Dexamethasone is more effective than placebo in improving CRF and quality of life in patients with advanced cancer.

IMPORTANCEThe 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 RELEVANCEIn 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.

No abstract

Clinicians have limited accuracy in the prediction of patient survival. We assessed the accuracy of probabilistic clinician prediction of survival (CPS) and temporal CPS for advanced cancer patients admitted to our acute palliative care unit, and identified factors associated with CPS accuracy. Eight physicians and 20 nurses provided their estimation of survival on admission by (a) the temporal approach, "What is the approximate survival for this patient (in days)?" and (b) the probabilistic approach, "What is the approximate probability that this patient will be alive (0%-100%)?" for >24 hours, 48 hours, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. We also collected patient and clinician demographics. Among 151 patients, the median age was 58 years, 95 (63%) were female, and 138 (81%) had solid tumors. The median overall survival time was 12 days. The median temporal CPS was 14 days for physicians and 20 days for nurses. Physicians were more accurate than nurses. A higher accuracy of temporal physician CPS was associated with older patient age. Probabilistic CPS was significantly more accurate than temporal CPS for both physicians and nurses, although this analysis was limited by the different criteria for determining accuracy. With the probabilistic approach, nurses were significantly more accurate at predicting survival at 24 hours and 48 hours, whereas physicians were significantly more accurate at predicting survival at 6 months. The probabilistic approach was associated with high accuracy and has practical implications. The Oncologist 2011;16:1642-1648

Purpose. Improper storage, use, and disposal of prescribed opioids can lead to diversion or accidental poisoning. Our objective was to determine the patterns of storage, utilization, and disposal of opioids among cancer outpatients. Patients and Methods. We surveyed 300 adult cancer outpatients receiving opioids in our supportive care center and collected information regarding opioid use, storage, and disposal, along with scores on the CAGE (cut down, annoyed, guilty, eye-opener) alcoholism screening questionnaire. Unsafe use was defined as sharing or losing opioids; unsafe storage was defined as storing opioids in plain sight. Results. The median age was 57 years. CAGE was positive in 58 of 300 patients (19%), and 26 (9%) had a history of illicit drug use. Fifty-six (19%) stored opioids in plain sight, 208 (69%) kept opioids hidden but unlocked, and only 28 (9%) locked their opioids. CAGE-positive patients (p 5 .007) and those with a history of illicit drug use (p 5 .0002) or smoking (p 5 .03) were more likely to lock their opioids. Seventy-eight (26%) reported unsafe use by sharing (9%) or losing (17%) their opioids. Patients who were never married or single (odds ratio: 2.92; 95% confidence interval: 1.48-5.77; p 5 .006), were CAGE positive (40% vs. 21%; p 5 .003), or had a history of illicit drug use (42% vs. 23%; p 5 .031) were more likely to use opioids unsafely. Overall, 223 of 300 patients (74%) were unaware of proper opioid disposal methods, and 138 (46%) had unused opioids at home. Conclusion. A large proportion of cancer patients improperly and unsafely use, store, and dispose of opioids, highlighting the need for establishment of easily accessed patient education and drug take-back programs. The Oncologist 2014;19:780-785 Implications for Practice: In our study, a large proportion of cancer outpatients did not store, use, and dispose of opioids safely. Our findings reveal the need for universal education of all patients receiving opioids regarding safety around opioid use to minimize the risks of diversion or accidental poisoning. Strict implementation of patient education resources at the time all opioids are prescribed (by physicians) and dispensed (by pharmacists) could significantly decrease the amount of unused opioids available for diversion or accidental poisoning.

Background. Palliative care (PC) referrals are often delayed for patients with hematologic malignancies. We examined the differences in attitudes and beliefs toward PC referral between hematologic and solid tumor specialists and how their perception changed with use of the service name "supportive care" (SC). Materials and Methods. We randomly surveyed 120 hematologic and 120 solid tumor oncology specialists at our tertiary care cancer center to examine their attitudes and beliefs toward PC and SC referral. Results. Of the 240 specialists, 182 (76%) responded. Compared with solid tumor specialists, hematologic specialists were less likely to report that they would refer symptomatic patients with newly diagnosed cancer to PC (solid tumor, 43% vs. hematology, 21%; p 5 .002). A significantly greater proportion of specialists expressed that they would refer a patient with newly diagnosed cancer

Background. Delirium is a common neuropsychiatric condition seen in patients with severe illness, such as advanced cancer. Few published studies are available of the frequency, course, and outcomes of standardized management of delirium in advanced cancer patients admitted to acute palliative care unit (APCU). In this study, we examined the frequency, characteristics, and outcomes of delirium in patients with advanced cancer admitted to an APCU. Methods. Medical records of 609 consecutive patients admitted to the APCU from January 2011 through December 2011 were reviewed. Data on patients’ demographics; Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) score; palliative care specialist (PCS) diagnosis of delirium; delirium etiology, subtype, and reversibility; late development of delirium; and discharge outcome were collected. Delirium was diagnosed with MDAS score ≥7 and by a PCS using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th edition, Text Revision criteria. All patients admitted to the APCU received standardized assessments and management of delirium per best practice guidelines in delirium management. Results. Of 556 patients in the APCU, 323 (58%) had a diagnosis of delirium. Of these, 229 (71%) had a delirium diagnosis on admission and 94 (29%) developed delirium after admission to the APCU. Delirium reversed in 85 of 323 episodes (26%). Half of patients with delirium (n = 162) died. Patients with the diagnosis of delirium had a lower median overall survival than those without delirium. Patients who developed delirium after admission to the APCU had poorer survival (p ≤ .0001) and a lower rate of delirium reversal (p = .03) compared with those admitted with delirium. Conclusion. More than half of the patients admitted to the APCU had delirium. Reversibility occurred in almost one‐third of cases. Diagnosis of delirium was associated with poorer survival. Implications for Practice: Delirium is the most common neuropsychiatric condition in patients with severe medical illness and those at the end of life. It can be a source of distress for patients, their families, and the medical team. When missed, or if symptoms are misinterpreted, delirium may also lead to unnecessary interventions. This underlines the importance of diagnosis and detection of delirium in populations that are at increased risk. This study has important implications in practice, as it can assist clinicians in making decisions regarding other medical interventions, advance care planning, and communicating with families relating to end‐of‐life issues.

Despite the high frequency, severity, and effects of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer, limited treatment options are available. The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects of oral extract (PG) and placebo on CRF. Secondary objectives were to determine the effects of PG on QoL, mood, and function. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with CRF ≥4/10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) were eligible. Based on a pilot study, we randomized patients to receive either 400 mg of standardized PG twice daily or a matching placebo for 28 days. The primary end point was change in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) subscale from baseline to day 29. Of 127 patients, 112 (88.2%) were evaluable. The mean (SD) FACIT-F subscale scores at baseline, day 15, and day 29 were 22.4 (10.1), 29.9 (10.6), and 30.1 (11.6) for PG (<.001), and 24.0 (9.4), 30.0 (10.1), and 30.4 (11.5) for placebo (<.001). Mean (SD) improvement in the FACIT-F subscale at day 29 was not significantly different in the PG than in the placebo group (7.5 [12.7] vs 6.5 [9.9]; =.67). QoL, anxiety, depression, symptoms, and functional scores were not significantly different between the PG and placebo groups. Improvement in the FACIT-F subscale correlated with baseline scores (=.0005), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale results (=.032), and sex (=.023). There were fewer any-grade toxicities in the PG versus placebo group (28/63 vs 33/64; =.024). Both PG and placebo result in significant improvement in CRF. PG was not significantly superior to placebo after 4 weeks of treatment. There is no justification to recommend the use of PG for CRF. Further studies are needed. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01375114.