A prospective multicentre study in Sweden and Norway of mental distress and psychiatric morbidity in head and neck cancer patients

A Swedish/Norwegian head and neck cancer study was designed to assess prospectively the levels of mental distress and psychiatric morbidity in a heterogeneous sample of newly diagnosed head and neck cancer patients. A total of 357 patients were included. The mean age was 63 years, and 72% were males. The patients were asked to answer the HAD scale (the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale) six times during 1 year. The number of possible or probable cases of anxiety or depression disorder was calculated according to standardized cut-offs. Approximately one-third of the patients scored as a possible or probable case of a major mood disorder at each measurement point during the study year. There were new cases of anxiety or depression at each time point. The anxiety level was highest at diagnosis, while depression was most common during treatment. Females were more anxious than males at diagnosis, and patients under 65 years of age scored higher than those over 65. Patients with lower performance status and more advanced disease reported higher levels of mental distress and more often scored as a probable or possible cases of psychiatric disorder. Our psychometric analyses supported the two-dimensional structure and stability of the HAD scale. The HAD scale seems to be the method of choice for getting valid information about the probability of mood disorder in head and neck cancer populations. The prevalence of psychiatric morbidity found in this study emphasizes the importance of improved diagnosis and treatment

Intention-to-treat analyses for randomised controlled trials in hospice/palliative care: the case for analyses to be of people exposed to the intervention.

© 2019 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine Context: Minimizing bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) includes intention-to-treat analyses. Hospice/palliative care RCTs are constrained by high attrition unpredictable when consenting, including withdrawals between randomization and first exposure to the intervention. Such withdrawals may systematically bias findings away from the new intervention being evaluated if they are considered nonresponders. Objectives: This study aimed to quantify the impact within intention-to-treat principles. Methods: A theoretical model was developed to assess the impact of withdrawals between randomization and first exposure on study power and effect sizes. Ten reported hospice/palliative care studies had power recalculated accounting for such withdrawal. Results: In the theoretical model, when 5% of withdrawals occurred between randomization and first exposure to the intervention, change in power was demonstrated in binary outcomes (2.0%–2.2%), continuous outcomes (0.8%–2.0%), and time-to-event outcomes (1.6%–2.0%), and odds ratios were changed by 0.06–0.17. Greater power loss was observed with larger effect sizes. Withdrawal rates were 0.9%–10% in the 10 reported RCTs, corresponding to power losses of 0.1%–2.2%. For studies with binary outcomes, withdrawal rates were 0.3%–1.2% changing odds ratios by 0.01–0.22. Conclusion: If blinding is maintained and all interventions are available simultaneously, our model suggests that excluding data from withdrawals between randomization and first exposure to the intervention minimizes one bias. This is the safety population as defined by the International Committee on Harmonization. When planning for future trials, minimizing the time between randomization and first exposure to the intervention will minimize the problem. Power should be calculated on people who receive the intervention

Validation of the Consensus-Definition for Cancer Cachexia and evaluation of a classification model—a study based on data from an international multicentre project (EPCRC-CSA)

A cancer cachexia classification into stages is warranted in order to guide treatment decisions and clinical trial inclusion. Weight loss and BMI clearly discriminate between non-cachectic and cachectic patients both with regards to all the domains (Intake, Catabolism and Function) and survival. The precachexia stage might be better defined by additional factors in order to be discriminativ

Can cancer patients assess the influence of pain on functions? A randomised, controlled study of the pain interference items in the Brief Pain Inventory

BACKGROUND: The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) is recommended as a pain measurement tool by the Expert Working Group of the European Association of Palliative Care. The BPI is designed to assess both pain severity and interference with functions caused by pain. The purpose of this study was to investigate if pain interference items are influenced by other factors than pain. METHODS: We asked adult cancer patients to complete the original and a revised BPI on two study days. In the original version of the BPI the patients were asked how, during the last 24 hours, pain has interfered with functions. In the revised BPI this question was changed to how, during the last 24 hours, these functions are affected in general. Heath related quality of life was assessed at both study days applying the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire. RESULTS: Forty-eight of the 55 included patients completed both assessments. The BPI pain intensities scores and the health related quality of life scores were similar at the two study days. Except for mood this study observed no significant distinctions between the patients' BPI interference items scores in the original (pain influence on function) and the revised BPI (function in general). Seventeen patients reported higher influence from pain on functions than the total influence on function from all causes. CONCLUSION: We observed similar scores in the original BPI interference scores (pain influence on function) compared with the revised BPI interference scores (decreased function in general). This finding might imply that the BPI interference scale measures are partly responded to as more of a global interference measure

Characteristics of the case mix, organisation and delivery in cancer palliative care: a challenge for good-quality research

Objectives: Palliative care (PC) services and patients differ across countries. Data on PC delivery paired with medical and self-reported data are seldom reported. Aims were to describe (1) PC organisation and services in participating centres and (2) characteristics of patients in PC programmes. Methods: This was an international prospective multicentre study with a single web-based survey on PC organisation, services and academics and patients' self-reported symptoms collected at baseline and monthly thereafter, with concurrent registrations of medical data by healthcare providers. Participants were patients ≥18 enrolled in a PC programme. Results: 30 centres in 12 countries participated; 24 hospitals, 4 hospices, 1 nursing home, 1 home-care service. 22 centres (73%) had PC in-house teams and inpatient and outpatient services. 20 centres (67%) had integral chemotherapy/radiotherapy services, and most (28/30) had access to general medical or oncology inpatient units. Physicians or nurses were present 24 hours/7 days in 50% and 60% of centres, respectively. 50 centres (50%) had professorships, and 12 centres (40%) had full-time/part-time research staff. Data were available on 1698 patients: 50% females; median age 66 (range 21–97); median Karnofsky score 70 (10–100); 1409 patients (83%) had metastatic/disseminated disease; tiredness and pain in the past 24 hours were most prominent. During follow-up, 1060 patients (62%) died; 450 (44%) <3 months from inclusion and 701 (68%) within 6 months. ANOVA and χ2 tests showed that hospice/nursing home patients were significantly older, had poorer performance status and had shorter survival compared with hospital-patients (p<.0.001). Conclusions: There is a wide variation in PC services and patients across Europe. Detailed characterisation is the first step in improving PC services and research. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01362816

Feasibility and acceptance of electronic monitoring of symptoms and syndromes using a handheld computer in patients with advanced cancer in daily oncology practice

Purpose: We investigated the feasibility and acceptance of electronic monitoring of symptoms and syndromes in oncological outpatient clinics using a PALM (handheld computer). Methods: The assessment of a combination of symptoms and clinical benefit parameters grouped in four pairs was tested in a pilot phase in advanced cancer patients. Based on these experiences, the software E-MOSAIC was developed, consisting of patient-reported symptoms and nutritional intake and objective assessments (weight, weight loss, performance status and medication for pain, fatigue, and cachexia). E-MOSAIC was then tested in four Swiss oncology centers. In order to compare the methods, patients completed the E-MOSAIC as a paper and a PALM version. Preferences of version and completion times were collected. Assessments were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests , and the test-retest reliability was evaluated. Results: The pilot phase was completed by 22 patients. Most patients and physicians perceived the assessment as useful. Sixty-two patients participated in the feasibility study. Twelve patients reported problems (understanding, optical, tactile), and five patients could not complete the assessment. The median time to complete the PALM-based assessment was 3min. Forty-nine percent of patients preferred the PALM, 23% preferred a paper version, and 28% of patients had no preference. Paper vs. PALM revealed no significant differences in symptoms, but in nutritional intake (p = 0.013). Test-retest (1h, n = 20) reliability was satisfactory (r = 073-98). Conclusion: Electronic symptom and clinical benefit monitoring is feasible in oncology outpatient clinics and perceived as useful by patients, oncology nurses, and oncologists. E-MOSAIC is tested in a prospective randomized trial

Assessing the feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness of Dignity Therapy for people with advanced cancer referred to a hospital-based palliative care team: Study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Loss of dignity for people with advanced cancer is associated with high levels of psychological and spiritual distress and the loss of the will to live. Dignity Therapy is a brief psychotherapy, which has been developed to help promote dignity and reduce distress. It comprises a recorded interview, which is transcribed, edited then returned to the patient, who can bequeath it to people of their choosing. Piloting in Canada, Australia and the USA, has suggested that Dignity Therapy is beneficial to people with advanced cancer and their families. The aims of this study are to assess the feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness of Dignity Therapy to reduce psychological and spiritual distress in people with advanced cancer who have been referred to hospital-based palliative care teams in the UK, and to pilot the methods for a Phase III RCT.</p> <p>Design</p> <p>A randomised controlled open-label trial. Forty patients with advanced cancer are randomly allocated to one of two groups: (i) Intervention (Dignity Therapy offered in addition to any standard care), and (ii) Control group (standard care). Recipients of the 'generativity' documents are asked their views on taking part in the study and the therapy. Both quantitative and qualitative outcomes are assessed in face-to-face interviews at baseline and at approximately one and four weeks after the intervention (equivalent in the control group). The primary outcome is patients' sense of dignity (potential effectiveness) assessed by the Patient Dignity Inventory. Secondary outcomes for patients include distress, hopefulness and quality of life. In view of the relatively small sample size, quantitative analyses are mainly descriptive. The qualitative analysis uses the Framework method.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Dignity Therapy is brief, can be delivered at the bedside and may help both patients and their families. This detailed exploratory research shows if it is feasible to offer Dignity Therapy to patients with advanced cancer, many of whom are likely to be in the terminal stage of their illness, whether it is acceptable to them and their families, if it is likely to be effective, and determine whether a Phase III RCT is desirable.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Clinical Trials: ISRCTN29868352</p