Eating-related distress in advanced cancer patients with cachexia and family members: a survey in palliative and supportive care settings

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (8) ◽  
pp. 2869-2876 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koji Amano ◽  
Tatsuya Morita ◽  
Saori Koshimoto ◽  
Teruaki Uno ◽  
Hirofumi Katayama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients

Eating-related distress in patients with advanced cancer cachexia and family members: A survey in palliative and supportive care settings.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 163-163
Author(s):  
Koji Amano
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Cancer Cachexia ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Groups ◽  
Nutrition Impact Symptoms ◽  
The Mean

163 Background: Few studies have investigated nutrition impact symptoms and eating-related distress among advanced cancer patients and their family members. This is an anonymous questionnaire survey to explore the severity of nutrition impact symptoms and the prevalence of eating-related distress among advanced cancer patients and their family members in palliative and supportive care settings. Methods: The questionnaires for patients and their family members have been preliminarily developed by the authors. We have chosen 16 common symptoms of advanced cancer, i.e., 9 symptoms of the ESAS-r and 7 symptoms of the PG-SGA. Each questionnaire concerning eating-related distress consists of 12 items. Results: A total of 140 out of 147 patients responded (95.2%). They were classified into two groups: 1) Non-cachexia/Pre-cachexia (n = 57) and 2) Cachexia/Refractory cachexia (n = 83). The top 3 out of 16 symptoms in all patients were feeling of well-being, lack of appetite, and tiredness. Significant differences between the two groups were observed in 5 symptoms: pain (p = 0.005), nausea (p = 0.005), diarrhea (p = 0.001), abnormal taste (p = 0.017), and difficulty swallowing (p = 0.002), respectively. Concerning eating-related distress, significant differences between the two patient groups were observed in all items except for 2, and those between the two family member groups were observed in all items. The mean numbers of items in which patients/family members answered positively were significantly higher in Cachexia/Refractory cachexia group (p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: Advanced cancer patients with cachexia have greater nutrition impact symptoms than those without cachexia, and patients with cachexia and their family members have higher eating-related distress than those without cachexia.

Preferred lifestyle upon advanced cancer diagnosis: Comparison of perspectives of advanced cancer patients, family members, and physicians in Japan.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20559-e20559
Author(s):  
Mioko Ikushima ◽  
Jiichiro Sasaki ◽  
Seigo Nakamura ◽  
Naomi Sakurai ◽  
Michiko Oki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Comparison Of Perspectives

Frequency, predictors, and outcomes of urine drug test among patients with advanced cancer on chronic opioid therapy at an outpatient supportive care clinic.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 94-94
Author(s):  
Joseph Anthony Arthur ◽  
Tonya Edwards ◽  
David Hui ◽  
Jessica Marie Waletich-Flemming ◽  
Suresh K. Reddy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Opioid Therapy ◽  
Cancer Stage ◽  
Chronic Opioid Therapy ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Urine Drug ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

94 Background: Data on the utilization and outcomes of urine drug tests (UDT) among advanced cancer patients is limited. The main objective of this study was to determine the factors associated with UDT ordering and results in advanced cancer outpatients. Methods: A retrospective chart review of 1058 patients seen from March 2014 to November 2015 at an outpatient supportive care clinic was conducted. Sixty-one patients on chronic opioid therapy who underwent UDT were identified. A control group of 120 patients who did not undergo UDT was selected for comparison of information on demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: 61/1058 patients (6%) underwent UDT. 33/61 patients (54%) had abnormal results. Multivariate analysis found that the odds ratio for UDT ordering was 3.9 in CAGE positive patients (p = 0.002), 4.41 in patients less than 45years (p < 0.001), 5.58 in patients with moderate to severe pain (ESAS pain score ≥ 4) (p < 0.001), 0.27 in patients with advanced cancer stage, (p = 0.008), and 0.25 in patients with moderate to severe fatigue (p = 0.001). Among 52 abnormal UDT results in 33 patients, the most common opioid findings were: prescribed opioids absent in urine (14/52, 27%) and un-prescribed opioids in urine (13/52, 25%). Conclusions: UDT was used infrequently among advanced cancer patients receiving outpatient chronic opioid therapy. Younger age, CAGE positivity, early cancer stage or NED status, higher pain intensity, and lower fatigue were significant predictors of UDT ordering. More than 50% of UDTs were abnormal. More research is necessary to better characterize aberrant opioid use in advanced cancer patients.

Impact of a dedicated supportive care center telephone triaging program (SCCTP) for patients with advanced cancer.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 54-54
Author(s):  
Lindsey E Pimentel ◽  
Sriram Yennurajalingam ◽  
Gary B. Chisholm ◽  
Tonya Edwards ◽  
Maria Guerra-Sanchez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Symptom Management ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Assessment Scale ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
At Home

54 Background: Due to high symptom burden in advanced cancer patients, ongoing symptom management for outpatient palliative care patients is vital. More patients are receiving outpatient care; Yet, most palliative care patients receive less than 2 follow ups. Nurse telephone care can improve quality of life in these patients. Our aim was to determine frequency and care provided by Supportive Care Center Telephone Program (SCCTP) in advanced cancer patients. Methods: 400 consecutive patients who utilized palliative care service, 200 from outpatient Supportive Care Center (SCC) and 200 from inpatient Palliative Care (IPC), were followed for 6 months starting 3/2012 to examine call frequency and reason and outcomes including pain and other symptoms [Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS)] associated with utilization of SCCTP. We also examined the effect of SCCTP interventions on pain, ESAS and counseling needs. Results: 375 patients were evaluable. Median age 59 years, 53% female, 70% white. Most frequent cancer type were gastrointestinal (20%, p < 0.0001) for IPC and thoracic (23%, p <0.0001) for SCC. SCC patients had higher prevalence of CAGE positivity (28% SCC vs 11% IPC, p <0.0001), ESAS SDS(p=0.0134), depression(p=0.0009), anxiety(p=0.0097) and sleep(p=0.0015); MDAS scores were significantly higher in IPC (p<0.0001).115/400 patients (29%) utilized SCCTP. 96/115 outpatients (83%) used the SCCTP vs 19/115 IPC (17%). Common reasons for calls were pain (24%), pain medication refills (24%) and counseling (12%). Of 115 phone calls, 340 recommendations were made; 43% (145/340) were regarding care at home; 56% of these recommendations were regarding opioids. Patients who utilized SCCTP had worse pain(p=0.0059), fatigue(p=0.0448), depression(p=0.0410), FWB(p=0.0149) and better MDAS scores(p=0.0138) compared to non-utilizers. Conclusions: There was more frequent SCCTP use by outpatients than inpatients. Most common reason for utilization was pain control. Frequently, recommendations were made to continue symptom management at home. Patients who utilized SCCTP had worse pain, fatigue, depression, well-being scores and better delirium scores.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document