Impact of a palliative care consultation team on cancer-related symptoms in advanced cancer patients referred to an outpatient supportive care clinic.

CONTEXT: Patients with advanced cancer may develop severe physical and psychosocial symptoms. There are limited data on the impact of an outpatient palliative consultation (PC) team on cancer-related symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To study the impact of the PC on symptoms in patients with advanced cancer receiving outpatient palliative care. METHODS: Four hundred six consecutive patients referred to a supportive care outpatient center (OPC) from January 2006 to June 2007 with complete Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (0-10 scale) at the initial and follow-up visits were reviewed. Patient characteristics, change of symptoms at follow-up visit, and response rate were analyzed. Using logistic regression models, the predictors of improvement of pain and fatigue were assessed. RESULTS: Median age was 59 years; 53% were female. Median interval between visits was 15 days. Mean scores at baseline and follow-up visits were fatigue 6.8 and 5.3 (P<0.0001), pain 5.3 and 4.1 (P<0.0001), depression 3.2 and 2.5 (P<0.0001), anxiety 3.7 and 2.8 (P<0.0001), dyspnea 2.7 and 2.5 (P=0.05), sleep 5 and 4 (P<0.0001), and well-being 5.2 and 4.4 (P<0.0001). Dyspnea (odds ratio and P-value, 0.90, 0.03), nausea (0.92, 0.06), and depression (0.91, 0.04) were associated with improvement in fatigue; drowsiness (1.10, 0.04), and feeling of well-being (0.87, 0.02) were associated with improvement in pain. CONCLUSION: The initial consult by PC achieved significant symptom improvement in patients receiving treatment in the OPC. Further prospective studies are needed.

Supportive versus palliative care: what's in a name?: a survey of medical oncologists and midlevel providers at a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: : Palliative care has been progressively adopted by American cancer centers; however, referrals to palliative care continue to occur late in the trajectory of illness. It was hypothesized that the perceived association between the name palliative care and hospice was a barrier to early patients' referral. The objectives of this study were to determine the perception of the impact of the name palliative care compared with supportive care on patient referral and to determine whether there was an association between demographic factors and the perceptions of the 2 names by medical oncologists and their midlevel providers (advance practice nurses and physician assistants) at a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: : A survey was conducted among a random sample of 100 medical oncologists and 100 midlevel providers from The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Information was collected on demographics, previous experience in palliative care, and attitudes and beliefs toward the impact of the name palliative care compared with supportive care on patient referral. RESULTS: : A total of 140 of 200 (70%) participants responded (74 midlevel providers and 66 medical oncologists). Median age was 43 years (range, 34.5-50 years), and there were 83 (60%) women. Midlevel providers and medical oncologists generally agreed in their responses to most of the items. More participants preferred the name supportive care (80, 57%) compared with palliative care (27, 19% P < .0001). Medical oncologists and midlevel providers stated increased likelihood to refer patients on active primary (79 vs 45%, P < .0001) and advanced cancer (89 vs 69%, P < .0001) treatments to a service named supportive care. The name palliative care compared with supportive care was perceived more frequently by medical oncologists and midlevel providers as a barrier to referral (23 vs 6% P < .0001), decreasing hope (44 vs 11% P < .0001), and causing distress (33 vs 3% P < .0001) in patients and families. There were no significant associations among the perception of the 2 names and age (P = .82), sex (P = .35), or prior training in palliative care (P > .99). CONCLUSIONS: : The name palliative care was perceived by medical oncologists and midlevel providers as more distressing and reducing hope to patients and families. Medical oncologists and midlevel providers significantly prefer the name supportive care and stated more likelihood to refer patients on active primary and advanced cancer treatments to a service named supportive care. Cancer 2009. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.

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.

Association between fatigue and other cancer-related symptoms in patients with advanced cancer.

GOALS OF WORK: Although fatigue is the chronic symptom most commonly experienced by patients with advanced cancer, little research has been done on the associations and correlates of fatigue in this population. The aim of this study was, therefore, to determine whether fatigue scores, as measured by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), are associated with age, gender, type of cancer diagnosed, pain, and other cancer-related symptoms measured using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the FACIT-F (when a higher score denotes lower fatigue) and ESAS (when a lower fatigue score denotes lower fatigue intensity) scores of 268 patients with advanced cancer who had been previously enrolled in clinical trials of therapies for fatigue. To determine associations between variables, we performed univariate and multivariate analyses on the data. RESULTS: We found no univariate association between fatigue score and gender, ethnicity (p = 0.31), or type of cancer diagnosed. Performance status was associated with fatigue (p < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, we found, however, significant association between fatigue and pain (r = -0.20, p = 0.0012), nausea (r = -0.13, p = 0.04), anxiety (r = -0.27, p < 0.0001), fatigue and depression (r = -0.19, p = 0.0019), drowsiness (r = -0.24, p = 0.0002), dyspnea (r = -0.17, p = 0.007), anorexia (r = -0.29, p < 0.0001), insomnia (r = -0.25, p < 0.0001), and feelings of well-being (r = -0.37, p < 0.0001). Using backward stepwise logistic regression analysis, independent correlative factors associated with fatigue include well-being (p = .0003), drowsiness (0.006), anorexia (0.01), and anxiety (0.03). However, this model only explained 21% of the variation in the intensity of fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Although we found that fatigue is significantly associated with the severity of psychological symptoms (anxiety and depression) and physical symptoms (pain, dyspnea, insomnia, anorexia, and drowsiness), additional research is required to confirm that these are indeed the main associations of fatigue and, by doing so, enable physicians to better characterize fatigue in patients receiving palliative care.

Interval between first palliative care consult and death in patients diagnosed with advanced cancer at a comprehensive cancer center.

PURPOSE: Most referrals to palliative care and hospice occur late in the trajectory of the disease although an earlier intervention could decrease patients' symptom distress. The purpose of this study was to determine the interval between first palliative care consult (PC1) and death (D) in patients diagnosed with advanced cancer (aCA) at our comprehensive cancer center and if such interval has increased over time. METHODS: The study group was 2868 consecutive patients who had their PC1 during a 30-month period. We reviewed the charts for information about demographics, cancer type, date of cancer (CA) diagnosis, aCA diagnosis, PC1, and D. aCA was defined as locally recurrent or metastatic. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred four patients (49%) were female, 1791 (62%) were less than 65 years old, 2563 (89%) had solid tumors, and 2004 (70%) were white. The median PC1-D, aCA-PC1, aCA-D, and CA-D intervals were 42, 147, 250, and 570 days, respectively. The median PC1-D interval was longer in patients with solid tumors (p < 0.0001), less than 65 years old (p = 0.002), and females (p = 0.004). PC1-D was not affected by ethnicity (p = 0.42). The median PC1-D interval in 5 consecutive half-years was 46, 56, 42, 41, and 34 days, respectively (p = 0.02). The number of PC1 in this period increased from 544 to 654 (20%). The ratio of PC involvement in the aCA-D period (PC1-D/aCA-D) decreased from 0.30 to 0.26 over the 5 half-year periods (p = 0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: The first palliative care consultation to death interval has decreased over time at our center. Education is needed among our referring physicians for earlier access to palliative care. Prospective studies are needed to establish the appropriate timing of the first palliative care consultation.

Comparison of symptom burden among patients referred to palliative care with hematologic malignancies versus those with solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hematologic malignancies have reduced and later access to palliative care services (APCS) than do those with solid tumors. It is unclear whether these patients develop a high symptom burden at the end of life that requires special palliative care interventions. The purposes of this retrospective study were to determine whether symptoms are less severe in patients with hematologic than in those with solid malignancies on APCS and whether symptom severity is associated with early APCS. METHODS: We studied the records of consecutive patients with hematologic and solid malignancies at their first palliative care consultation (PC1). We collected information about demographics, cancer type, date of PC1, and the interval from PC1 to death (PC1-D). We reviewed the charts for the Edmonton Symptoms Assessment System (ESAS) and presence of delirium. RESULTS: We included 250 patients (125 with each type of malignancy). Median pain and drowsiness were 4 (3-5) and 7 (5-10) among hematologic compared to 5 (4-6, p=0.043) and 5 (3-6, p=0.0008) among patients with solid malignancies, respectively. Delirium was detected in 51 of 125 (41%) hematologic versus 20 of 125 (16%) solid (p=0.0001). Median PC1-D was 13 days for hematologic versus 46 days for solid (p=0.0001). There was no correlation between PC1-D and pain (r= -0.117, p=0.4 for hematologic and r=0.09, p=0.37 for solid), dyspnea (r= -0.02, p=0.85 for hematologic and r=0.09, p=0.42 for solid) or the Symptom Distress Score (r= -0.047, p=0.72 for hematologic and r= -0.093, p=0.32 for solid). CONCLUSIONS: Hematologic patients had increased delirium and drowsiness and later APCS The overall symptom severity was similar in both groups of patients and did not correlate with early APCS. Future prospective studies are needed to better define APCS patterns in this group.

Donepezil for cancer fatigue: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of donepezil compared with placebo in cancer patients with fatigue as measured by the Functional Assessment for Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with fatigue score >or= 4 on a scale of 0 to 10 (0 = no fatigue, 10 = worst possible fatigue) for more than 1 week were included. Patients were randomly assigned to receive donepezil 5 mg or placebo orally every morning for 7 days. A research nurse contacted the patients by telephone daily to assess toxicity and fatigue level. All patients were offered open-label donepezil during the second week. FACIT-F and/or the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) were assessed at baseline, and days 8, 11, and 15. The FACIT-F fatigue subscale score on day 8 was considered the primary end point. RESULTS: Of 142 patients randomly assigned to treatment, 47 patients in the donepezil group and 56 in the placebo group were assessable for final analysis. Fatigue intensity improved significantly on day 8 in both donepezil and placebo groups. However, there was no significant difference in fatigue improvement by FACIT-F (P = .57) or ESAS (P = .18) between groups. In the open-label phase, fatigue intensity continued to be low as compared with baseline. No significant toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION: Donepezil was not significantly superior to placebo in the treatment of cancer-related fatigue.