Search

Cachexia is a multifactorial syndrome that is common in cancer and chronic disease. It is often underdiagnosed and therefore goes untreated or undertreated. Cachexia causes suffering across biopsychosocial domains and affects patients and their loved ones. In this article, a group of clinicians and researchers across cancer care, nutrition, and exercise offers tips about assessment, classification, and management of cachexia, with attention to its stage. The required multimodal management of cachexia mirrors well the interprofessional collaboration that is the mainstay of interdisciplinary palliative care and attention to screening, diagnosis, and management of cachexia is critical to maximize patients' quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The semantics of defining cancer cachexia over the last decade has resulted in uncertainty as to the prevalence. This has further hindered the recognition and subsequent treatment of this condition. Following the consensus definition for cancer cachexia in 2011, there is now a need to establish estimates of prevalence. Therefore, the primary aim of the present study was to assess the prevalence of cachexia in an unselected cancer population. A secondary aim was to assess patient-perceived need of attention to cachexia.Methods: A cross-sectional study in hospital patients was undertaken. Key inclusion criteria were the following: age > 18 years, cancer diagnosis, and no surgery the preceding 24 h. Data on demographics, disease, performance status, symptoms, cachexia, and patients' perceived need of attention to weight loss and nutrition were registered.Results: Data were available on 386 of 426 eligible patients. Median age (IQR) was 65 years (56-72), 214 (55%) were male and 302 (78%) had a performance status of 0-1 (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group). Prevalence of cachexia (inpatients/outpatients) was 51/22%. Prevalence was highest in patients with gastrointestinal cancer (62/42%) and lung cancer (83/36%). There was no major difference in prevalence between patients with metastatic (55/24%) and localized disease (47/19%). Twenty percent of inpatients and 15% of outpatients wanted more attention to weight loss and nutrition. Cachexia (p < 0.001), symptoms of mood disorder (p < 0.001), and male gender (p < 0.01) were independently associated with increased need of attention.Conclusion: Cachexia is a prevalent condition, affecting both patients with localized and metastatic cancer. Clinical attention to the condition is a sizeable unmet need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Palliative cancer care patients may live for a long time, but malnutrition worsens the prognosis. Parenteral nutrition (PN) is suitable for replenishing a calorie deficit, but its advantages and tolerance late in the cancer trajectory are debated. We examined symptom development in hospitalized patients with and without PN. A total of 21 palliative cancer care patients receiving PN and 155 palliative cancer care patients not receiving PN during hospitalization in a specialized unit were retrospectively compared. We studied symptom intensity at admission, symptom relief during the hospital stay, and survival. The patients had locally advanced or metastatic cancer, a mean age of 70 years, and their median ECOG performance status was III. Symptom burden at admission was similar in the compared groups. Symptom relief during hospitalization was also similar. However, patients already on PN at admission reported more nausea and patients receiving PN during hospitalization reported better nausea relief compared to patients not receiving this intervention. Overall median survival was less than two months and similar in the compared groups. Based on a limited number of observations and a suboptimal study design, we were not able to demonstrate an increased symptom burden for palliative cancer care patients receiving PN late in the disease trajectory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early intervention against cachexia necessitates a predictive model. The aims of this study were to identify predictors of cachexia development and to create and evaluate accuracy of a predictive model based on these predictors. Methods: A secondary analysis of a prospective, observational, multicentre study was conducted. Patients, who attended a palliative care programme, had incurable cancer and did not have cachexia at baseline, were amenable to the analysis. Cachexia was defined as weight loss (WL) > 5% (6 months) or WL > 2% and body mass index< 20 kg/m2. Clinical and demographic markers were evaluated as possible predictors with Cox analysis. A classification and regression tree analysis was used to create a model based on optimal combinations and cut-offs of significant predictors for cachexia development, and accuracy was evaluated with a calibration plot, Harrell's c-statistic and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Results: Six-hundred-twenty-eight patients were included in the analysis. Median age was 65 years (IQR 17), 359(57%) were female and median Karnofsky performance status was 70(IQR 10). Median follow-up was 109 days (IQR 108), and 159 (25%) patients developed cachexia. Initial WL, cancer type, appetite and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were significant predictors (p ≤ 0.04). A five-level model was created with each level carrying an increasing risk of cachexia development. For Risk-level 1-patients (WL < 3%, breast or hematologic cancer and no or little appetite loss), median time to cachexia development was not reached, while Risk-level 5-patients (WL 3–5%) had a median time to cachexia development of 51 days. Accuracy of cachexia predictions at 3 months was 76%. Conclusion: Important predictors of cachexia have been identified and used to construct a predictive model of cancer cachexia. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01362816. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The pain management index (PMI) was developed to combine information about the prescribed analgesics and the self-reported pain intensity in order to assess physicians' response to patients' pain. However, PMI has been used to explore undertreatment of cancer pain. The present study explores prevalence of negative PMI and its associations to clinical variables, including the patient-perceived wish for more attention to pain.Methods: A single-center, cross-sectional, observational study of cancer patients was conducted. Data on demographics and clinical variables, as well as patient-perceived wish for more attention to pain, were registered. PMI was calculated. Negative PMI indicates that the analgesics prescribed might not be appropriate to the pain intensity reported by the patient, and associations to negative PMI were explored by logistic regression models.Results: One hundred eighty-seven patients were included, 53% had a negative PMI score. Negative PMI scores were more frequent among patients with breast cancer (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.3, 13.5), in a follow-up setting (OR 12.1, 95% CI 1.4, 101.4), and were inversely associated to low performance status (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03, 0.65). Twenty-two percent of patients with negative PMI scores reported that they wanted more focus on pain management, versus 13% among patients with a non-negative PMI score; the difference was not statistically significant.Conclusion: A high prevalence of negative PMI was observed, but only 1/5 of patients with a negative PMI wanted more attention to pain by their physician. Our findings challenge the use of PMI as a measure of undertreatment of cancer pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background & Aims: Prognostication in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is demanding. Not only tumour extent and performance status are to be considered, but also liver function, which is often limiting for both survival itself and for treatment possibilities. This study was conducted to assess whether patient‐reported questionnaires containing general and liver‐specific questions could improve prognostication of survival. Methods: 185 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in Norway and Sweden were prospectively included. Patients completed the quality‐of‐life questionnaires EORTC QLQ C30 and HCC18, and clinical, radiological and laboratory parameters were registered. Multivariate Cox regression and Harrell's C‐statistics were used to identify the model that best predicted mortality. Results: Quality‐of‐life data were prognostic for overall survival. Fatigue and nutrition scales were prognostic in the multivariable analyses alone and in combination with clinical parameters. The prognostic value of established scoring systems was increased by the addition of QoL data. The best prognostic power was achieved by combining HCC18 nutrition scale with selected background parameters. Conclusion: Quality‐of‐life questionnaires can prognosticate mortality in HCC patients. When combined with established scoring systems, both the general cancer questionnaire EORTC QLQ C30, and the additional liver cancer‐specific HCC18 increased the prognostic accuracy slightly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Cancer pain (CP) management is challenging. In recent years, efforts were undertaken to achieve better CP management, e.g. clinical research, new treatment modalities, development of guidelines, education and focus on implementation. The aim of the present study was to compare the prevalence and characteristics of pain and breakthrough pain (BTP) between cross-sectional studies conducted in 2008 and 2014. It was hypothesized that an improvement in pain control would be observed the years in between.Methods: Two cross-sectional studies were conducted where adult cancer patients answered questions from Brief Pain Inventory and the Alberta Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool for cancer patients. Physicians reported socio-demographic and medical data. Regression models were applied for analysis.Results: In total, 168 inpatients, 92 in 2008 and 76 in 2014, and 675 outpatients, 301 in 2008 and 374 in 2014, were included. The patient characteristics of the samples were comparable. Prevalence of CP among inpatients was 55 % in 2008 and 53 % in 2014, and among outpatients, 39 and 35 %, respectively. Inpatients reported average pain intensity (0-10 numerical rating scale, NRS) of 3.60 (standard deviation, SD 1.84) (2008) and 4.08 (SD 2.11) (2014); prevalence of BTP was 52 % (2008) and 41 % (2014). For outpatients, average pain intensity was 3.60 (SD 2.04) (2008) and 3.86 (SD 2.20) (2014); prevalence of BTP was 43 % (2008) and 37 % (2014). None of the differences were statistically significant.Conclusion: Unexpectedly, no improvement in pain control was observed. Efforts are still needed to improve cancer pain management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Radiation therapy (RT) results in pain relief for about 6 of 10 patients with cancer induced bone pain (CIBP) caused by bone metastases. The high number of non-responders, the long median time from RT to pain response and the risk of adverse effects, makes it important to determine predictors of treatment response. Clinical features such as cancer type, performance status and pain intensity, and biomarkers for osteoclast activity are proposed as predictors of response to RT. However, results are inconsistent and there is a need for better predictors of RT response. A similar argument can be stated for the development of cachexia; there are currently no predictors that can identify patients who will develop cachexia later in the cancer disease trajectory. Experimental and preclinical studies show that pain, depression and cachexia are related to inflammation. However, it is not known if inflammatory biomarkers can predict CIBP, depression or development of cachexia. Methods: This multicenter, multinational longitudinal observational study will include 600 adult patients receiving RT for CIBP. Demographic data, clinical variables, osteoclast and inflammatory biomarkers will be assessed before start of RT, and 3, 8, 16, 24 and 52 weeks after last course of RT. The primary aim of the study is to identify potential predictors for pain relief from RT. Secondary aims are to explore potential predictors for development of cachexia, the longitudinal relationship between pain intensity and depression, and if inflammatory biomarkers are associated with changes in pain intensity, cachexia and depression during one-year follow up. Discussion: The immediate clinical implication of the PRAIS study is to identify potential predictive factors for a RT response on CIBP, and thereby reduce non-efficacious RT. Patient benefits are fewer hospital visits, reduced risk of adverse effects and more individualized pain treatment. The long-term clinical implication of the PRAIS study is to improve the knowledge about inflammation in relation to CIBP, cachexia and depression and potentially identify associations and mechanisms that can be targeted for treatment. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02107664, date of registration April 8, 2014 (retrospectively registered). Trial sponsor: The European Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, NTNU, Faculty of medicine and Health Sciences, Trondheim, N-7491, Norway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]