Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Oral symptoms can be a sign of an underlying systemic condition and have a significant impact on quality of life, nutrition, and cost of care, while these lesions are often studied in the context of cancer treatment. However, information regarding oral symptoms in advanced cancer patients is poor. The aim of this multicenter study was to determine the prevalence and the characteristics of oral symptoms in a large population of advanced cancer patients. Methods A consecutive sample of patients with advanced cancer for a period of 6 months was prospectively assessed for an observational study. At time of admission, the epidemiological characteristics, surgery-radiotherapy of head and neck, and oncologic treatments in the last month were recorded. The presence of mucositis, dry mouth, and dysphagia was assessed by clinical examination and patients’ report and their intensity recorded. Patients were also asked whether they had limitation on nutrition of hydration due to the local condition. Results Six hundred sixty-nine patients were surveyed in the period taken into consideration. The mean age was 72.1 years (SD 12.3), and 342 patients were males. The primary tumors are listed in Table  1 . The prevalence of mucositis was 22.3 %. The symptom relevantly reduced the ingestion of food or fluids and was statistically associated with the Karnofsky level and head and neck cancer. The prevalence of dry mouth was 40.4 %, with a mean intensity of 5.4 (SD 2.1). Several drugs were concomitantly given, particularly opioids (78 %), corticosteroids (75.3 %), and diuretics (70.2 %). Various and nonhomogeneous treatments were given for dry mouth, that was statistically associated with current or recent chemotherapy, and hematological tumors. The prevalence of dysphagia was 15.4 % with a mean intensity of 5.34 (SD 3). Dysphagia for liquids was observed in 52.4 % of cases. A high level of limitation for oral nutrition due to dysphagia was found, and in 53.4 % of patients, alternative routes to the oral one were used. Dysphagia was statistically associated with the Karnofsky level and head and neck cancer. A strong relationship between the three oral symptoms was found. Conclusion In advanced cancer patients, a range of oral problems significantly may impact on the physical, social, and psychological well-being of advanced cancer patients to varying degrees. These symptoms should be carefully assessed early but become imperative in the palliative care setting when they produce relevant consequences that may be life-threatening other than limiting the daily activities, particularly eating and drinking.

Aim The aim of this study was to determine the influence of alcoholism on symptom expression, personalized symptom goal (PSG) and patient goal response (PGR), and patient global impression (PGI) in advanced cancer patients. Methods This was a secondary analysis of an international multicenter study. Advanced cancer patients who had a history of alcohol dependence positive, according to CAGE (cut down, annoy, guilt, eye-opener), were selected. Thirty patients (3.45%) were CAGE-positive. This sample was matched with 30 patients with similar characteristics who were CAGE-negative. Patients rated symptom intensity by using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) at admission (T0) and then after 1 week. For each symptom, patients reported their PSG. After a week of comprehensive palliative care, PSG was measured again (T7), as well as the achievement of PGR, and PGI. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated by PGI of improvement or deterioration at T7 (bit better or a little worse, respectively). Results A significant decrease in intensity was found for most symptoms in both groups. In CAGE-negative and CAGE-positive patients, most patients had a PSG of ≤ 3 for all ESAS items as a target at T0. All PSG targets did not changed significantly after 1 week of palliative care in both groups. Although CAGE-positive basically had unfavorable PGI and PGR, a statistical significance was achieved only for appetite ( P = 0.037; ANOVA test). In CAGE-negative patients, Karnofsky was the only factor independently associated with PGI for pain and dyspnea. Factors independently associated with PGI for nausea were symptom intensity at T0 and home situation. In CAGE-positive patients, Karnofsky was independently associated with PGI for pain, nausea, and well-being. Symptom intensity at T0 was independently associated with PGI for weakness. Conclusion CAGE-positive advanced cancer patients favorably responded to a palliative care intervention. No greater differences have been found in comparison with CAGE-negative patients for PSG, PGR, and PGI, except for appetite. Further studies with large number of patients could confirm some trends observed in this study.

The aim of this study was to assess how an admission to an acute palliative-supportive care unit (APSCU), may influence the therapeutic trajectory of advanced cancer patients. A consecutive sample of advanced cancer patients admitted to APCU was assessed. The following parameters were collected: patients demographics, including age, gender, primary diagnosis, marital status, and educational level, performance status and reasons for and kind of admission, data about care-givers, recent anticancer treatments, being on/off treatment or uncertain, the previous care setting, who proposed the admission to APSCU. Physical and psychological symptoms were evaluated at admission and at time of discharge. The use of opioids was also recorded. Hospital staying was also recorded. At time of discharge the parameters were recorded and a follow-up was performed one month after discharge. 314 consecutive patients admitted to the APSCU were surveyed. Pain was the most frequent reason for admission. Changes of ESAS were highly significant, as well as the use of opioids and breakthrough pain medications (p <0.0005). A significant decrease of the number of \"on therapy\" patients was reported, and concomitantly a significant number of \"off-therapy\" patients increased. At one month follow-up, 38.9% patients were at home, 19.7% patients were receiving palliative home care, and 1.6% patients were in hospice. 68.5% of patients were still living. Data of this study suggest that the APSCU may have a relevant role for managing the therapeutic trajectory of advanced cancer patients, limiting the risk of futile and aggressive treatment while providing an appropriate care setting.

Background Palliative sedation involves the intentional proportional lowering of the level of consciousness in patients with life-limiting disease who are experiencing refractory suffering. The efficacy of palliative sedation needs to be monitored to ensure patient comfort. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy using discomfort levels combined with sedation/agitation levels. Methods In this prospective observational study, adult patients with advanced malignancies were recruited from hospice units, palliative care units, and hospital wards in five European countries. Health care professionals used proxy observations of discomfort levels (Discomfort Scale-Dementia of Alzheimer Type, range 0–27) and sedation/agitation levels (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale modified for palliative care inpatients), range − 5 to + 4) to evaluate the efficacy of palliative sedation. Results In 78 participants, discomfort levels were monitored during palliative sedation. The mean discomfort score before start was 9.4 points (95% CI 8.3–10.5), which showed a significant decrease of 6.0 points (95% CI 4.8–7.1) after start of sedation for the total sedation period. In the multivariable analysis, no significant factors influencing baseline discomfort levels were identified. The discomfort and depth of sedation scores were found to be positively correlated, with an r of 0.72 (95% CI 0.61–0.82). The internal consistency of the discomfort scale was good (0.83), but the “Noisy breathing” item was less informative of the total discomfort score. Conclusions The efficacy of palliative sedation can be evaluated by measuring discomfort levels combined with sedation/agitation levels. The measurement of discomfort levels might provide a more specific and detailed evaluation of adequate sedation . Trial registration This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov since January 22, 2021, registration number: NCT04719702.

BackgroundA supportive palliative care unit (SPCU) may have a positive impact on patients’ care. The aim of this study was to compare the pattern of patients admitted to a specialized SPCU and to a traditional oncologic ward (OW) in a consecutive sample of advanced cancer patients.MethodsData on patients demographics, reasons for and kind of admission, care-giver, anticancer treatments, being on/off treatment or uncertain, origin setting, who proposed hospital admission, the use of opioids, and hospitalization were gathered. The same parameters were recorded at discharge. A follow-up was performed by phone 1 month after discharge.ResultsTwo-hundred patients were surveyed. Awareness of disease was more complete in OW patients (P = 0.001). Uncontrolled pain and symptoms were the prevalent reasons for admission to SPCU (P < 0.0005). Toxicity from chemotherapy was more frequently reported by OW patients (P = 0.001). SPCU patients received higher doses of opioids (P = 0.004). More SPCU patients were referred from home and were discharged home (P < 0.0005 and P = 0.018, respectively). Emergency admissions were more frequently reported in OW patients (P < 0.0005). One month after, more SPCU patients were at home and were still on active treatment (P = 0.002, and P = 0.05, respectively). More OW patients died within 1 month (P = 0.001).ConclusionSPCU allows a better planning admission to hospital and a better care trajectory in advanced cancer patients in comparison to a busy OW, where unselected emergencies more frequently occur.

Background Palliative sedation involves the intentional lowering of consciousness at the end of life. It can be initiated to relieve a patient’s burden caused by refractory symptoms at the end of life. The impact of palliative sedation needs to be clinically monitored to adjust the proper dose and regimen of sedative medication to ensure that patients are at ease and comfortable at the end of their lives. Although there is consensus among health care professionals and within guidelines that efficacy of palliative sedation needs to be closely monitored, there is no agreement about how, when, and by whom, this monitoring should be performed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of palliative sedation by measuring the discomfort levels and sedation/agitation levels of the patients at regular timepoints. In addition, the clinical trajectories of those patients receiving palliative sedation will be monitored and recorded. Methods The study is an international prospective non-experimental observational multicentre study. Patients are recruited from in-patient palliative care settings in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. Adult patients with advanced cancer are monitored by using proxy observations of discomfort (DS-DAT) and depth of sedation/agitation levels (RASS-PAL) during palliative sedation. After the palliative sedation period, the care for the specific participant case is evaluated by one of the attending health care professionals and one relative via a questionnaire. Discussion This study will be the first international prospective multicenter study evaluating the clinical practice of palliative sedation including observations of discomfort levels and levels of sedation. It will provide valuable information about the practice of palliative sedation in European countries in terminally ill cancer patients. Results from this study will facilitate the formulation of recommendations for clinical practice on how to improve monitoring and comfort in patients receiving palliative sedation. Trial registration This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov since January 22, 2021, registration number: NCT04719702.

Background Palliative sedation refers to the proportional use of titrated medication which reduces consciousness with the aim of relieving refractory suffering related to physical and psychological symptoms and/or existential distress near the end of life. Palliative sedation is intended to be an end of life option that enables healthcare professionals to provide good patient care but there remains controversy on how it is used. Little is known about decision-making processes regarding this procedure. The aim of this study was to explore decision-making processes in palliative sedation based on the experiences and perceptions of relatives and healthcare professionals. Methods We conducted a qualitative interview study with dyads (a bereaved relative and a healthcare professional) linked to 33 deceased patient with cancer who had palliative sedation, in seven in-patient palliative care settings in five countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain). A framework analysis approach was used to analyse the data. Results Two main themes are defined: 1) Decision-making about palliative sedation is a complex iterative process, 2) Decision-making is a shared process between the patient, healthcare professionals, and relatives. Decision-making about palliative sedation appears to follow an iterative process of shared information, deliberation, and decision-making. The patient and healthcare professionals are the main stakeholders, but relatives are involved and may advocate for, or delay, the decision-making process. Starting palliative sedation is reported to be an emotionally difficult decision for all parties. Conclusions As decision-making about palliative sedation is a complex and iterative process, patients, relatives and healthcare professionals need time for regular discussions. This requires a high level of engagement by healthcare professionals, that takes into account patients’ wishes and needs, and helps to facilitate decision-making.

Background/Objectives: Studies have shown that healthcare providers struggle to discuss difficult end-of-life issues, including palliative sedation (PS), with patients and relatives. This qualitative study aimed to evaluate communication challenges related to PS among healthcare providers in eight European countries. Methods: In each country, two clinical settings providing palliative care were selected. Two moral case deliberation (MCD) sessions were conducted, each with 3 to 9 palliative healthcare professionals (HCPs). They discussed patient cases involving PS and refractory symptom management. Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymized, and analyzed using a framework analysis. Results: Key issues included core communication values—open, empathetic, and honest dialogue—which were consistent across countries but varied in practice. In The Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, and the UK, communication prioritized patient autonomy through timely discussions and family dialogue. In Spain and Italy, family-centered communication approaches predominated, while in Romania and Hungary, tendencies for selective disclosure were also evident, along with delegated decision-making and complex family dynamics. Certain challenges reflected professional experience rather than national culture. Nurses mediated across contexts, while terminology surrounding palliative sedation remained a source of ambiguity. Conclusions: This is the first study to present HCPs’ perceptions of communication issues related to PS across Europe. Despite variations between settings, consistently open dialogue among patients, families, and HCPs emerged as the most valued element. These findings highlight the need to better understand how end-of-life communication about PS varies in practice and underscore the importance of considering healthcare providers’ real-world experiences to improve communication with patients and families.

A consecutive sample of patients who were switched from strong opioids to methadone in a period of 1 year was surveyed. QTc was assessed before switching (T0) and after achieving adequate analgesia and an acceptable level of adverse effects (Ts). Twenty-eight of 33 patients were switched to methadone successfully. The mean initial methadone doses at T0 were 67.1 mg/day (SD ±80.2, range 12–390). The mean QTc interval at T0 was 400 ms (SD ±30, range 330–450). The mean QTc interval at Ts (median 5 days) was 430 ms (SD ±26, range 390–500). The difference (7.7 %) was significant ( p  < 0.0005). Only two patients had a QTc of 500 ms. No serious arrhythmia was observed. At the linear regression analysis, there was no significant association between mean opioid doses expressed as oral morphine equivalents and QTc at T0 ( p  = 0.428), nor between mean methadone doses and QTc at Ts ( p  = 0.315). No age differences were found with previous opioid doses ( p  = 0.917), methadone doses ( p  = 0.613), QTc at T0 ( p  = 0.173), QTc at Ts ( p  = 0.297), and final opioid–methadone conversion ratio ( p  = 0.064). While methadone used for opioids switching seems to be an optimal choice to improve the opioid response in patients poorly responsive to the previous opioid, the possible QTc prolongation should be of concern despite not producing clinical consequences in this group of patients. A larger number of patients should be assessed to quantify the risk of serious arrhythmia.