Age-dependent increased odds of cardiovascular risk factors in cancer survivors: Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging cohort.

Background: This study compared the odds of self-reported and objectively measured cardiovascular (cv) risk factors in a sample of Canadian cancer survivors and individuals without cancer. Methods: A nationally representative sample of 45- to 85-year-old cancer survivors (n = 6288) in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging were compared with individuals without cancer (n = 44,051). Results: The most prevalent risk factors in cancer survivors were all self-reported or easily measured in clinic: overweight or obesity (68.0%), former smoking (62.9%), fewer than 5 daily servings of fruits and vegetables (59.8%), hypertension (43.7%), and high waist circumference (47.0%). After adjustment for sex and education, the odds ratios of several cv risk factors varied by age in cancer survivors and the non-cancer controls. At ages 50 and 60, cancer survivors have increased odds of overweight or obesity, former smoking, hypertension, high waist circumference and truncal fat, diabetes, lung disease, and heart rate greater than 80 bpm compared with non-cancer controls. At age 70, odds did not differ for many risk factors; at age 80, no differences were evident. Without modification by age, low physical activity was more prevalent in cancer survivors (odds ratio: 1.27; 95% confidence interval: 1.17 to 1.39). There were no differences in the odds of cv risk factors measured by specialized equipment, including electrocardiography, carotid ultrasonography, spirometry, and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Conclusions: The odds of several easy-to-assess cv disease risk factors are higher among middle-aged, but not older, cancer survivors relative to the general Canadian population. Initial assessment of cv risk for middle-aged adults in the survivorship setting could be quickly and inexpensively performed using self-reported and easily measured metrics.

Beta blockers and improved progression-free survival in patients with advanced HER2 negative breast cancer: a retrospective analysis of the ROSE/TRIO-012 study.

BACKGROUND: Recent retrospective studies suggest that beta-adrenergic blocking drugs (BB) are associated with improved outcomes in patients with a range of cancers. Although limited and discordant data suggest that BB may increase overall survival (OS) in localized breast cancer (BC), there is no information on the effects of BB in women with advanced BC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To explore the association between BB use and BC outcomes, we retrospectively reviewed ROSE/TRIO-012, a double-blinded, multinational phase III trial that randomized 1144 patients with HER2-negative advanced BC to first-line docetaxel in combination with ramucirumab or placebo. We compared progression-free survival (PFS), OS, overall response rate, and clinical benefit rate in patients who received BB to those who did not. RESULTS: 153/1144 (13%) patients received BB; 62% prior to enrolment and 38% began after enrolment. Median PFS in BB treated patients was longer than in patients who did not receive them (10.3 versus 8.3 months; HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.66-0.99; P = 0.038). Patients treated with BB only after enrolment had even higher median PFS (15.5 versus 8.3 months, P < 0.001). In the TNBC subset, median PFS was 13.0 months with BB, compared to 5.2 months without BB (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.34-0.79; P = 0.002). The benefit of BB intake in PFS was independent of treatment-emergent hypertension (P = 0.476) but associated with treatment arm (P = 0.037). The test for interactions between BB and treatment arm was not significant (P = 0.276). No differences were seen in OS, overall response rate, or clinical benefit rate. A validation dataset analysis had consistent but less substantial improved outcomes for women with node positive operable breast cancer receiving BB in the BCIRG-005 trial. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory analysis, BB intake was associated with significant improvement in PFS, particularly in patients with TNBC and patients not previously exposed to BB. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT00703326.

Optimizing pain relief in a specialized outpatient palliative radiotherapy clinic: contributions of a clinical pharmacist.

PURPOSE: Bone metastases are the most common cause of cancer pain, with palliative radiotherapy (RT) the mainstay of treatment. However, relief from RT may be delayed, incomplete, or short-lived and therefore optimized pharmacologic therapy is essential. Our objective was to describe the contribution of the clinical pharmacist (CP) to an outpatient palliative RT clinic. METHODS: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, an 11-point scale for measuring nine symptoms, and other validated screening tools were administered, and a medication history performed by the CP. Baseline CP assessment also included opioid toxicity, need for supportive medications, and drug interactions. Anonymized clinical information was collected prospectively and descriptive statistics were compiled including themes of counselling performed by the CP. RESULTS: The CP reviewed 114 patients over 140 clinic visits (01/2007-12/2008). Median age was 68.3 years, 68.4% were male and 36.8% had prostate cancer. All symptoms improved or stabilized in ≥ 80% by 4 weeks. Median pain score was 6/10 (SD 2.6) at baseline, and 2.1/10 (SD 2.4) by week 4. Average morphine equivalent daily dose was 76.8 mg at baseline and 44.5 mg at week 4. CP assessment included screening for opioid toxicity (87.9%), recommending a change in analgesic (28.9%), and liaison with the community pharmacy (17.1%). Medication counselling took place in 84.3% of visits, on bowel routine (85.6% of the time), opioids (82.2%), and hydration (40.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The CP plays a key role in holistic patient assessment and optimization of pharmacologic therapy, contributing to improved symptom control of patients receiving palliative RT.

The rapid access palliative radiotherapy program: blueprint for initiation of a one-stop multidisciplinary bone metastases clinic.

GOALS OF WORK: Radiotherapy (RT) for palliation of pain due to bone metastases (BM) is effective but underutilized likely due to the traditional practice of separate clinic visits for consultation, treatment planning, and RT delivery. However, recent evidence proves one RT treatment is as effective as multiple for analgesia, enabling investigation of an alternative model of RT delivery, the rapid access palliative radiotherapy program (RAPRP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prior to the start of the program, needs assessment was performed to determine the composition of the optimal team. Screening tools were implemented to streamline holistic, multidisciplinary assessment. An advertising strategy, treatment and research protocols, and mechanisms for patient feedback were established. After RAPRP implementation, patient outcomes such as symptom relief were tracked. MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-six patients with painful BM were referred over the 25-week pilot. Median age was 69.9 years; 64% had prostate cancer, and median performance status was 70. Patient-rated pain was on average 6.1/10 at baseline, improving to 2.6/10 by week 4 post-RT. On average, 6.2 symptoms were reported (baseline) compared to 5.2 (week 4). Team members assessed 10-100% of patients and were successful in stabilizing or improving all symptoms in >75% contacted at week 4. One hundred percent of patients surveyed were satisfied with their experience. CONCLUSIONS: Early needs assessment was advantageous in determining the optimal team and methods of assessment for our 'one-stop' BM clinic. This approach was successful in improving pain and other symptoms, and the convenience of seeing multiple providers on 1 day was appreciated by the patients.

The addition of an audiocassette recording of a consultation to written recommendations for patients with advanced cancer: A randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Communication between physicians and advanced cancer patients is frequently difficult. Patients often report poor levels of satisfaction with communication. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact on patients' recall of and overall satisfaction with their consultation by the addition of an audiocassette recording of a consultation to written recommendations. METHODS: Sixty patients with advanced cancer were randomized to either receive a tape recording of their consultation or receive no tape in addition to written recommendations in this randomized, double-blind trial. Patients gave their global ratings of the clinic, were tested for their recall of information given, and responded to questions about the utilization and role of the cassette in influencing family communication. RESULTS: The addition of the audiocassette to written communications significantly increased patient satisfaction with the clinic (8.7 +/- 1.7 vs. 7.7 +/- 2.0 on a scale of 0-10; P = 0.04) and significantly improved recall of the information given during the consultation (88% +/- 8.7% vs. 80% +/- 15.5%; P = 0.02). Patients expressed a high level of satisfaction with the audiocassette. Patients listened to the tape a median of 2 (range 1-4) times, whereas family members and friends listened to the cassette a median of 2 (range 1-3) times. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of an audiocassette recording of an outpatient consultation to written recommendations for patients with advanced cancer is capable of increasing both the overall patient recall of the visit and satisfaction with the outpatient clinical setting. Patients expressed a high level of satisfaction with the audiocassette.

A randomized controlled trial of local injections of hyaluronidase versus placebo in cancer patients receiving subcutaneous hydration.

BACKGROUND: Most cancer patients develop reduced oral intake or dehydration before death. Subcutaneous hydration (SCH) can be safe and effective. SCH is frequently administered using hyaluronidase to improve fluid absorption. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of hyaluronidase on patient comfort during bolus SCH. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-one cancer patients requiring parenteral hydration were administered a 500 cc bolus of two-thirds dextrose (5%) and one-third normal saline solution subcutaneously at 08:00 and 16:00 hours during day 1 and day 2. On day 1 patients were randomized on a double-blind basis to receive 150 units of hyaluronidase versus placebo as a bolus into the site of infusion immediately before starting each one-hour infusion. During day 2 patients were crossed over to receive the alternate treatment at a new infusion site. Visual analogue scales (0 = best, 100 = worst) for pain and swelling at the infusion site were completed by each patient. In addition, investigators blindly assessed the site of infusion for the presence of edema, rash, and leakage. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed for pain, swelling, edema, rash or leakage between the placebo and the hyaluronidase scores. After completion of the two days of the study, patients blindly chose hyaluronidase in 1 (5%) case, placebo in 5 (24%) cases, and no preference in 15 (71%) cases (P < 0.01). There was no treatment or interaction effect for pain, except for a period effect (P = 0.045) for the morning bolus administration. There were no treatment, period, or interaction effects for any of the other variables. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that hyaluronidase is not necessary for routine bolus SCH. It may still be useful for a minority of patients who are not able to tolerate infusion well due to swelling or pain.

Telephone triage in acute oncology.

Cancer patients experience a variety of complex problems over the course of their illness. Shorter hospital stays and fewer inpatient beds have created additional challenges for patients diagnosed with cancer, as they often continue complicated treatment protocols as outpatients. As one result, patients and their families often telephone their physician or cancer clinic to seek advice.

Randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial comparing safety and efficacy of oral controlled-release oxycodone with controlled-release morphine in patients with cancer pain.

PURPOSE: Use of oxycodone for chronic cancer pain has been hampered by its short elimination half-life. This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of controlled-release formulations of oxycodone and morphine for cancer pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-two adult patients with cancer pain and a > or = 3-day history of stable analgesia with oral opioids provided written informed consent and were randomized to controlled-release oxycodone or controlled-release morphine for 7 days. To blind the study using available tablet strengths, the dose ratio of oxycodone to morphine was set at 1:1.5. On day 8, patients were crossed over to the alternate drug for 7 days. Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS 0 to 100 mm) and a categorical scale (CAT 0 to 4). Side effects were assessed using a checklist (four-point categorical severity) and a nondirected questionnaire. Patients and investigators made blinded global ratings of efficacy and treatment preference. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients completed the study (10 men, 13 women). The VAS and CAT scores were (mean+/-SD) 23+/-21 and 1.2+/-0.8 on controlled-release oxycodone, and 24+/-20 (P=.43) and 1.3+/-0.7 (P=.36) on controlled-release morphine. No period or carryover effect was detected. There were no significant differences in adverse effects (P=.40) or ratings of efficacy and preference. The median oxycodone/morphine dose ratio was 1.5 and the maximum was 2.3. CONCLUSION: Controlled-release oxycodone is as safe and effective as controlled-release morphine in the treatment of cancer pain.