Book Review: Symptom management in advanced cancer, third edition

2002 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-73
Author(s):  
Joanna Chambers
Keyword(s):  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Symptom Management

Symptom burden, functional status, and clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with advanced genitourinary cancers.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 42-42
Author(s):  
Daniel E Lage ◽  
M Dror Michaelson ◽  
Christopher Sweeney ◽  
Erika D. Barrett ◽  
Kara Marie Olivier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Functional Status ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Functional Impairment ◽  
Symptom Management ◽  
Symptom Burden ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Adrenal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Types

42 Background: Patients with advanced genitourinary (GU) cancers are often hospitalized for complications of their cancer and symptom management. Yet, little is known about the symptom burden, functional status, and health care utilization of these patients. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with advanced cancer who experienced unplanned hospitalizations at an academic medical center. Upon admission, we asked patients to self-report their physical (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale-revised [ESAS-r]) and psychological (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4]) symptoms. We also collected data from nursing assessments about impairments in activities of daily living (ADLs). We compared symptoms, functional impairment, readmissions, and overall survival (OS) between cancer types (dichotomizing GU cancers vs other cancer types) and within GU cancers (dichotomizing prostate cancer vs kidney/bladder/adrenal cancer) using univariate and multivariable regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, education, comorbidities, and time since advanced cancer diagnosis. Results: Among 971 patients enrolled, 106 (10.9%) had advanced GU cancers (39.6% prostate cancer, 32.1% kidney cancer, 25.5% bladder cancer, and 2.8% adrenal cancer). Compared to patients with other cancer types, patients with GU cancers were older (median: 69.0 vs 64.0 years, p < 0.001) and had more time since advanced cancer diagnosis (median: 14.0 vs 7.0 months, p < 0.001). In univariate analyses, a greater proportion of patients with GU cancers had an ADL impairment (57.5% vs 38.0%, p < 0.001) compared to other cancer types but the groups did not differ in their physical (Mean = 33.3 vs 32.6, p = 0.61) or depression (Mean = 4.1 vs 3.3, p = 0.05) symptoms. In multivariable models, patients with GU cancers had similar risk of readmission in 90 days (HR 1.31, p = 0.077), but worse survival (median OS: 102.0 days vs 133.5 days, p < 0.001; HR 1.27, p = 0.046). Within GU cancers, patients with kidney/bladder/adrenal cancer (vs. prostate cancer) were younger (median: 66.0 vs 74.0, p < 0.001) with less time since advanced cancer diagnosis (median: 9.0 vs 23.0 months, p = 0.012) but had no difference in symptoms or functional impairment. They were more likely to be admitted for symptom management (66% vs. 39% for prostate cancer, p = 0.026). Patients with kidney/bladder/adrenal cancer also had higher risk of readmission (HR 2.04, p = 0.043) but no difference in OS, compared to patients with prostate cancer. Conclusions: We found that hospitalized patients with advanced GU cancers had significantly greater functional impairment and worse survival compared to those with other cancer types, and those with kidney/bladder/adrenal cancer had significantly higher readmission risk compared to those with prostate cancer. These findings support the need to develop tailored supportive care for hospitalized patients with GU cancers.

scholarly journals Symptom Management in Advanced Cancer 3rd Edition

2003 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 468-469
Author(s):  
M. Gosney
Keyword(s):  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Symptom Management

Book Review: Handbook of Advanced Cancer Care

2004 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 724-725
Author(s):  
Debra Farver
Keyword(s):  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Cancer Care

Utilization of support services, emergency department, and hospital in advanced cancer patients with severe disease in a community cancer institute.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 112-112
Author(s):  
Caitlyn McNaughton ◽  
Emily Gehron ◽  
Shanthi Sivendran ◽  
Rachel Holliday ◽  
Michael Horst ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Support Services ◽  
Symptom Management ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Hospital Utilization ◽  
Palliative Care Consultation ◽  
Care Consultation ◽  
Ed Visits

112 Background: Patients with advanced cancer are at high risk for emergency department (ED) and hospital utilization, which is distressing and costly. Palliative care consultation and symptom management clinics have been shown to decrease ED and hospital utilization, but the frequency and composition of these interventions is still being delineated. More evaluation is needed to determine practical approaches to implementing interdisciplinary management of distress for patients with advanced cancer in the community setting. This retrospective review evaluates healthcare utilization with respect to support services provided in our community based cancer institute. Methods: 157 patients with advanced cancer of lung, gastrointestinal, genitourinary or gynecologic origin diagnosed January 2015-December 2015 were reviewed retrospectively. Descriptive data including demographics, disease characteristics, palliative care consultation, support services utilized and ED visits/hospitalizations were collected for 12 months, or to date of death. Support services included physician assistant–led symptom management, nurse navigator, social worker, nutrition, financial counselor, chaplain, and oncology clinical counselor. Support service referrals were made based on identified needs. Severe disease was defined as death within 6 months of diagnosis. Results: Patients with severe disease had a mean of 6 ED visits per year, significantly greater than patients with non-severe disease (p < 0.001). Patients with severe disease also had more contacts with support services per year (30.3 vs 9.1, p < 0.001). A palliative care consult was placed in 50% of patients with severe disease, and 23% in patients with non-severe disease (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Patients with advanced cancer have evidence of significant needs as reflected by high healthcare utilization in the last 6 months of life. As needed involvement of support services correlated with severity of disease but did not result in decreased ED utilization or hospitalization. This suggests that availability of support services alone is not a feasible strategy to impact unplanned hospitalizations and ED visits.

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.

scholarly journals A Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Symptom Management in Patients With Advanced Cancer

2005 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 1190-1198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Sherwood ◽  
Barbara A. Given ◽  
Charles W. Given ◽  
Victoria L. Champion ◽  
Ardith Z. Doorenbos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Behavioral Intervention ◽  
Symptom Management ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral Intervention
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document