No abstract

No abstract

Context. Although opioids and pregabalin are widely used for cancer-related neuropathic pain (CNP), no clinical trials exist to determine which medications are effective when an opioid-pregabalin combination therapy fails.Objectives. We investigated the efficacy of duloxetine for CNP nonresponsive or intolerant to opioid-pregabalin combination therapy.Methods. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed at 12 specialized palliative care services in Japan. Patients with CNP average pain scores (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]eItem 5) $ 4 in the previous 24 hours and nonresponsive or intolerant to opioid-pregabalin combination therapy were eligible. Patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathies were excluded. Patients were administered duloxetine 20 mg/day titrated to 40 mg/day or placebo for 10 days. The primary endpoint was BPI-Item 5 on Day 10. Responder analysis measured proportions of patients with 30% and 50% pain decreases.Results. Seventy patients were enrolled. Complete case analysis revealed mean BPI-Item 5 on Day 10 of 4.03 for Group D vs. 4.88 for Group P (P ¼ 0.053). Baseline observation carried forward analysis revealed mean BPI-Item 5 on Day 10 of 4.06 and 4.91 for Groups D and P, respectively (P ¼ 0.048). Clinically meaningful pain improvement ($30%) was reported by 44.1% (n ¼ 15) of patients in Group D vs. 18.2% (n ¼ 6) in Group P (P ¼ 0.02); 32.4% (n ¼ 11) vs. 3.0% (n ¼ 1) of patients in Groups D and P, respectively, reported pain reduction $ 50% (P ¼ 0.002).Conclusion. Adding duloxetine to opioid-pregabalin therapy might have clinical benefit in alleviating refractory CNP. Further studies are needed to conclude the efficacy of adding duloxetine. J Pain Symptom

Delirium in corticosteroid-treated advanced cancer patients may be predicted by PS, drowsiness, and concurrent opioid use. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.

Continuous use of EGFR-TKI beyond PD may prolong overall survival compared with switching to cytotoxic chemotherapy in patients with activating EGFR mutations. A prospective study will be needed to confirm our results.

Background. Predicting the short‐term survival in cancer patients is an important issue for patients, family, and oncologists. Although the prognostic accuracy of the surprise question has value in 1‐year mortality for cancer patients, the prognostic value for short‐term survival has not been formally assessed. The primary aim of the present study was to assess the prognostic value of the surprise question for 7‐day and 30‐day survival in patients with advanced cancer. Patients and Methods. The present multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted in Japan from September 2012 through April 2014, involving 16 palliative care units, 19 hospital‐based palliative care teams, and 23 home‐based palliative care services. Results. We recruited 2,425 patients and included 2,361 for analysis: 912 from hospital‐based palliative care teams, 895 from hospital palliative care units, and 554 from home‐based palliative care services. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the 7‐day survival surprise question were 84.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.7%–88.0%), 68.0% (95% CI, 67.3%–68.5%), 30.3% (95% CI, 28.9%–31.5%), and 96.4% (95% CI, 95.5%–97.2%), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the 30‐day surprise question were 95.6% (95% CI, 94.4%–96.6%), 37.0% (95% CI, 35.9%–37.9%), 57.6% (95% CI, 56.8%–58.2%), and 90.4% (95% CI, 87.7%–92.6%), respectively. Conclusion. Surprise questions are useful for screening patients for short survival. However, the high false‐positive rates do not allow clinicians to provide definitive prognosis prediction. Implications for Practice: The findings of this study indicate that clinicians can screen patients for 7‐ or 30‐day survival using surprise questions with 90% or more sensitivity. Clinicians cannot provide accurate prognosis estimation, and all patients will not always die within the defined periods. The screened patients can be regarded as the subjects to be prepared for approaching death, and proactive discussion would be useful for such patients.

No abstract

Caregiver burden can be a barrier to family satisfaction with end-of-life care at home. A home care model focused on caregiver burden could improve end-of-life experiences for patients and family caregivers.