Optimizing COPD treatment in patients with lung- or head and neck cancer does not improve quality of life - a randomized, pilot, clinical trial.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common comorbidity in patients with lung and head- and neck cancer. Patients with lung cancer who also suffer from COPD have a worse prognosis than patients with lung cancer and no COPD. It has previously been shown that diagnosis and treatment of concomitant COPD in patients with newly diagnosed lung- or head and neck cancer need optimization. In this randomized, controlled trial we aimed to assess if intervention directed at improving treatment for COPD in these patients improved health-related quality of life (QoL). Methods: During 2014, we randomized 114 patients referred for oncological treatment at a large university hospital in the Capital Region of Denmark, to either usual care or intervention regarding concomitant COPD. The intervention consisted of two visits in an out-patient clinic established at the oncological department and staffed with a pulmonary physician. At baseline, week 13 and week 25, all patients filled out the cancer- and COPD-specific QoL questionnaires CAT and EORTC, respectively. The primary outcome was change in CAT-score between control- and intervention group. The secondary outcome was change in EORTC. Results: There was no change in CAT-score by week 13 or 25 between the groups. For the EORTC there was a statistically significant improvement only in the fatigue domain at week 13 (p = 0.03), but not at week 25. There was a trend towards less dyspnea in the intervention group at week 13, measured by EORTC (p = 0.07). Mortality by week 25 was similar in both groups. Conclusion: In this population of severely ill cancer patients, we did not find that this intervention, focusing on inhaled COPD medication, for the management of COPD had any convincing positive impact on the patients' perceived quality of life compared with usual care. Further studies are needed.

Asymptomatic Carriers Contribute to Nosocomial Clostridium difficile Infection: A Cohort Study of 4508 Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Nosocomial infections with Clostridium difficile present a considerable problem despite numerous attempts by health care workers to reduce risk of transmission. Asymptomatic carriers of C difficile can spread their infection to other patients. We investigated the effects of asymptomatic carriers on nosocomial C difficile infections. METHODS: We performed a population-based prospective cohort study at 2 university hospitals in Denmark, screening all patients for toxigenic C difficile in the intestine upon admittance, from October 1, 2012, to January 31, 2013. Screening results were blinded to patients, staff, and researchers. Patients were followed during their hospital stay by daily registration of wards and patient rooms. The primary outcomes were rate of C difficile infection in exposed and unexposed patients and factors associated with transmission. RESULTS: C difficile infection was detected in 2.6% of patients not exposed to carriers and in 4.6% of patients exposed to asymptomatic carriers at the ward level (odds ratio for infection if exposed to carrier, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.76). Amount of exposure correlated with risk of C difficile infection, from 2.2% in the lowest quartile to 4.2% in the highest quartile of exposed patients (P = .026). Combining the load of exposure to carriers and length of stay seemed to have an additive effect on the risk of contracting C difficile. CONCLUSIONS: In a population-based prospective cohort study in Denmark, we found that asymptomatic carriers of toxigenic C difficile in hospitals increase risk of infection in other patients.

Bronchoscopy as a supplement to computed tomography in patients with haemoptysis may be unnecessary.

BACKGROUND: Haemoptysis is a common symptom and can be an early sign of lung cancer. Careful investigation of patients with haemoptysis may lead to early diagnosis. The strategy for investigation of these patients, however, is still being debated. OBJECTIVES: We studied whether the combination of computed tomography (CT) and bronchoscopy had a higher sensitivity for malignant and non-malignant causes of haemoptysis than CT alone. METHODS: The study was a retrospective, non-randomised, two-centre study and included patients who were referred from primary care for the investigation of haemoptysis. RESULTS: A total of 326 patients were included in the study (mean age 60.5 [SD 15.3] years, 63.3% male). The most common aetiologies of haemoptysis were cryptogenic (52.5%), pneumonia (16.3%), emphysema (8.0%), bronchiectasis (5.8%) and lung cancer (4.0%). In patients diagnosed with lung cancer, bronchoscopy, CT and the combination of bronchoscopy and CT had a sensitivity of 0.61, 0.92 (p<0.05) and 0.97 (p=0.58), respectively. In patients with non-malignant causes of haemoptysis, most aetiologies were diagnosed by CT and comprised mainly pneumonia, emphysema and bronchiectasis. Bronchoscopy did not reveal these conditions and the sensitivity to these conditions was not increased by combining CT and bronchoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: CT can stand alone as a diagnostic workup for patients with haemoptysis referred to an outpatient clinic. Bronchoscopy does not identify any malignant aetiologies not already diagnosed by CT. Combining the two test modalities does not result in a significant increase in sensitivity for malignant or non-malignant causes of haemoptysis.

Prevalence and management of pulmonary comorbidity in patients with lung and head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: The simultaneous presence of cancer and other medical conditions (comorbidity) is frequent. Cigarette smoking is the major risk factor for as well head and neck cancer (HNC) and lung cancer (LC) as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). COPD is the most common comorbidity in LC patients, and presence of COPD worsens the prognosis of HNC and LC. COPD is under-diagnosed and under-treated in the Danish population. The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence of COPD in a HNC and LC population, and to determine the need and feasibility of a randomized controlled phase II trial comparing usual care with optimized medical treatment of COPD in cancer patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients with HNC or LC referred for oncologic treatment in a university hospital during a 10-month period were invited to attend a pulmonary clinic for evaluation of lung function. Patients who were found to have concomitant COPD were randomized to intervention or usual care. Primary endpoints were prevalence of COPD among the referred patients with either LC or HNC, and further whether the patients that were diagnosed with COPD already received treatment in accordance with Danish COPD guidelines. Secondary outcome was feasibility, i.e. the proportion of eligible patients that accepted follow-up in the pulmonary clinic for 24 weeks in addition to oncological treatment. The design of the randomized trail is described in detail. RESULTS: In total 130 patients of whom 65% had LC and 35% HNC have been screened during the first seven months of this ongoing trial. Sixty-eight percent of LC patients and 22% of HNC patients had COPD. All but one of 68 eligible patients accepted randomization. Nearly one third (31%) of the LC and HNC patients with COPD were diagnosed prior to study entry, and of these, only 33% were receiving correct treatment according to current guidelines. CONCLUSION: For patients with LC, and to a lesser extend HNC, there is a need for improved diagnosis and treatment of concomitant COPD. Furthermore, patients found it acceptable to be scheduled for a 24-week follow-up in a pulmonary clinic along with their oncological treatment.

[Surprising squamous cell carcinoma in the right upper lobe at bronchoscopy in a heavy smoker].

UNLABELLED: A 60-year-old male heavy smoker surprisingly presented with a squamous cell carcinoma in the right upper lobe at bronchoscopy. Combined PET-CT classified the lung cancer as T1aN0M0. However, the endoscopic classification was T2a, which radically reversed the treatment schedule. CONCLUSIONS: 1) A careful bronchoscopy is important even in cases where lung cancer is not expected. 2) Accurate endobronchial classification can be crucial. 3) There is need for training requirements to obtain a satisfactory level of competence in bronchoscopy.

An obstructing endobronchial lipoma simulating COPD.

Endobronchial lipomas are rare benign tumors of the respiratory tract. Bronchial occlusion may cause parenchymal damage and lead to a misdiagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or malignancy. Therefore, both accurate diagnosis and radical treatment of endobronchial lipomas are essential. We describe the case of a 61-year-old man with a history of smoking (40 pack years), dyspnea in exertion, and cough during the past 6 months due to an endobronchial lipoma. Chest computed tomographic (CT) scan revealed a circumscribed polypoid lesion partially obstructing the left lower lobe. The endobronchial lipoma was removed by flexible bronchoscopy, and the patient had complete resolution of symptoms following the procedure. Flexible bronchoscopy was normal at the 3-month follow-up. In addition, clinical characteristics, diagnosis, and treatment of endobronchial lipomas are discussed.

Feasibility of a telecare solution for patients admitted with COPD exacerbation: screening data from a pulmonary ward in a university hospital.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, the prevalence of COPD is increasing, and it places an increasing burden on health care systems worldwide. Therefore, there is a growing interest in home telecare solutions that can help patients manage their disease at home and thereby possibly reduce the risk of readmission. PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of a telehealth care solution when offered in connection with discharges from a pulmonary ward at a university hospital. Secondary aims are to assess the reasons for the exclusion of patients, and the reasons for patients not consenting to participate, as well as to identify the predictors for consenting or not consenting among the subgroup of eligible patients. METHODS: In this study, all data in the screening log were collected over a period of 10 months. RESULTS: A total of 462 patients admitted with an acute exacerbation in COPD (AECOPD) were screened. Almost 70% of the patients were excluded, and 49% of the eligible patients did not consent. Thus, only 15.6% of the screened patients were included. No significant differences were found regarding known risk factors of readmission between the eligible patients, who were included, and those who did not consent. The only significant difference was that more patients in the group that consented are being followed up in our outpatient clinic, notably 84% versus 55.7% (p<0.001), suggesting that this telehealthcare solution is 25 more appealing to those patients who are already being followed up in the outpatient clinic. CONCLUSION: These findings emphasize the importance of designing telecare solutions that allow for the inclusion of the actual population of patients admitted with AECOPD.