe use. RESULTS: Patients who received EM were more aware of the proper opioid disposal methods (76% vs. 28%; p ≤ .0001), less likely to share their opioids with someone else (3% vs. 8%; p = .0311), less likely to practice unsafe use of opioids (18% vs. 25%; p = .0344), and more likely to be aware the danger of their opioids when taken by others (p = .0099). Patients who received the EM were less likely to have unused medication at home (38% vs. 47%; p = .0497) and more likely to keep their medications in a safe place (hidden, 75% vs. 70%; locked, 14% vs. 10%; p = .0025). CONCLUSION: The use of EM on opioid safety for patients with advanced cancer was associated with improved patient-reported safe opioid use, storage, and disposal. The Oncologist 2017;22:115-121Implications for Practice: Prescription opioid abuse is a fast-growing epidemic that has become more prominent recently, even in the cancer pain population. A previous study reported that 26% of cancer outpatients seen in the supportive care center either lose their pain medications or share their pain medications with someone else. This study demonstrates that the implementation of an opioid educational program and distribution of educational material on opioid safety brings about an improvement in opioid storage, use, and disposal practices in patients being prescribed opioids for cancer-related pain. Our study highlights the importance of consistent and thorough opioid education at every instance in which opioids are prescribed.

Frequency of unsafe storage, use, and disposal practices of opioids among cancer patients presenting to the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 75% of prescription opioid abusers obtain the drug from an acquaintance, which may be a consequence of improper opioid storage, use, disposal, and lack of patient education. We aimed to determine the opioid storage, use, and disposal patterns in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) of a comprehensive cancer center. METHOD: We surveyed 113 patients receiving opioids for at least 2 months upon presenting to the ED and collected information regarding opioid use, storage, and disposal. Unsafe storage was defined as storing opioids in plain sight, and unsafe use was defined as sharing or losing opioids. RESULTS: The median age was 53 years, 55% were female, 64% were white, and 86% had advanced cancer. Of those surveyed, 36% stored opioids in plain sight, 53% kept them hidden but unlocked, and only 15% locked their opioids. However, 73% agreed that they would use a lockbox if given one. Patients who reported that others had asked them for their pain medications (p = 0.004) and those who would use a lockbox if given one (p = 0.019) were more likely to keep them locked. Some 13 patients (12%) used opioids unsafely by either sharing (5%) or losing (8%) them. Patients who reported being prescribed more pain pills than required (p = 0.032) were more likely to practice unsafe use. Most (78%) were unaware of proper opioid disposal methods, 6% believed they were prescribed more medication than required, and 67% had unused opioids at home. Only 13% previously received education about safe disposal of opioids. Overall, 77% (87) of patients reported unsafe storage, unsafe use, or possessed unused opioids at home. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Many cancer patients presenting to the ED improperly and unsafely store, use, or dispose of opioids, thus highlighting a need to investigate the impact of patient education on such practices.

Overall Survival among Cancer Patients Undergoing Opioid Rotation to Methadone Compared to Other Opioids.

BACKGROUND: Methadone has been associated with lower overall survival (OS) in patients with chronic pain. There are no data available on the association of methadone with OS in cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the OS in cancer outpatients undergoing opioid rotation (OR) to methadone and other strong opioids. DESIGN: Demographics, symptoms, and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) were collected in patients who underwent OR from strong opioids to either methadone or other strong opioids and returned for a follow-up within six weeks. SETTING/SUBJECTS: Nine hundred thirty-eight consecutive outpatients to the supportive care center of a tertiary cancer center were reviewed. MEASUREMENTS: Kaplan-Meier curves were used to evaluate survival. RESULTS: Of a total of 164 eligible patients, 54/76 patients who underwent OR to methadone and 48/88 patients who underwent OR to other opioids returned for a follow-up visit. The median age was 56 years, 54% were male, and 87% had advanced cancer. There were no significant differences between the two groups in patient characteristics, performance status, MEDD, and pain scores. The Kaplan-Meier curves revealed no significant difference in median OS between all patients undergoing OR to methadone and other opioids [3.75 months (95% confidence interval, CI, 2.30-6.46) vs. 2.62 months (95% CI 1.74-4.33); p = 0.35] and also among those who returned for a follow-up following an OR to methadone and other opioids [5.15 months (95% CI 3.64-7.41) vs. 5.90 months (95% CI 2.62-9.28); p = 0.89]. CONCLUSIONS: We observed no significant difference in OS in cancer patients in methadone group compared to other opioids.

Impact of a Palliative Care Checklist on Clinical Documentation.

PURPOSE: Checklists are used in many different settings for the purpose of standardization and reduction of preventable errors in practice. Our group sought to determine whether a palliative care checklist (PCC) would improve the clinical documentation of key patient information. METHODS: An initial review of 110 randomly selected medical records dictated by 10 physicians was performed. The authors identified portions of the dictated medical records that were included regularly, as well as those that were frequently missed. A PCC was drafted after final approval was obtained from the 13 faculty members. Dictations from 13 clinical faculties in the supportive care center were reviewed. A χ(2) test or Fisher's exact test was applied to assess the difference in overall checked rates before and after checklist use. A paired t test was used to examine the difference in the average complete rate and checked rates before and after checklist use. RESULTS: There were improvements in the documentation before and after the checklist for scores on the Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener questionnaire for alcoholism (79% v 94%; P ≤ .0001), psychosocial history (69% v 95%; P ≤ .0001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (38% v 81%; P ≤ .0001), advance care planning (28% v 41%; P = .0008), and overall (78% v 95%; P ≤ .0001). There was no significant improvement in the documentation for opioid-induced neurotoxicity (37% v 37%; P = .9492) or the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (98% v 99%; P = .4511). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the use of a PCC improved the quality of the documentation of a patient visit in an outpatient clinical setting.

The opioid rotation ratio of strong opioids to transdermal fentanyl in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Transdermal fentanyl (TDF) is 1 of the most common opioids prescribed to patients with cancer. However, the accurate opioid rotation ratio (ORR) from other opioids to TDF is unknown, and various currently used methods result in wide variation of the ORR. The objective of this study was to determine the ORR of the oral morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) to the TDF dose when correcting for the MEDD of breakthrough opioids (the net MEDD) in cancer outpatients. METHODS: The records of 6790 consecutive patients were reviewed at the authors' supportive care center from 2010 to 2013 to identify those who underwent rotation from other opioids to TDF. Data regarding Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale scores and MEDDs were collected for patients who returned for a follow-up visit within 5 weeks. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate the ORR between the TDF dose and the net MEDD (the MEDD before opioid rotation [OR] minus the MEDD of the breakthrough opioid used along with TDF after OR). RESULTS: In total, 129 patients underwent OR from other opioids to TDF. The mean patient age was 56 years, 59% were men, and 88% had advanced cancer. Uncontrolled pain (80%) was the most frequent reason for OR. In 101 patients who underwent OR and had no worsening of pain at follow-up, the median ORR from net MEDD to TDF (in mg per day) was 0.01 (range, -0.02 to 0.04), and the correlation coefficient of the TDF dose to the net MEDD was 0.77 (P < .0001). The ORR was not significantly impacted by body mass index or serum albumin. The ORR of 0.01 suggests that an MEDD of 100 mg is equivalent to 1 mg TDF daily or approximately 40 micrograms per hour of TDF (1000 micrograms/24 hours). CONCLUSIONS: The median ORR from MEDD to TDF in mg per day was 0.01. These results warrant further studies.

The Frequency, Characteristics, and Outcomes Among Cancer Patients With Delirium Admitted to an Acute Palliative Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common neuropsychiatric condition seen in patients with severe illness, such as advanced cancer. Few published studies are available of the frequency, course, and outcomes of standardized management of delirium in advanced cancer patients admitted to acute palliative care unit (APCU). In this study, we examined the frequency, characteristics, and outcomes of delirium in patients with advanced cancer admitted to an APCU. METHODS: Medical records of 609 consecutive patients admitted to the APCU from January 2011 through December 2011 were reviewed. Data on patients' demographics; Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) score; palliative care specialist (PCS) diagnosis of delirium; delirium etiology, subtype, and reversibility; late development of delirium; and discharge outcome were collected. Delirium was diagnosed with MDAS score ≥7 and by a PCS using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th edition, Text Revision criteria. All patients admitted to the APCU received standardized assessments and management of delirium per best practice guidelines in delirium management. RESULTS: Of 556 patients in the APCU, 323 (58%) had a diagnosis of delirium. Of these, 229 (71%) had a delirium diagnosis on admission and 94 (29%) developed delirium after admission to the APCU. Delirium reversed in 85 of 323 episodes (26%). Half of patients with delirium (n = 162) died. Patients with the diagnosis of delirium had a lower median overall survival than those without delirium. Patients who developed delirium after admission to the APCU had poorer survival (p ≤ .0001) and a lower rate of delirium reversal (p = .03) compared with those admitted with delirium. CONCLUSION: More than half of the patients admitted to the APCU had delirium. Reversibility occurred in almost one-third of cases. Diagnosis of delirium was associated with poorer survival.

The need for a multidisciplinary approach to pain management in advanced cancer: A clinical case.

Advanced cancer patients are often affected by multiple complex symptoms brought about by persistent nociceptive stimuli and intense psychosocial distress. One such complex symptom, cancer pain, has continued to pose a challenge in medical management even though the concept of total pain was described several years ago by Cicely Saunders. Oftentimes, the application of a multidisciplinary approach is delayed after numerous opioid dose escalations and invasive procedures have been performed. The case presented here highlights the importance of timely multidisciplinary intervention and the use of an acute palliative care unit, which resulted in adequate pain control after multiple medical and invasive procedures that caused toxicities.

Acute symptomatic complications among patients with advanced cancer admitted to acute palliative care units: A prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available on the symptomatic complications that occur in the last days of life. AIM: We documented the frequency, clinical course, and survival for 25 symptomatic complications among patients admitted to acute palliative care units. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal observational study. MEASUREMENTS: Their attending physician completed a daily structured assessment of symptomatic complications from admission to discharge or death. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled consecutive advanced cancer patients admitted to acute palliative care units at MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA, and Barretos Cancer Hospital, Brazil. RESULTS: A total of 352 patients were enrolled (MD Anderson Cancer Center = 151, Barretos Cancer Hospital = 201). Delirium, pneumonia, and bowel obstruction were the most common complications, occurring in 43%, 20%, and 16% of patients on admission, and 70%, 46%, and 35% during the entire acute palliative care unit stay, respectively. Symptomatic improvement for delirium (36/246, 15%), pneumonia (52/161, 32%), and bowel obstruction (41/124, 33%) was low. Survival analysis revealed that delirium (p < 0.001), pneumonia (p = 0.003), peritonitis (p = 0.03), metabolic acidosis (p < 0.001), and upper gastrointestinal bleed (p = 0.03) were associated with worse survival. Greater number of symptomatic complications on admission was also associated with poorer survival (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Symptomatic complications were common in cancer patients admitted to acute palliative care units, often do not resolve completely, and were associated with a poor prognosis despite active medical management.

The frequency and factors associated with the use of a dedicated Supportive Care Center Telephone Triaging Program in patients with advanced cancer at a comprehensive cancer center.

CONTEXT: There is limited literature on characteristics of telephone triage programs and the nature of interventions in palliative care. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to determine frequency and type of care provided by a Supportive Care Center Telephone Triaging Program (SCCTP) in advanced cancer patients (ACPs). METHODS: Electronic medical records were reviewed of 400 consecutive ACPs referred to palliative care at a comprehensive cancer center and given access to the SCCTP: 200 from the outpatient (OP) supportive care center and 200 from inpatient (IP) palliative care given access after discharge. We reviewed call frequency, type, reason, and outcomes including pain and other symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale [MDAS]) associated with utilization of the SCCTP. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients were evaluable. One hundred fifteen of 400 patients (29%) used the SCCTP: 96 OPs (83%) used the SCCTP vs. only 19 IPs (17%) (P < 0.001). The most common reasons for calls were pain (24%), pain medication refills (24%), and counseling (12%). For 115 phone calls, 43% (145 of 340) of recommendations were regarding care at home and 56% were regarding opioids. Patients who used the SCCTP had worse pain (P = 0.006), fatigue (P = 0.045), depression (P = 0.041), and well-being (P = 0.015) and better MDAS scores (P = 0.014) compared with nonusers. OPs had a higher prevalence of symptom distress (P = 0.013), depression (P < 0.001), anxiety (P < 0.01), and insomnia scores (P = 0.001); MDAS scores were significantly higher in IPs (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this study, we found that overall utilization of the SCCTP by ACPs referred to palliative care was relatively low at 28.7%. The use of the SCCTP was particularly poor among the IPs on discharge. Patients who used SCCTP had worse pain, fatigue, depression, and well-being scores and better delirium scores.