Helpfulness of Question Prompt Sheet for Patient-Physician Communication Among Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There are few robust evaluations of disease-specific question prompt sheets (QPS) in patient-physician communication among patients with advanced cancer. Objective: To compare the patient perception of helpfulness, global evaluation, and preference for the QPS vs a general information sheet (GIS), and to examine the effect of the QPS on participants' anxiety, participants' speaking time, number of questions asked, and length of the clinical encounter. Design, Setting, and Participants: This controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted at an outpatient palliative and supportive care clinic in a cancer center in the US. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had a cancer diagnosis, and were undergoing their first outpatient consultation visit with a palliative care physician from September 1, 2017, to May 31, 2019. Data analysis used a modified intention-to-treat design. Data were analyzed from May 18 to June 27, 2022. Intervention: QPS, a 25-item list of questions developed by expert palliative care clinicians using a Delphi process and tested among ambulatory advanced cancer patients. The control was GIS, generic information material given routinely to patients seen at the supportive care clinic. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was patient perception of helpfulness. Secondary outcomes included global evaluation and preference of QPS compared with GIS immediately after the encounter. Results: A total of 130 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.6 [13.3] years; 79 [60.8%] female) were randomized to receive either QPS (67 patients [51.5%]) or GIS (63 patients [48.5%]). Patients considered QPS and GIS equally helpful, with no statistically significant difference (mean [SD] helpfulness score, 7.2 [2.3] points vs 7.1 [2.7] points; P = .79). The QPS group, compared with the GIS group, had a higher global positive view of the material (mean [SD] global perception score, 7.1 [1.3] vs 6.5 [1.7]; P = .03) and felt it prompted them more to generate new questions (mean [SD] rating, 7.0 [2.9] vs 5.3 [3.5]; P = .005). Of 47 patients asked their preference between the items, more participants preferred the QPS to the GIS in communicating with their physicians (24 patients [51.1%] vs 7 patients [14.9%]; P = .01) at the 4-week follow-up. No significant differences between the QPS and GIS groups were observed regarding participant anxiety, speaking time, number of questions asked, or consultation length (eg, mean [SD] anxiety rating, 2.3 [3.7] vs 1.6 [2.7]; P = .19). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, participants perceived both QPS and GIS as equally helpful, but they had a more positive global view of and preferred the QPS. QPS facilitated generation of new questions without increasing patient anxiety nor prolonging the consultation. The findings provide support for increased adoption and integration of QPS into routine oncologic care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03287492.

Death Anxiety and Correlates in Cancer Patients Receiving Palliative Care.

Background: Death anxiety is powerful, potentially contributes to suffering, and yet has to date not been extensively studied in the context of palliative care. Availability of a validated Death Anxiety and Distress Scale (DADDS) opens the opportunity to better assess and redress death anxiety in serious illness. Objective: We explored death anxiety/distress for associations with physical and psychosocial factors. Design: Ancillary to a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of Dignity Therapy (DT), we enrolled a convenience sample of 167 older adults in the United States with cancer and receiving outpatient palliative care (mean age 65.9 [7.3] years, 62% female, 84% White, 62% stage 4 cancer). They completed the DADDS and several measures for the stepped-wedged RCT, including demographic factors, religious struggle, dignity-related distress, existential quality of life (QoL), and terminal illness awareness (TIA). Results: DADDS scores were generally unrelated to demographic factors (including religious affiliation, intrinsic religiousness, and frequency of prayer). DADDS scores were positively correlated with religious struggle (p < 0.001) and dignity-related distress (p < 0.001) and negatively correlated with existential QoL (p < 0.001). TIA was significantly nonlinearly associated with both the total DADDS (p = 0.007) and its Finitude subscale (p ≤ 0.001) scores. There was a statistically significant decrease in Finitude subscale scores for a subset of participants who completed a post-DT DADDS (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Findings, if replicable, suggest that further research on death anxiety and prognostic awareness in the context of palliative medicine is in order. Findings also raise questions about the optimal nature and timing of spiritual and psychosocial interventions, something that might entail evaluation or screening for death anxiety and prognostic awareness for maximizing the effectiveness of care.

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.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Advanced Cancer Patients Who Received Palliative Care at a Public Hospital Compared with Those at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer experience severe physical, psychosocial, and spiritual distress requiring palliative care (PC). There are limited literature regarding characteristics and outcomes of patients evaluated by PC services at public hospitals (PHs). Objective, Design, Setting/Subjects, and Measurements: To compare the outcomes of advanced cancer patients undergoing PC at a PH and those at a comprehensive cancer center (CCC). We reviewed 359 consecutive advanced cancer patients (PH, 180; CCC, 179) undergoing PC. Symptoms and outcomes at consultation and first follow-up visit were assessed. Summary statistics were used to describe patient characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: The PH and CCC patients differed significantly according to race: 23% white, 39% black, and 36% Hispanic patients at the PH versus 66% white, 17% black, and 11% Hispanic patients at the CCC (p < 0.0001). Ninety-six (53%) patients at PH and 178 (99%) at the CCC had health insurance (p < 0.0001). Symptoms at consultation at PH and CCC were pain (85% and 91%, respectively; p = 0.0639), fatigue (81% and 94%, respectively; p = 0.0003), depression (51% and 69%, respectively; p = 0.0013), anxiety (47% and 75%, respectively; p < 0.0001), and well-being (63% and 93%, respectively; p < 0.0001). Multiple interventions provided: opioids, reviews for polypharmacy, constipation management, and interdisciplinary counseling. Median time from outpatient consultation to follow-up was 29 days(range, 1-119 days) at the PH and 21 days (range, 1-275 days) at the CCC (p = 0.0006). Median overall survival time from outpatient consultation was 473 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 205-699 days) at PH and 245 days (95% CI, 152-491 days) at CCC (p = 0.3408). CONCLUSIONS: Advanced cancer patients at both institutions frequently had multiple distressing physical and emotional symptoms, although the frequency was higher at CCC. The median overall survival duration was higher at the PH. More research is needed.

Developing a Healing Environment for Broken Souls of Patients With Life-Threatening Illnesses and Their Caregivers.

What a privilege it is to be able to touch those sacred spaces in the soul of each person that we encounter everyday. Patients with life-threatening illnesses can struggle with physical, emotional, and existential and spiritual concerns and the suffering of caregivers. A key goal of our supportive and palliative care teams is to alleviate patient and caregiver suffering. When caring for patients with advanced and terminal illness, the spirituality of each member of the palliative care team becomes a single collective spirituality or soul with common goals, values, and belonging, with a main goal of providing the best care for patients and caregivers in the alleviation of suffering. Embracing the spiritual care into our daily practice is a common effort and a service provided by each member of the team. Our role as members of the collective soul is to preserve human dignity and raise up the broken souls of patients living with life-threatening illness by creating healing environments.

Frequency, intensity, and correlates of spiritual pain in advanced cancer patients assessed in a supportive/palliative care clinic.

OBJECTIVE: Regular assessments of spiritual distress/spiritual pain among patients in a supportive/palliative care clinic (SCPC) are limited or unavailable. We modified the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) by adding spiritual pain (SP) to the scale (0 = best, 10 = worst) to determine the frequency, intensity, and correlates of self-reported SP (≥1/10) (pain deep in your soul/being that is not physical) among these advanced cancer patients. METHOD: We reviewed 292 consecutive consults of advanced cancer patients (ACPs) who were evaluated at our SCPC between October of 2012 and January of 2013. Symptoms were assessed using the new instrument (termed the ESAS-FS). RESULTS: The median age of patients was 61 (range = 22-92). Some 53% were male; 189 (65%) were white, 45 (15%) African American, and 34 (12%) Hispanic. Some 123 of 282 (44%) of ACPs had SP (mean (95% CI) = 4(3.5-4.4). Advanced cancer patients with SP had worse pain [mean (95% CI) = 5.3(4.8, 5.8) vs. 4.5(4.0, 5.0)] (p = 0.02); depression [4.2(3.7, 4.7) vs. 2.1(1.7, 2.6), p < 0.0001]; anxiety [4.2(3.6, 4.7) vs. 2.5(2.0, 3.0), p < 0.0001]; drowsiness [4.2(3.7, 4.7) vs. 2.8(2.3, 3.2), p < 0.0001]; well-being [5.4(4.9, 5.8) vs. 4.5(4.1, 4.9), p = 0.0136]; and financial distress (FD) [4.4(3.9, 5.0) vs. 2.2(1.8, 2.7), p < 0.0001]. Spiritual pain correlated (Spearman) with depression (r = 0.45, p < 0.0001), anxiety (r = 0.34, p < 0.0001), drowsiness (r = 0.26, p < 0.0001), and FD (r = 0.44, p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed an association with FD [OR (95% Wald CI) = 1.204(1.104-1.313), p < 0.0001] and depression [1.218(1.110-1.336), p < 0.0001]. The odds that patients who had SP at baseline would also have SP at follow-up were 182% higher (OR = 2.82) than for patients who were SP-negative at baseline (p = 0.0029). SP at follow-up correlated with depression (r = 0.35, p < 0.0001), anxiety (r = 0.25, p = 0.001), well-being (r = 0.27, p = 0.0006), nausea (r = 0.29, p = 0.0002), and financial distress (r = 0.42, p < 0.0001). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Spiritual pain, which is correlated with physical and psychological distress, was reported in more than 40% of ACPs. Employment of the ESAS-FS allows ACPs with SP to be identified and evaluated in an SCPC. More research is needed.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with advanced cancer evaluated by a palliative care team at an emergency center. A retrospective study.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced cancer may be referred for a palliative care consultation (PC) from a hospital emergency center (EC) or as inpatients. However, research about symptoms and outcomes in patients with advanced cancer who receive PC at the EC is limited. METHODS: We reviewed demographic variables, frequency and intensity of symptoms (using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS)), PC interventions, time from admission to PC consultation, hospitalization duration, and discharge destination of 200 advanced cancer patients referred to PC services from the EC ("EC patients") and 200 matched advanced cancer inpatients referred to PC services ("inpatients") from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2011. RESULTS: The median age for all patients was 56 years (range, 48-64 years); 222 (56 %) patients were female, and 243 (61 %) were white. There were no significant demographic differences between the EC patients and inpatients. The median time from admission to PC was 12 h (range, 7-23 h) for the EC patients and 24 h (24-96 h) for the inpatients (p < 0.0001). For EC patients and inpatients, symptoms at presentation for PC consultation included uncontrolled pain (83 and 45 %, respectively; p < 0.0001), nausea/vomiting/constipation (41 and 19 %, respectively; p < 0.0001), and dyspnea (29 and 19 %, respectively; p = 0.02). The medians and interquartile ranges of baseline symptom intensities for EC patients and inpatients, respectively, were as follows: pain, 7 (5-9) and 5 (2-8) (p < 0.0001); fatigue, 7 (4-8) and 6 (4-8) (p = 0.0517); and sleep, 6 (0-8) and 4 (1-7) (p = 0.1064). At follow-up, improvement was observed in pain (125/238 [53 %]), sleep (59/131 [45 %]), well-being (32/82 [39 %]), fatigue (53/139 [38 %]), anxiety (51/132 [39 %]), appetite (46/132 [35 %]), dyspnea (49/160 [31 %]), nausea (52/170 [31 %]), depression (36/123 [29 %]), and drowsiness (37/126 [29 %]). After PC consultations, discharge/admission destinations for EC patients were as follows: home, 65 (33 %); home hospice, 13 (7 %); inpatient hospice, 8 (4 %); regular hospital floor, 65 (33 %); and PC unit, 46 (23 %). The median duration of hospitalization was 92 h (range, 69-114) for hospitalized EC patients and 125 h (range, 108-142) for inpatients (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Referral to PC from the EC led to earlier delivery of PC with subsequent earlier control of symptoms. EC patients who received PC consultations and were hospitalized had shorter hospitalizations than PC referral in the inpatient area. More research is needed to describe the impact of PC services on symptom assessment and management and on goals and plan of care in patients with advanced illness admitted to the EC.

Avoidable and unavoidable visits to the emergency department among patients with advanced cancer receiving outpatient palliative care.

CONTEXT: Admissions to the emergency department (ED) can be distressing to patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative care. There is limited research about the clinical characteristics of these patients and whether these ED visits can be categorized as avoidable or unavoidable. OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency of potentially avoidable ED visits (AvEDs) for patients with advanced cancer receiving outpatient palliative care in a large tertiary cancer center, identify the clinical characteristics of the patients receiving palliative care who visited the ED, and analyze the factors associated with AvEDs and unavoidable ED visits (UnAvEDs). METHODS: We randomly selected 200 advanced cancer patients receiving treatment in the outpatient palliative care clinic of a tertiary cancer center who visited the ED between January 2010 and December 2011. Visits were classified as AvED (if the problem could have been managed in the outpatient clinic or by telephone) or UnAvED. RESULTS: Forty-six (23%) of 200 ED visits were classified as AvED, and 154 (77%) of 200 ED visits were classified as UnAvED. Pain (71/200, 36%) was the most common chief complaint in both groups. Altered mental status, dyspnea, fever, and bleeding were present in the UnAvED group only. Infection, neurologic events, and cancer-related dyspnea were significantly more frequent in the UnAvED group, whereas constipation and running out of pain medications were significantly more frequent in the AvED group (P < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, AvED was associated with nonwhite ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] 2.66; 95% CI 1.26, 5.59) and constipation (OR 17.08; 95% CI 3.76, 77.67), whereas UnAvED was associated with ED referral from the outpatient oncology or palliative care clinic (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.06, 0.88) and the presence of baseline dyspnea (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.21, 0.99). CONCLUSION: Nearly one-fourth of ED visits by patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative care were potentially avoidable. Proactive efforts to improve communication and support between scheduled appointments are needed.

Characteristics and outcomes of advanced cancer patients who miss outpatient supportive care consult appointments.

BACKGROUND: Missed appointments (MA) are frequent, but there are no studies on the effects of the first MA at supportive care outpatient clinics on clinical outcomes. METHODS: We determined the frequency of MA among all patients referred to our clinic from January-December 2011 and recorded the clinical and demographic data and outcomes of 218 MA patients and 217 consecutive patients who kept their first appointments (KA). RESULTS: Of 1,352 advanced-cancer patients referred to our clinic, 218 (16 %) had an MA. The MA patients' median age was 57 years (interquartile range, 49-67). The mean time between referral and appointment was 7.4 days (range, 0-71) for KA patients vs. 9.1 days (range, 0-89) for MA patients (P = 0.006). Reasons for missing included admission to the hospital (17/218 [8 %]), death (4/218 [2 %]), appointments with primary oncologists (37/218 [18 %]), other appointments (19/218 [9 %]), visits to the emergency room (ER) (9/218 [9 %]), and unknown (111/218 [54 %]). MA patients visited the ER more at 2 weeks (16/214 [7 %] vs. 5/217 [2 %], P = 0.010) and 4 weeks (17/205 [8 %] vs. 8/217 [4 %], P = 0.060). Median-survival duration for MA patients was 177 days (range, 127-215) vs. 253 days (range, 192-347) for KA patients (P = 0.013). Multivariate analysis showed that MAs were associated with longer time between referral and scheduled appointment (odds ratio [OR], 1.026/day, P = 0.030), referral from targeted therapy services (OR, 2.177, P = 0.004), living in Texas/Louisiana regions (OR, 2.345, P = 0.002), having an advanced directive (OR, 0.154, P < 0.0001), and being referred for symptom control (OR, 0.024, P = 0.0003). CONCLUSION: MA patients with advanced cancer have worse survival and increased ER utilization than KA patients. Patients at higher risk for MA should undergo more aggressive follow-up. More research is needed.

A multicenter survey of Hispanic caregiver preferences for patient decision control in the United States and Latin America.

BACKGROUND: Understanding family caregivers' decisional role preferences is important for communication, quality of care, and patient and family satisfaction. The family caregiver has an important role in a patient's decisional role preferences. There are limited studies on family caregivers' preferences of the patient's decision control at the end of life among Hispanics. AIMS: To identify Hispanic caregivers' preferences of the decision control of patients with advanced cancer and to compare the preferences of caregivers in Hispanic Latin American and Hispanic American caregivers. DESIGN: We surveyed patients and their family caregivers referred to outpatient palliative care clinics in the United States, Chile, Argentina, and Guatemala. Caregiver preferences of patient's decision control were evaluated using the Control Preference Scale. Caregivers' and patients' sociodemographic variables, patient performance status, and Hispanic American patient acculturation level were also collected. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 387 caregivers were surveyed: 100 (26%) in Chile, 99 (26%) in Argentina, 97 (25%) in Guatemala, and 91 (24%) in the United States. The median age was 56 years, and 59% were female. RESULTS: Caregiver preference of patient's decision control was passive, shared, and active for 10 (11%), 45 (52%), and 32 (37%) Hispanic American caregivers and 54 (19%), 178 (62%), and 55 (19%) Hispanic Latin American caregivers (p = 0.0023), respectively. Caregiver acculturation level did not affect the preferences of the Hispanic American sample (p = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Most Hispanic family caregivers preferred the patient to make shared decisions. Hispanic Latin American caregivers more frequently preferred patients to assume a passive decisional role. Acculturation did not influence the preferences of Hispanic American caregivers.

Spirituality, religiosity, and spiritual pain among caregivers of patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Caregivers of patients with advanced cancer often face physical, social, and emotional distress as well as spiritual pain. Limited research has focused on the spiritual aspects of caregivers' suffering in the palliative care setting. METHODS: We interviewed 43 caregivers of patients with advanced cancer in our palliative care outpatient clinic. We determined demographic characteristics, religious affiliation, and relationship to the patient. Levels of spirituality, religiosity, and spiritual pain were self-reported using numeric rating scales (0 = lowest; 10 = highest). The participants completed various validated questionnaires to assess sleep disturbances, psychosocial distress, coping skills, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: The median age was 52 years (range, 21-83); 29 (67%) were women, 34 (78%) were white, 7 (17%) were African American, and 2 (5%) were Hispanic; 39 (91%) were Christian, 1 (2%) was Jewish, and 1 (2%) was agnostic; 37 (86%) were married; 18 (42%) were working full time; and 25 (58%) were spouses. All considered themselves spiritual, and 98% considered themselves religious, with median scores of 8 (interquartile range, 6-10) and 8 (interquartile range, 4-9), respectively. All the caregivers reported that spirituality and religiosity helped them cope with their loved one's illness, and many reported that spirituality and religiosity had a positive impact on their loved one's physical (58%) and emotional (76%) symptoms. Spiritual pain was reported by 23 (58%), with a median score of 5 (interquartile range, 2-8). Caregivers with spiritual pain had higher levels of anxiety (median 10 vs 4; P = .002), depression (6 vs 2; P = .006), and denial (3 vs 2; P = .01); more behavioral disengagement (3 vs 2; P = 0.011) more dysfunctional coping strategies (19 vs 16; P < .001) and worse QOL (70 vs 51; P < .001) than those who did not have spiritual pain. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of caregivers of patients with advanced cancer considered themselves spiritual and religious. Despite this, there is high prevalence of spiritual pain in this population. Caregivers with spiritual pain experienced worse psychological distress and worse QOL. These findings support the importance of spiritual assessment of and spiritual support for caregivers in this setting.

Decisional control preferences of Hispanic patients with advanced cancer from the United States and Latin America.

CONTEXT: Understanding cancer patients' preferences in decisional roles is important in providing quality care and ensuring patient satisfaction. There is a lack of evidence on decisional control preferences (DCPs) of Hispanic Americans, the fastest growing population in the U.S. OBJECTIVES: The primary aims of this study were to describe DCPs of Hispanics with advanced cancer in the U.S. (HUSs) and compare the frequency of passive DCPs in this population with that of Hispanics with advanced cancer in Latin America (HLAs). METHODS: We conducted a prospective survey of patients with advanced cancer referred to outpatient palliative care clinics in the U.S., Chile, Argentina, and Guatemala. Information was collected on sociodemographic variables, Karnofsky Performance Scale scores, acculturation (Marin Acculturation Assessment Tool), and DCP (Control Preference Scale). Chi-square tests were used to determine the differences in DCPs between HUSs and HLAs. RESULTS: A total of 387 patients were surveyed: 91 in the U.S., 100 in Chile, 94 in Guatemala, and 99 in Argentina. The median age of HUSs was 56 years, 59% were female, and the median Karnofsky Performance Scale score was 60; the corresponding values for HLAs were 60 years, 60%, and 80. HLAs used passive DCP strategies significantly more frequently than HUSs did with regard to the involvement of the family (24% vs. 10%; P=0.009) or the physician (35% vs. 16%; P<0.001), even after age and education were controlled for. Eighty-three percent of HUSs and 82% of HLAs preferred family involvement in decision making (P=non-significant). No significant differences were found in DCPs between poorly and highly acculturated HUSs (P=0.91). CONCLUSION: HUSs had more active DCPs than HLAs did. Among HUSs, acculturation did not seem to play a role in DCP determination. Our findings confirm the importance of family participation for both HUSs and HLAs. However, HUSs were less likely to want family members to make decisions on their behalf.

Efficacy and safety of fentanyl buccal for cancer pain management by administration through a soluble film: an update.

More than half of patients receiving prescription medicine for cancer pain have been reported to experience inadequate pain relief or breakthrough pain. Buccal administration can deliver lipophilic opioids rapidly to the systemic circulation through the buccal mucosa, limiting gastrointestinal motility and first-pass metabolism. This review updates the safety and efficacy of fentanyl buccal soluble film (FBSF) in patients with cancer pain. Literature was identified through searches of Medline (PubMed). Search terms included combinations of the following: cancer pain, fentanyl, fentanyl buccal soluble film, pharmacology, kinetics, safety, efficacy and toxicity. FBSF is an oral transmucosal form of fentanyl citrate developed as a treatment of breakthrough pain in opioid-tolerant patients with cancer. Studies have shown that it is well tolerated in the oral cavity, with adequate bioavailability and safety in cancer patients. Further studies are warranted to evaluate, in comparison with other short-acting opioids, its efficacy in the management of breakthrough cancer pain, its addictive potential and its economic impact in cancer patients.

Alcoholism screening in patients with advanced cancer: impact on symptom burden and opioid use.

PURPOSE: Alcoholism is a devastating disease that can cause patient and family suffering and is frequently underdiagnosed. Preliminary studies suggest that it is associated with increased symptom expression and opioid dose escalation. The CAGE questionnaire is a widely used tool for alcoholism screening. The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and characteristics of patients who screen positive for alcoholism in a palliative care outpatient clinic (PCOC). METHODS: We reviewed 665 consecutive charts of patients referred to the PCOC and collected data regarding age, gender, and type of cancer. For the first 100 consecutive CAGE positive (CAGE+) and 100 consecutive CAGE negative (CAGE-) patients, time from advanced cancer diagnosis (AC) to PCOC was calculated, and symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, ESAS) and Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (MEDD) were collected. RESULTS: CAGE was available for 598 of 665 (90%) patients. Of 598 patients, 100 (17%) were CAGE+. CAGE+ patients were younger (58 versus 60 years, p < 0.05), predominantly male (68% versus 47%, p < 0.0001), and with head/neck malignancies (24% versus 9%, p < 0.05). CAGE+ patients were referred earlier (5 +/- 27 months after AC, p < 0.0001). At baseline, pain, sleep, dyspnea, well-being, and total symptom distress were significantly worse among CAGE+ patients. Both groups showed similar improvement in symptoms. CAGE+ patients were more frequently on opioids upon referral (47/100 versus 29/100, p < 0.05) and follow-up (27/65 versus 16/68, p < 0.05). At follow-up, opioid doses did not show significant changes. CONCLUSION: Seventeen percent of the patients were CAGE+. These patients were referred earlier to palliative care, had more symptom expression, and were more frequently on opioids. The palliative care team successfully improved symptom control in both groups without opioid dose escalation.

Management of pain in the older person with cancer. Part 2: treatment options.

Pain in older cancer patients is a common event, and many times it is undertreated. Barriers to cancer pain management in the elderly include concerns about the use of medications, the atypical manifestations of pain in the elderly, and side effects related to opioid and other analgesic drugs. The care of older cancer patients experiencing pain involves a comprehensive assessment, which includes evaluation for conditions that may exacerbate or be exacerbated by pain, affecting its expression, such as emotional and spiritual distress, disability, and comorbid conditions. It is important to use appropriate tools to evaluate pain and other symptoms that can be related to it. Pain in older cancer patients should be managed in an interdisciplinary environment using pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions whose main goals are decreasing suffering and improving quality of life. In this two-part article, the authors present a review of the management of pain in older cancer patients, emphasizing the roles of adequate assessment and a multidisciplinary team approach.

Delirium with severe symptom expression related to hypercalcemia in a patient with advanced cancer: an interdisciplinary approach to treatment.

Delirium is considered to be multifactorial, especially in elderly patients and those with advanced cancer, and can cause significant distress. High baseline vulnerability at the end of life, combined with cachexia, hepatic impairment, general comorbidities, and impaired functional status, can make delirium difficult to correct. Nonetheless, approximately 50% of delirium episodes are potentially reversible and reversible causes should be investigated. Hypercalcemia is one of the reversible metabolic causes of delirium in patients with advanced cancer. Here, we present the case of a patient with metastatic small cell prostate carcinoma who presented to our palliative care clinic with uncontrolled symptoms. A thorough evaluation using appropriate assessment tools revealed that he had delirium, and hypercalcemia was found to be the major etiologic factor. An interdisciplinary team approach (including a nutritionist, pharmacist, counselor, social worker, chaplain, and case manager) was provided. With aggressive symptom management and correction of hypercalcemia and other reversible causes of delirium, the delirium was resolved and the symptoms were controlled. This case illustrates the importance of screening for delirium in patients with severe symptom distress and how the interdisciplinary management of reversible causes of delirium, including hypercalcemia, can improve patients' symptoms and quality of life.

Management of pain in the older person with cancer.

Pain in older cancer patients is a common event, and many times it is undertreated. Barriers to cancer pain management in the elderly include concerns about the use of medications, the atypical manifestations of pain in the elderly, and side effects related to opioid and other analgesic drugs. The care of older cancer patients experiencing pain involves a comprehensive assessment, which includes evaluation for conditions that may exacerbate or be exacerbated by pain, affecting its expression, such as emotional and spiritual distress, disability, and comorbid conditions. It is important to use appropriate tools to evaluate pain and other symptoms that can be related to it. Pain in older cancer patients should be managed in an interdisciplinary environment using pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions whose main goals are decreasing suffering and improving quality of life. In this two-part article, the authors present a review of the management of pain in older cancer patients, emphasizing the roles of adequate assessment and a multidisciplinary team approach.