Could palliative sedation be seen as unnamed euthanasia?: a survey among healthcare professionals in oncology

Abstract Background In 2016 a French law created a new right for end-of-life patients: deep and continuous sedation maintained until death, with discontinuation of all treatments sustaining life such as artificial nutrition and hydration. It was totally unprecedented that nutrition and hydration were explicitly defined in France as sustaining life treatments, and remains a specificity of this law. End- of-life practices raise ethical and practical issues, especially in Europe actually. We aimed to know how oncology professionals deal with the law, their opinion and experience and their perception. Methods Online mono-centric survey with closed-ended and open-ended questions in a Cancer Comprehensive Centre was elaborated. It was built during workshops of the ethics committee of the Institute, whose president is an oncologist with a doctoral degree in medical ethics. 58 oncologists and 121 nurses—all professionals of oncological departments -, received it, three times, as mail, with an information letter. Results 63/ 179 professionals answered the questionnaire (35%). Conducting end-of-life discussions and advanced care planning were reported by 46/63 professionals. In the last three months, 18 doctors and 7 nurses faced a request for a deep and continuous sedation maintained until death, in response to physical or existential refractory suffering. Artificial nutrition and even more hydration were not uniformly considered as treatment. Evaluation of the prognosis, crucial to decide a deep and continuous sedation maintained until death, appears to be very difficult and various, between hours and few weeks. Half of respondents were concerned that this practice could lead to or hide euthanasia practices, whereas for the other half, this new law formalised practices necessary for the quality of palliative care at the end-of-life. Conclusion Most respondents support the implementation of deep and continuous sedation maintained until death in routine end-of-life care. Nevertheless, difficulty to stop hydration, confusion with euthanasia practices, ethical debates it provokes and the risk of misunderstanding within teams and with families are significant. This is certainly shared by other teams. This could lead to a multi-centric survey and if confirmed might be reported to the legislator

The Question‐prompt list ( QPL

BACKGROUND: In India, caregivers are an integral part of the illness experience, especially in cancer, to the extent that they can become proxy decision‐makers for the patient. Further, owing to acute resource constraints in the Indian healthcare system, it may be difficult for oncologists to assess and elicit questions from each patient/caregiver. Consequently, there is a need to address these unique aspects of oncology care in India to improve patient outcomes and understanding of their illness and treatment. This can be achieved through a Question Prompt List (QPL), a checklist used by care recipients during medical consultations. RECENT FINDINGS: This narrative review will first introduce research on the development and effectiveness of the QPL, and then it will highlight current gaps in oncology care in India and explore how the QPL may aid in closing these gaps. A literature search of the empirical research focused on the development, feasibility and acceptability of the QPL in oncology settings was conducted. The final review included 40 articles pertaining to QPL research. Additionally, psycho‐oncology research in India centered on information needs and experiences was reviewed. Current Indian psycho‐oncology research reports patients' want to be actively involved in their cancer care and a need for more illness information. However, a high demand on physicians' resources and the family caregivers' interference can be barriers to meeting patients' information/communication needs. International research demonstrates that a QPL helps structure and decrease consultation time, improves patient satisfaction with care, and improves the quality of communication during medical encounters. CONCLUSION: QPLs for Indian patients and caregivers may focus on the scope of medical consultations to address patient needs while influencing the course and content of the patient‐caregiver‐physician interactions. Further, it can address the resource constraints in Indian oncology care settings, thus reducing the physician's burden

Gemcitabine combined with oxaliplatin in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: final results of a GERCOR multicenter phase II study.

Based on preclinical in vitro synergy data, this study evaluated the activity and toxicity of a gemcitabine/oxaliplatin combination in patients with metastatic and locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Clinical TrialClinical Trial, Phase IIJournal ArticleMulticenter StudyResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tSCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

A phase III randomized trial of weight loss to reduce cancer-related fatigue among overweight and obese breast cancer patients: MEDEA Study design

BACKGROUND: Elevated body mass index (BMI) represents a risk factor for cancer-related fatigue (CRF). Weight loss interventions are feasible and safe in cancer survivors, leading to improved cardio-metabolic and quality of life (QOL) outcomes and modulating inflammatory biomarkers. Randomized data are lacking showing that a lifestyle intervention aimed at weight loss, combining improved diet, exercise, and motivational counseling, reduces CRF. Motivating to Exercise and Diet, and Educating to healthy behaviors After breast cancer (MEDEA) is a multi-center, randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of weight loss on CRF in overweight or obese survivors of breast cancer. Herein, we described the MEDEA methodology. METHODS: Patients (N = 220) with stage I-III breast cancer and BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, within 12 months of primary treatment, and able to walk ≥ 400 m are eligible to enroll. Participants are randomized 1:1 to health education alone vs. a personalized telephone-based weight loss intervention plus health education. Both arms receive a health education program focusing on healthy living. Patients in the intervention arm are paired with an individual lifestyle coach, who delivers the intervention through 24 semi-structured telephone calls over 1 year. Intervention goals include weight loss ≥ 10% of baseline, caloric restriction of 500-1000 Kcal/day, and increased physical activity (PA) to 150 (initial phase) and 225-300 min/week (maintenance phase). The intervention is based on the social cognitive theory and is adapted from the Breast Cancer Weight Loss trial (BWEL, A011401). The primary endpoint is the difference in self-reported CRF (EORTC QLQ-C30) between arms. Secondary endpoints include the following: QOL (EORTC QLQ-C30, -BR45, -FA12), anxiety, and depression (HADS); weight and BMI, dietary habits and quality, PA, and sleep; health care costs (hospital-admissions, all-drug consumption, sick leaves) and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life-year); and patient motivation and satisfaction. The primary analysis of MEDEA will compare self-reported CRF at 12 months post-randomization between arms, with 80.0% power (two-sided α = 0.05) to detect a standardized effect size of 0.40. DISCUSSION: MEDEA will test the impact of a weight loss intervention on CRF among overweight or obese BC survivors, potentially providing additional management strategies and contributing to establish weight loss support as a new standard of clinical care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04304924. © 2022. The Author(s).Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]