No abstract

The objective of this study was to review the literature on depression in palliative cancer care in order to identify which assessment methods and classification systems have been used in studies of depression. Extensive electronic database searches in PubMed, CancerLit, CINAHL, PsychINFO, EMBASE and AgeLine as well as hand search were carried out. In the 202 included papers, 106 different assessment methods were used. Sixty-five of these were only used once. All together, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was the most commonly used assessment method. However, there were regional differences and while the HADS dominated in Europe it was quite seldom used in Canada or in the USA. Few prevalence and intervention studies used assessment methods with an explicit reference to a diagnostic system. There were in total few case definitions of depression. Among these, the classifications were in general based on cut-off scores (77%) and not according to diagnostic systems. The full range of the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria was seldom assessed, i.e. less than one-third of the assessments in the review took into account the duration of symptoms and 18% assessed consequences and impact upon patient functioning. A diversity of assessment methods had been used. Few studies classified depression by referring to a diagnostic system or by using cut-off scores. Evidently, there is a need for a consensus on how to assess and conceptualize depression and related conditions in palliative care.

Fatigue describes reduced capacity to sustain force or power output, reduced capacity to perform multiple tasks over time and simply a subjective experience of feeling exhausted, tired, weak or having lack of energy. Pain and fatigue have several components in common, such as being subjective, prevalent in most patients with cancer and caused by multiple factors of both a physical and psychological nature. In order to explore the relationship between fatigue and pain, data from five studies were used: two random samples from the Norwegian population (n=2323 and n=1965), Hodgkin's disease survivors (n=459), palliative care patients (n=434) and patients with bone metastases (n=94). All patients had completed one or more of the following instruments: EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-36 and/or Fatigue Questionnaire. The level of fatigue was much higher in the two palliative care populations (54.4 and 63.2) as compared to the normal population samples (25.0). Patients with bone metastases had significantly more pain (72.0) than the patients in the palliative care trial (47.4) and norms (20.5). In the two palliative care and bone metastases populations fatigue was almost unchanged over time, while pain was reduced. In the palliative care population a high level of fatigue (80.3) and pain (57.8) was reported 0-1 month before death. The relationship between pain, fatigue and the health-related quality of life domains should be explored in more detail, especially in follow-up studies in order to assess possible changes over time. In addition, the validity of the existing instruments measuring fatigue should be investigated for use in patients with advanced disease and short life expectancy.

Despair, anxiety, and social withdrawal are common symptoms in depressed patients with incurable cancer, and, therefore, hypothesized as candidate symptom criteria. Other symptom criteria might need adjustment for improvement of relevance in this group of patients.

No abstract

Fatigue is a major complaint among advanced cancer patients. Several instruments are available for measuring fatigue. The EORTC QLQ-C30 is one of the most frequently used health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments, and it includes a three-item fatigue subscale. Limited knowledge exists about the validity, performance and sensitivity of EORTC QLQ-C30 fatigue scale as compared with a fatigue-specific instrument. The aim of the present study was to validate the EORTC QLQ-C30 fatigue scale (FA) against the Fatigue Questionnaire (FQ). The FQ is frequently used and was developed to measure fatigue in both cancer and noncancer populations. The FQ measures physical (PF, seven items) and mental fatigue (MF, four items). The study population included two different cohorts: A) patients with advanced metastatic cancer included in a prospective randomized study of palliative radiotherapy ( n = 238); B) patients with leukaemia and malignant lymphoma curatively treated with stem-cell transplantation and high-dose chemotherapy ( n = 128). The analysis demonstrated that the FA correlated higher with the PF scale (r = 0.67–0.75) as compared with the MF scale (r = 0.49–0.61). The item–scale correlations between FA items and the PF scale were consistently higher than between FA items and the MF scale. A factor analysis including all the items within the FA and the FQ identified two factors. All FA items loaded on a PF factor (0.70–0.85). A floor/ ceiling effect, indicating a high number of respondents with lowest, respectively, highest scores was observed more frequently in the FA as compared with the FQ. The PF discriminated better between diagnostic groups with different levels of fatigue than the FA did. In conclusion, the EORTC QLQ-C30 fatigue scale is measuring physical fatigue. A floor/ ceiling effect seems to appear for the EORTC QLQ-C30 fatigue scale. The validity of the EORTC QLQ-C30 fatigue scale is to be questioned for use in palliative care patients. In studies with fatigue as a defined end point, a domain-specific instrument should, therefore, be added.

Background: Depressive symptoms are prevalent in patients with advanced cancer,

Purpose To study the use of interventions and symptom relief for adult patients with incurable cancer admitted to an acute palliative care unit providing integrated oncology and palliative care services. Methods All admissions during 1 year were assessed. The use of interventions was evaluated for all hospitalizations. Patients with assessments for worst and average pain intensity, tiredness, drowsiness, nausea, appetite, dyspnea, depression, anxiety, well-being, constipation, and sleep were evaluated for symptom development during hospitalization. Descriptive statistics was applied for the use of interventions and the paired sample t-test to compare symptom intensities (SIs). Results For 451 admissions, mean hospital length of stay was 7.0 days and mean patient age 69 years. More than one-third received systemic cancer therapy. Diagnostic imaging was performed in 66% of the hospitalizations, intravenous rehydration in 45%, 37% received antibiotics, and 39% were attended by the multidisciplinary team. At admission and at discharge, respectively, 55% and 44% received oral opioids and 27% and 45% subcutaneous opioids. For the majority, opioid dose was adjusted during hospitalization. Symptom registrations were available for 180 patients. Tiredness yielded the highest mean SI score (5.6, NRS 0–10) at admission and nausea the lowest (2.2). Significant reductions during hospitalization were reported for all assessed SIs (p ≤ 0.01). Patients receiving systemic cancer therapy reported symptom relief similar to those not on systemic cancer therapy. Conclusion Clinical practice and symptom relief during hospitalization were described. Symptom improvements were similar for oncological and palliative care patients.