No abstract

A B S T R A C T PurposeTo offer evidence-based clinical recommendations concerning prognosis in advanced cancer patients. MethodsA Working Group of the Research Network of the European Association for Palliative Care identified clinically significant topics, reviewed the studies, and assigned the level of evidence. A formal meta-analysis was not feasible because of the heterogeneity of published studies and the lack of minimal standards in reporting results. A systematic electronic literature search within the main available medical literature databases was performed for each of the following four areas identified: clinical prediction of survival (CPS), biologic factors, clinical signs and symptoms and psychosocial variables, and prognostic scores. Only studies on patients with advanced cancer and survival Յ 90 days were included. ResultsA total of 38 studies were evaluated. Level A evidence-based recommendations of prognostic correlation could be formulated for CPS (albeit with a series of limitations of which clinicians must be aware) and prognostic scores. Recommendations on the use of other prognostic factors, such as performance status, symptoms associated with cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome (weight loss, anorexia, dysphagia, and xerostomia), dyspnea, delirium, and some biologic factors (leukocytosis, lymphocytopenia, and C-reactive protein), reached level B. ConclusionPrognostication of life expectancy is a significant clinical commitment for clinicians involved in oncology and palliative care. More accurate prognostication is feasible and can be achieved by combining clinical experience and evidence from the literature. Using and communicating prognostic information should be part of a multidisciplinary palliative care approach.

Summary An expert working group of the European Association for Palliative Care has revised and updated its guidelines on the use of morphine in the management of cancer pain. The revised recommendations presented here give guidance on the use of morphine and the alternative strong opioid analgesics which have been introduced in many parts of the world in recent years. Practical strategies for dealing with difficult situations are described presenting a consensus view where supporting evidence is lacking. The strength of the evidence on which each recommendation is based is indicated. http://www.bjcancer.com Daytime drowsiness, dizziness or mental clouding commonly occur at the start of treatment but resolve when patients are stabilized (usually within a few days). For most patients receiving stable doses of morphine effects on cognitive and psychomotor function are minimal. In particular, there are data indicating that patients' driving ability is not significantly impaired, in alert patients receiving a stable dose (Vainio et al, 1995). Similarly, nausea and vomiting, which occur in up to two-thirds of patients when morphine is started, usually resolve. The main continuing adverse effect from morphine is constipation, and the prophylactic use of a laxative is almost always required. Morphine: limitationsThe systemic availability of morphine by the oral route is poor (20-30%) and this contributes to a sometimes unpredictable onset of action and great interindividual variability in dose requirements and response (Glare and Walsh, 1991). Active metabolites may contribute to toxicity, particularly in patients with renal impairment (McQuay and Moore, 1997). And some types of pain do not always respond well or completely to morphine, notably neuropathic pain. However, none of the alternatives to morphine has so far demonstrated advantages which would make it preferable as the first line oral opioid for cancer pain. Morphine remains our first choice but for reasons of familiarity, availability and cost rather than proven superiority.2. The optimal route of administration of morphine is by mouth. Ideally, two types of formulation are required: normal release (for dose titration) and modified release (for maintenance treatment) CThe oral route is the simplest and most acceptable to patients.There is large interindividual variation in kinetics (Säwe, 1986) and dynamics in cancer patients whose pain will also vary in severity so that the dose must be titrated against effect for each patient, and the starting dose will be determined by previous analgesic treatment. Patients changing from regular administration of a step 2 opioid (in combination with a non-opioid) will usually start with 10 mg every 4 hours. If step 2 of the analgesic ladder is omitted 5 mg every 4 hours may suffice, whereas patients converted from another step 3 opioid will require more. During dose titration it is preferable to use a formulation of morphine that has a rapid onset and a short duration of action to allow steady state to be achieved as quic...

Across Europe and Israel, treatment of cancer pain is suboptimal. Pain and pain relief should be considered integral to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer; management guidelines should be revised to improve pain control in patients with cancer.

The method for cancer pain relief proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) consists of guidelines for a three-step treatment, from non-opioids to weak and then strong opioids, according to need. Adjuvant drugs can be added to each step. This report presents the 2-year experience of the WHO Collaborating Centre at the National Cancer Institute of Milan in the use of this method. This retrospective study shows that a correct use of the analgesic ladder can reduce pain to a third of its initial intensity. The use of non-opioids had an average duration of 19.2 days; in 52% of the cases treatment was discontinued due to inefficacy and in 42%, to side effects. Weak opioids were administered on an average for 28.0 days. A shift to Strong opioids was made in 92% of the cases due to inefficacy and in 8% because of side effects. Treatment with strong opioids lasted for an average of 46.6 days and can be considered the mainstay of cancer pain therapy. Performance status was not altered considerably during the study and hours of sleep were doubled. The analgesic ladder proved efficacious in 71% of the cases. Neurolytic procedures had to be used in 29%. The authors conclude that analgesics, as proposed by WHO, are the most suitable treatment arm in controlling pain in palliative treatment for advanced cancer patients. Lack of availability or underuse of opioids constitute the real obstacle to the application of this method.

The lack of control of physical suffering among cancer patients in the last days or hours of life is a common medical problem but it is rarely discussed in an open fashion. We carried out a prospective study of the dying of 120 terminal cancer patients assisted by a home care team. We documented how long it was before death that physical symptoms, unendurable to the patient and controllable only by sedation-inducing sleep, appeared. In 63 patients (52.5%), unendurable symptoms due to tumor progression or irreversible acute organic phenomena appeared, on average two days before death. Of the 63 patients, 47 had only one uncontrollable symptom, 15 had two symptoms and one patient had three symptoms. The most common symptoms included dyspnea (33 patients), pain (31), delirium (11), and vomiting (5). The most frequent symptoms were dyspnea in lung and head and neck disease; pain in breast, gastrointestinal tract, colon-rectum, and male genitourinary tract cancer; and vomiting in female genitourinary tract malignancies. Data reported emphasize the clinical relevance of physical symptoms in the last days of life in terminal cancer patients and how these serve to indicate imminent death. More than 50% of these patients die with physical suffering that is controllable only by means of sedation.

The results of our study confirm that methadone is a potent opioid, more potent than believed. Caution is recommended when switching from any opioid to methadone, especially in patients who are tolerant to high doses of opioids.

The paper highlights a series of questions that doctors need to consider when faced with end-stage cancer patients with bowel obstruction: Is the patient fit for surgery? Is there a place for stenting? Is it necessary to use a venting nasogastric tube (NGT) in inoperable patients? What drugs are indicated for symptom control, what is the proper route for their administration and which can be administered in association? When should a venting gastrostomy be considered? What is the role of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and parenteral hydration (PH)? A working group was established to review issues relating to bowel obstruction in end-stage cancer and to make recommendations for management. A steering group was established by the (multidisciplinary) Board of Directors of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) to select members of the expert panel, who were required to have specific clinical and research interests relating to the topic and to have published significant papers on advanced cancer patients in the last 5 years, or to have particular clinical expertise that is recognised internationally. The final constitution of this group was approved by the Board of the EAPC. This Working Group was made up of English, French and Italian physicians involved in the field of palliative care for advanced and terminal cancer patients; and of English, American and Italian surgeons who also specialized in artificial nutrition (Dr. Bozzetti) and a professor of health economics. We applied a systematic review methodology that showed the relative lack of RCTs in this area and the importance of retrospective and clinical reports from different authors in different countries. The brief was to review published data but also to provide clinical opinion where data were lacking. The recommendations reflect specialist clinical practice in the countries represented. Each member of the group was allocated a specific question and briefed to review the literature and produce a position paper on the indications, advantages and disadvantages of each symptomatic treatment. The position papers were circulated and then debated at a meeting held in Athens and attended by all panel members. The group reviewed all the available data, discussed the evidence and discussed what practical recommendations could be derived from it. An initial outline of the results of the review and recommendations was produced. Where there were gaps in the evidence, consensus was achieved by debate. Only unanimous conclusions have been incorporated. Subsequently the recommendations were drawn together by Carla Ripamonti (Chairperson) and Robert Twycross (Co-Chair) and refined with input from all panel members. The recommendations have been endorsed by the Board of Directors of the EAPC. It was concluded that surgery should not be undertaken routinely in patients with poor prognostic criteria, such as intra-abdominal carcinomatosis, poor performance status and massive ascites. A nasogastric tube should be used only as a temporary measure. Medical measure...