Search

Background/Introduction: Psychological distress occurs frequently in patients with cancer. Psychological distress includes mild and severe forms of both anxious and depressive mood states. Literature indicates that effective management of psychological distress seems to require targeted selection of patients (T), followed by enhanced care (E), and the application of evidence based interventions. Besides, it is hypothesized that delivering care according to the stepped care (S) approach results in an affordable program. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the (cost)-effectiveness of the TES program compared to usual care in reducing psychological distress in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods: This study is designed as a cluster randomized trial with 2 treatment arms: TES program for screening and treatment of psychological distress versus usual care. Sixteen hospitals participate in this study, recruiting patients with mCRC. Outcomes are evaluated at the beginning of chemotherapy and after 3, 10, 24, and 48 weeks. Primary outcome is the difference in treatment effect over time in psychological distress, assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, patient evaluation of care, recognition and management of psychological distress, and societal costs. Discussion: We created optimal conditions for an effective screening and treatment program for psychological distress in patients with mCRC. This involves targeted selection of patients, followed by enhanced and stepped care. Our approach will be thoroughly evaluated in this study. We expect that our results will contribute to the continuing debate on the (cost-) effectiveness of screening for and treatment of psychological distress in patients with cancer. Trial Registration: This trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register NTR4034 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Treatment of delirium often includes haloperidol. Second-generation antipsychotics like olanzapine have emerged as an alternative with possibly fewer side effects. The aim of this multicenter, phase III, randomized clinical trial was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine with haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer., Materials and Methods: Eligible adult patients (≥18 years) with advanced cancer and delirium (Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 [DRS-R-98] total score ≥17.75) were randomized 1:1 to receive either haloperidol or olanzapine (age-adjusted, titratable doses). Primary endpoint was delirium response rate (DRR), defined as number of patients with DRS-R-98 severity score <15.25 and ≥4.5 points reduction. Secondary endpoints included time to response (TTR), tolerability, and delirium-related distress., Results: Between January 2011 and June 2016, 98 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. DRR was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31-59) for olanzapine and 57% (95% CI, 43-71) for haloperidol (Δ DRR -12%; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4; p = .23). Mean TTR was 4.5 days (95% CI, 3.2-5.9 days) for olanzapine and 2.8 days (95% CI, 1.9-3.7 days; p = .18) for haloperidol. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 5 patients (10.2%) and 10 patients (20.4%) in the olanzapine and haloperidol arm, respectively. Distress rates were similar in both groups. The study was terminated early because of futility., Conclusion: Delirium treatment with olanzapine in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer did not result in improvement of DRR or TTR compared with haloperidol. Clinical trial identification number. NCT01539733. Dutch Trial Register. NTR2559., Implications for Practice: Guidelines recommend that pharmacological interventions for delirium treatment in adults with cancer should be limited to patients who have distressing delirium symptoms. It was suggested that atypical antipsychotics, such as olanzapine, outperform haloperidol in efficacy and safety. However, collective data comparing the efficacy and safety of typical versus atypical antipsychotics in patients with cancer are limited. If targeted and judicious use of antipsychotics is considered for the treatment of delirium in patients with advanced cancer, this study demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference in response to haloperidol or olanzapine. Olanzapine showed an overall better safety profile compared with haloperidol, although this difference was not statistically significant., (© 2019 Radboudumc. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Background: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) reduces quality of life and the activity level of patients with cancer. Cancer related fatigue can be reduced by exercise interventions that may concurrently increase muscle mass. We hypothesized that low muscle mass is directly related to higher CRF., Methods: A total of 233 patients with advanced cancer starting palliative chemotherapy for lung, colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer were studied. The skeletal muscle index (SMI) was calculated as the patient's muscle mass on level L3 or T4 of a computed tomography scan, adjusted for height. Fatigue was assessed with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-fatigue questionnaire (cut-off for fatigue <34). Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to study the association between SMI and CRF adjusting for relevant confounders., Results: In this group of patients with advanced cancer, the median fatigue score was 36 (interquartile range 26-44). A higher SMI on level L3 was significantly associated with less CRF for men (B 0.447, P 0.004) but not for women (B - 0.401, P 0.090). No association between SMI on level T4 and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-fatigue score was found (n = 82)., Conclusions: The association between SMI and CRF may lead to the suggestion that male patients may be able to reduce fatigue by exercise interventions aiming at an increased muscle mass. In women with advanced cancer, CRF is more influenced by other causes, because it is not significantly related to muscle mass. To further reduce CRF in both men and women with cancer, multifactorial assessments need to be performed in order to develop effective treatment strategies., (© 2017 The Authors. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the Society on Sarcopenia, Cachexia and Wasting Disorders.)

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a serious symptom of patients with cancer and deteriorates their daily quality of life. Whereas fatigue is a common problem in the general population, with a prevalence of about 30%, up to 99% of patients with cancer have fatigue of more intense severity. CRF is directly related to the biology of cancer, but it can also be caused by anticancer treatment. We reviewed current evidence about the potential pathophysiological mechanisms causing CRF. Clinical methods to determine the presence and severity of CRF and potential treatment options to reduce CRF will be discussed. After reading this review, the reader will have knowledge of the current understanding of CRF and will be able to give evidence-based advice to patients with CRF.