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.

Patient behaviors during virtual clinic encounters in palliative care.

Telehealth use has accelerated since the COVID-19 pandemic and provided access for palliative care patients often facing challenges with travel and limited specialist availability. Our palliative care clinic at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center has rapidly adopted telehealth which continues to grow and provide care for patients since the pandemic, becoming a routine part of our center. While we strive to maintain consistency when it comes to compassionate, sensitive verbal and non-verbal communication, we have witnessed both advantages and disadvantages to telehealth services. We have come across unanticipated virtual visit challenges while trying to deliver quality care, surprising us from the other side of the camera. In this paper, we describe three cases of unexpected telehealth etiquette that posed new challenges in being able to complete virtual visits. We propose guidelines for setting patient etiquette for a productive telehealth palliative visit.

Place-of-death preferences among patients with cancer and family caregivers in inpatient and outpatient palliative care.

OBJECTIVE: Meeting the preferences of patients is considered an important palliative care outcome. Prior studies reported that more than 80% of patients with terminally ill cancer prefer to die at home. The purpose of this study was to determine place-of-death preference among palliative care patients in the outpatient centre and the palliative care unit (PCU) of a comprehensive cancer centre. METHODS: A cross-sectional anonymous questionnaire was administered to patients with advanced cancer and caregivers (PCU and outpatient centre) between August 2012 and September 2014. PCU patients responded when there was no delirium and the primary caregiver responded when the patient was unable to respond. In the case of outpatients, dyads were assessed. The survey was repeated 1 month later. RESULTS: Overall, 65% preferred home death. There was less preference for home death among PCU patients (58%) than among outpatients (72%). Patient and caregiver agreement regarding preferred place of death for home was 86%. After 1 month, outpatients were significantly more likely than PCU patients to have the same preferred place of death as they had 1 month earlier (96% vs 83%; p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Although home was the preferred place of death in our group of patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers, a substantial minority preferred hospital death or had no preference. We speculate that PCU patients' higher preference for hospital death is likely related to more severe distress because they had already tried home care. Personalised assessment of place of death preference for both patient and caregiver is needed.

Exercise Barriers and Adherence to Recommendations in Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: The American College of Sports Medicine exercise guidelines for cancer survivors encourage a combination of 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity and 2-3 weekly sessions of strength training. Cancer survivors often experience more barriers to meeting recommended guidelines because of side effects from cancer treatments. Our aim was to measure the cancer survivors' adherence and barriers with these recommendations. METHODS: Two hundred adult cancer survivors completed surveys (Stanford Patient Education Research Center Exercise Behaviors Survey and an exercise barrier scale) reporting their physical activity, barriers to physical activity, and symptom assessment. RESULTS: A total of 68/200 participants (34%) reported adhering to the recommended physical activity guidelines of 150 minutes or more per week. Those who adhered to the guidelines reported fewer barriers to exercise (mean of 2.44 compared with 4.15 barriers, P < .0001). Female participants (P = .01), higher number of barriers, and feeling of poor well-being were less likely to report at least 60 or 150 minutes of exercise time. Lack of interest (P = .003) and self-discipline (P = .001) were reported as barriers. These participants were more likely to report high symptom burden of pain (P = .007) and fatigue (P = .005). Participants who reported < 60 minutes of exercise reported lack of enjoyment (P = .03), lack of equipment (P = .01), and symptoms of poor appetite, poor well-being, and increased dyspnea. CONCLUSION: Although recommendations are given for exercise, adherence to recommendations is low. Issues of motivation, including lack of interest and self-discipline, and symptoms of pain and fatigue were some of the main reported barriers to adhering to the recommended exercise guidelines. Therefore, interventions aimed at increasing motivation and treating symptoms could improve cancer survivor adherence to recommended exercise guidelines.

A retrospective review of the use of oxymorphone immediate release for long term pain control in cancer patients with gastrostomy tubes.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients often require feeding or venting gastrostomy-tubes (G-tubes) for enteral nutrition or symptom palliation. The administration of most extended-release (ER) opioids via the G-tube or orally followed by clamping of the venting G-tube is contraindicated. Oxymorphone immediate release (IR) may be useful because of its longer half-life compared to other IR opioids. We examined the use of oxymorphone IR administered every 8 hours in patients with G-tubes. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of 40 consecutive cancer patients with G-tubes who underwent opioid rotation (OR) to oxymorphone. Demographics, symptoms, morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), and oxymorphone dose were collected. Successful OR was defined as a 2-point or 30% reduction in pain score and continued use of oxymorphone at follow-up in outpatient setting, or discharge in inpatient setting. Opioid rotation ration (ORR) between MEDD and oxymorphone in patients with successful OR was calculated as MEDD before the OR divided by total oxymorphone dose/day at follow-up or discharge. RESULTS: The median age was 56 years, 57.5% were white, 68% male, 47.5% (n=19) had head and neck cancer, 90% had advanced disease, 67.5% (n=27) were inpatient, and 15% (n=6) had venting G-tubes. 25/40 (62.5%) patients had successful OR to oxymorphone. The median ORR from MEDD to oxymorphone was 3.5 (IQR, 3.1-4). There were no independent predictors for successful OR, and ORR did not significantly differ among various groups. CONCLUSIONS: Oxymorphone IR can be used successfully in cancer patients with G-tubes using an ORR of 3.5 to calculate dose from MEDD.

Predicting survival in patients with advanced cancer in the last weeks of life: How accurate are prognostic models compared to clinicians' estimates?

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if validated prognostic scores such as the Palliative Performance Scale, Palliative Prognostic Index, and Palliative Prognostic Score are more accurate than clinician prediction of survival in patients admitted to an acute palliative care unit with only days of survival. AIM: We compared the prognostic accuracy of Palliative Performance Scale, Palliative Prognostic Index, Palliative Prognostic Score, and clinician prediction of survival in this setting. DESIGN: This is a pre-planned secondary analysis of a prospective study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We assessed Palliative Performance Scale, Palliative Prognostic Index, Palliative Prognostic Score, and clinician prediction of survival at baseline. We computed their prognostic accuracy using the Concordance index and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for 7-, 14-, and 30-day survival. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were included with a median overall survival of 10 days (95% confidence interval: 8-11 days). The Concordance index for Palliative Performance Scale, Palliative Prognostic Index, Palliative Prognostic Score, and clinician prediction of survival were 0.74, 0.71, 0.70, and 0.75, respectively. The areas under the curve for these approaches were 0.82-0.87 for 30-day survival, 0.75-0.80 for 14-day survival, and 0.74-0.81 for 7-day survival. The four prognostic approaches had similar accuracies, with the exception of 7-day survival in which clinician prediction of survival was significantly more accurate than Palliative Prognostic Score (difference: 7%) and Palliative Prognostic Index (difference: 8%). CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced cancer with days of survival, clinician prediction of survival and Palliative Performance Scale alone were as accurate as Palliative Prognostic Score and Palliative Prognostic Index. These four approaches may be useful for prognostication in acute palliative care units. Our findings highlight how patient population may impact the accuracy of prognostic scores.

Patients' Perspective of Timeliness and Usefulness of an Outpatient Supportive Care Referral at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

CONTEXT: Current guidelines recommend early referral to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer; however, no studies have examined the optimal timing of referral from the patients' perspective. OBJECTIVES: To examine patients' perceptions of timeliness of referral and its association with survival among patients with advanced cancer referred to an outpatient supportive care (SC) clinic. METHODS: This cross-sectional prospective study in an SC clinic at a comprehensive cancer center included patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic cancer. Patients were asked to complete an anonymous survey regarding the timeliness and perceived usefulness of SC referral within four weeks of their first SC consultation. RESULTS: Of 253 eligible patients, 209 (83%) enrolled in the study and 200 completed the survey. Median survival was 10.3 months. Most patients (72%) perceived that referral occurred "just in time," whereas 21% felt it was "late," and 7% felt "early." A majority (83%) found the referral useful, and 88% would recommend it to other patients with cancer. The perception of being referred early was associated with lower reported levels of pain (P = 0.043), fatigue (P = 0.004), drowsiness (P = 0.005), appetite loss (P = 0.041), poor well-being (P = 0.041), and lower physical (P = 0.001) and overall symptom distress (P = 0.001). No other associations were found between perceived timeliness and usefulness and patients' baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION: Most patients with a median survival of 10 months perceived that SC referral was timely and useful. Patient care needs rather than the timing of advanced cancer diagnosis drove this perception of referral timing. Lower symptom burden was associated with the perception of being referred to early.

Palliative Care in Patients with Leukemia: When and How?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients with hematologic malignancies get more aggressive treatment and the end-of-life, more ICU deaths, and prolonged hospital stays. In comparison to solid tumors, their access to palliative care and hospice is less. RECENT FINDINGS: Multiple factors seem to play a role including curative goals, different treatment options, stronger relationship between patients and oncologist, symptom burden, and limitations of hospice care. Improving the perception of palliative care in these patients, characterizing their needs, and more education can help to increase referrals and access to palliative care. Innovative ways to improve integration between hematology-oncology and palliative care are needed.

Testing the feasibility of using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) to assess caregiver symptom burden.

OBJECTIVE: Caregiver symptom assessment is not part of regular clinical cancer care. The ESAS (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System) is a multidimensional tool regularly used to measure symptom burden in patients but not caregivers. The objectives of the present study were to determine the feasibility of the ESAS in caregiver completion (defined as ≥ 9 of 12 items) and determine its concurrent validity with the Zarit Burden Interview-12 (ZBI-12). METHOD: We conducted a prospective study on 90 patient-primary caregiver dyads seen in an outpatient supportive care center in a cancer center. The 12 item ESAS-FS (financial-spiritual) was completed by the dyads along with other clinical and psychosocial measures. RESULTS: The caregiver ESAS was found to be feasible (90/90 caregivers, 100% completed ≥ 9/12 items) and useful (66/90 caregivers, 73%) by caregivers to report their symptom burden. Some 68 of 90 (76%) caregivers had symptom distress scores ≥ 4 on at least one symptom. A significant association was found between the ESAS scores of caregivers and patients for fatigue (0.03), depression (<0.01), anxiety (<0.01), sleep (0.05), well-being (<0.01), financial distress (<0.01), spiritual pain (<0.01), and total ESAS score (<0.01). Concurrent validity with the ZBI-12 was not achieved (r = 0.53, p = 0.74). A significant correlation was found between caregiver ESAS scores and time spent feeding, housekeeping, total combined caregiver activities, and total ZBI-12 scores. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The caregiver ESAS is a feasible tool and was found useful by our caregivers. Further research is needed to modify the ESAS based on caregivers' recommendations, and further psychometric studies need to be conducted.

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.

The Conversion Ratio From Intravenous Hydromorphone to Oral Opioids in Cancer Patients.

CONTEXT: The lack of knowledge of the accurate conversion ratio (CR) between intravenous (IV) and oral hydromorphone and opioid rotation ratio (ORR) between IV hydromorphone and oral morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) may lead to poorly controlled pain or overdosing in cancer inpatients. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the CR and ORR from IV hydromorphone to oral hydromorphone and MEDD (obtained from oral morphine and oxycodone). METHODS: A total of 4745 consecutive inpatient palliative care consults during 2010-14 were reviewed for conversions from IV hydromorphone to oral hydromorphone, morphine or oxycodone. Patient characteristics, symptoms, and opioid doses were determined in patients successfully discharged on oral opioids without readmission within one week. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate the CR or ORR between the 24 hour IV hydromorphone mg dose before conversion and the oral opioid mg dose used before discharge. RESULTS: Among 394 patients on IV hydromorphone, 147 underwent conversion to oral hydromorphone and 247 underwent rotation to oral morphine (163) or oxycodone (84). The median (interquartile range) CR from IV to PO hydromorphone was 2.5 (2.14-2.75) with correlation of 0.95 (P < 0.0001). The median ORR (interquartile range) from IV hydromorphone to MEDD was 11.46 (9.84-13.00) with correlation of 0.93(P < 0.0001). The median ORR was 11.54 in patients receiving <30 mg of IV hydromorphone/day and 9.86 in patients receiving ≥30 mg (P = 0.0004). CONCLUSION: Our study found that 1 mg of IV hydromorphone is equivalent to 2.5 mg of oral hydromorphone and 11.46 mg of MEDD. Hydromorphone at doses ≥30 mg/day may require a lower ORR to other opioids.

A Prospective Study of Hypodermoclysis Performed by Caregivers in the Home Setting.

CONTEXT: Decreased oral intake is very common at the end of life. Dehydration can aggravate symptoms, such as fatigue, myoclonus, and confusion. Intravenous hydration at home can be logistically difficult and expensive. Hypodermoclysis is easy to provide and inexpensive; however, it is rarely used to provide hydration at the end of life in the home setting. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine if caregivers were capable of administering hypodermoclysis in the home hospice setting. METHODS: All caregivers underwent a 45-minute training session on hypodermoclysis administration and assessment of infusion site delivered by a specially trained nurse. Caregivers received daily calls and on-site evaluation on Day 8. RESULTS: A total of 21 patient/caregivers dyads were admitted to this preliminary study: 10 (48%) female patients and 16 (76%) female caregivers. All patients had advanced cancer, receiving hospice care at home. All caregivers who received training were able to start the infusion. The infusion was facilitated by gravity or weight. Side effects were minimal with one (5%) because of the care of the needle and leakage. CONCLUSION: This preliminary study suggests that subcutaneous hydration could be administered by caregivers at home with minimal burden, equipment, and technical support.

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 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.

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

PURPOSE: Cancer pain management guidelines recommend initial treatment with intermediate-strength analgesics such as hydrocodone and subsequent escalation to stronger opioids such as morphine. There are no published studies on the process of opioid rotation (OR) from hydrocodone to strong opioids in cancer patients. Our aim was to determine the opioid rotation ratio (ORR) of hydrocodone to morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) in cancer outpatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of consecutive patient visits at our supportive care center in 2011-2012 for OR from hydrocodone to stronger opioids. Data regarding demographics, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and MEDD were collected from patients who returned for follow-up within 6 weeks. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate the ORR between hydrocodone and MEDD. Successful OR was defined as 2-point or 30% reduction in the pain score and continuation of the new opioid at follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 170 patients underwent OR from hydrocodone to stronger opioid. The median age was 59 years, and 81% had advanced cancer. The median time between OR and follow-up was 21 days. We found 53% had a successful OR with significant improvement in the ESAS pain and symptom distress scores. In 100 patients with complete OR and no worsening of pain at follow-up, the median ORR from hydrocodone to MEDD was 1.5 (quintiles 1-3: 0.9-2). The ORR was associated with hydrocodone dose (r = -.52; p < .0001) and was lower in patients receiving ≥40 mg of hydrocodone per day (p < .0001). The median ORR of hydrocodone to morphine was 1.5 (n = 44) and hydrocodone to oxycodone was 0.9 (n = 24). CONCLUSION: The median ORR from hydrocodone to MEDD was 1.5 and varied according to hydrocodone dose.

Quality of end-of-life care in patients with hematologic malignancies: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, only limited data are available regarding the quality of end-of-life care for patients with hematologic malignancies. In this retrospective cohort study, the quality of end-of-life care was compared between patients with hematologic malignancies and those with solid tumors. METHODS: All adult patients who died of advanced cancer between September 1, 2009 and February 28, 2010 while under the care of the study institution were included. The authors collected baseline demographics and end-of-life care indicators, including emergency room visits, hospitalization, intensive care unit admissions, and systemic cancer therapy use within the last 30 days of life. RESULTS: Of a total of 816 decedents, 113 (14%) had hematologic malignancies. In the last 30 days of life, patients with hematologic malignancies were more likely to have emergency room visits (54% vs 43%; P = .03), hospital admissions (81% vs 47%; P < .001), ≥ 2 hospital admissions (23% vs 10%; P < .001), > 14 days of hospitalization (38% vs 8%; P < .001), intensive care unit admissions (39% vs 8%; P < .001) and death (33% vs 4%; P < .001), chemotherapy use (43% vs 14%; P < .001), and targeted therapy use (34% vs 11%; P < .001) compared with patients with solid tumors. Patients with hematologic malignancies were also less likely to have palliative care unit admissions (8% vs 17%; P = .02). The composite score for aggressiveness of care (with 0 indicating the best and 6 indicating the worst) was significantly higher among patients with hematologic malignancies compared with those with solid tumors (median, 2 vs 0; P < .001). On multivariate analysis, hematologic malignancy was found to be a significant factor associated with aggressive end-of-life care (odds ratio, 6.6; 95% confidence interval, 4.1-10.7 [P < .001]). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study indicate that patients with hematologic malignancies received more aggressive care at the end of life.