Search

The transition from active cancer treatment to palliative care often results in a shift in drug risk-benefit assessment which requires the deprescribing of various medications. Deprescribing in palliative cancer patients can benefit patients by reducing their pill burden, decrease potential side effects, and potentially decrease healthcare costs. In addition, a change in patients’ goals of care (GOC) necessitates the alteration of drug therapy which includes both deprescribing and the addition of medications intended to improve quality of life. Depending on a patient’s GOC, a medication can be considered as inappropriate. Primary: Comparison between potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) prior to the palliative care consult (PCC) versus after the PCC. Secondary: Association between PIMs and GOC. The study was a 1-year retrospective database review. The study included cancer patients seen by the PCC team at the University of Alberta Hospital. The OncPal guidelines were used to identify and determine the number of PIMs prior to the PCC and after the PCC. The reduction in PIMs prior to PCC versus after the PCC was statistically significant (p value

Survival prediction of advanced cancer patients remains an important task for palliative clinicians. It has transformed from an art form into a more scientific branch of the discipline with the evolution of palliative medicine and use of statistical estimates of survival. Both clinician predicted survival and actuarial estimation of survival have their uses and drawbacks. This article gives a practical and quick summary of the pros and cons of clinician survival prediction and actuarial-based prognostic tools used at the bedside.

92 Background: The transition from active cancer treatment to palliative care often results in a shift in drug risk-benefit assessment which requires the deprescribing of various medications. In addition, a change in patients’ goals of care (GOC) necessitates the alteration of drug therapy which includes both deprescribing and the addition of medications intended to improve quality of life. Depending on a patient’s GOC, a medication can be considered as inappropriate. Methods: The study was a one year retrospective database review and included cancer patients seen by the PCC team at the University of Alberta Hospital. Primary Objective: Comparison between potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) prior to the palliative care consult (PCC) versus after the PCC. Secondary objective: Association between PIMs and GOC. The OncPal guidelines were used to identify and determine the number of PIMs prior to the PCC and after the PCC. Results: The reduction in PIMs prior to PCC versus after the PCC was 49% and was statistically significant (p < 0.001), demonstrating the PCC has a positive significant impact on deprescribing PIMs. For our secondary outcome, an overall decrease in PIMs was observed with the changes of GOC. This decrease in PIMs associated with GOC although not statistically significant, demonstrates that one of the benefits of a PCC is the GOC conversation. Conclusions: Deprescribing in palliative cancer patients can benefit patients by reducing their pill burden, decrease potentially side effects, and potentially decrease healthcare costs. This study shows the positive impact a PCC has on deprescribing and reassessing GOC. Furthermore, this study reveals the importance of using guidelines for deprescribing in palliative oncology and brings to light other medications that may be considered PIMs.

Survival prediction for end stage cancer patientsremains an important task in Palliative Medicine. Previously more of an art form, survival prediction has now become increasingly objective, utilizing statistical estimates of survival. Both clinician prediction survival and actuarial estimation of survival have their uses and drawbacks. This article examines the pros and cons of each and how both can be utilized at the bedside.

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of death and disability, and despite optimal care, patients may eventually require palliative care. Little is known about how palliative care questionnaires (the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale [ESAS] and the Palliative Performance Scale [PPS]) perform compared with HF assessment using the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ).To assess the utility of a palliative care questionnaire in patients with HF.One hundred and five patients (mean age=65 years, 76% male, mean ejection fraction=28%) followed in an HF clinic were surveyed with the NYHA, PPS, ESAS, and KCCQ.The PPS and ESAS were each correlated to the NYHA class (P0.0001 for both) and the KCCQ score (PPS: R(2)=0.57; ESAS: R(2)=-0.72; both P0.0001). There were 33 patients who either died (10 deaths) or were hospitalized (26 patients) for more than one year. In addition to age and gender, a higher (worse) ESAS score trended toward significance (P=0.07) and a lower (worse) PPS was a significant (P=0.04) predictor of all-cause hospitalization or death.In a cohort of HF patients, we found a modest correlation with NYHA class and KCCQ assessment with the PPS and ESAS, two standard palliative care questionnaires. Given the difficulty in identifying patients with HF eligible for palliative or hospice care, these tools may be of use in clinical practice.

Advanced cancer patients remain highly susceptible to infections, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. A lack of consensus on the management of infections in this population stems from the heterogeneity of the patient group, divergent goals of care, and unknown prognosis with antibiotic treatment.This prospective single cohort study examined the impact of infection and its treatment on the survival of hospitalized advanced cancer patients compared with a similar cohort without infection.A total of 441 patients were referred to the palliative care (PC) consult service in a tertiary hospital over a 12-month period. The occurrence of sepsis, organ-related infection, and antibiotic use were recorded on initial PC consult. Survival was calculated from the point of PC consult to the date of death.Of these patients, 16.6% suffered a recent episode of sepsis (with or without an identifiable organ-related infection) and 23.4% had a recent episode of organ-related infection without clinically evident sepsis. Among the patients with sepsis, organ-related infection, or both, 89.7% received antibiotics (intravenous, oral, or both). Median survival of septic and nonseptic patients was 15 and 42 days, respectively. Septic patients who responded poorly to treatment (nonresponders) had a median survival of five days vs. 142 days in good responders. This equates with a hazard ratio of 9.74 for death in antibiotic nonresponders (P0.05). Median survival for patients with an untreated organ-related infection (no sepsis) was 27 days compared with 48 days in a similar cohort receiving antibiotic therapy. Among patients on IV antibiotics, nonresponders had a median survival of six days vs. 108 days in responders. For patients on oral antibiotics, nonresponders had a median survival of six days vs. 70 days in responders.These findings suggest that a recent episode of sepsis and/or organ-related infection significantly reduces overall patient survival. Favorable antibiotic response is associated with an increase in median survival. These findings suggest that antibiotic treatment may prolong survival, and a time-limited trial may be indicated contingent on goals of care.