A recent report suggested that more than 50 % of terminal cancer patients have physical suffering that requires sedation in the last days of life. To evaluate this finding on our 14-bed palliative care unit, a retrospective analysis of 100 consecutive patients admitted for 6 days or more was carried out. Information was collected on major symptoms requiring treatment, symptom control at admission and during each of the last 7 days of life, medications used, and changes that may have contributed to sedation. Of the 100 patients, 99 had pain, 46 had dyspnea, 71 had nausea, and 39 experienced delirium. Visual Analogue Scores (VAS) were done twice a day in all patients; mean pain showed a change from 31±24 on Day 6 to 24±19 on day of death (DOD) (p<0.05); nausea from 19±18 on Day 6 to 13±9 on DOD (p<0.01); drowsiness from 51±28 on Day 6 to 85±45 on DOD (p<0.001); symptom distress score from 49±11 on Day 6 to 52±9 on DOD (p<0.01). On the day of admission (DOA), 69 % of VAS were done by the patient and 28 % by the nurse as compared to 8 % by the patient and 90 % by the nurse on DOD. Level of consciousness on DOA was alert (72 %), drowsy (28 %), unresponsive (0 %) and by DOD was alert (2 %), drowsy (41%), unresponsive (57%). Symptom control on DOA was evaluated as good (64%), fair (26 %), poor (10 %) and by DOD was good (84 %), fair (14 %), poor (2 %). Evaluation of patient records and medication changes revealed 6/99 patients with pain (6 %) and 10/39 patients with delirium (26 %) requiring increased treatment, probably resulting in sedation in the last days of life. Thus, only 16 of 100 patients (16 %) required treatment for pain and delirium that would have caused sedation in order to achieve symptom relief.

Two hundred and seventy-seven patients were admitted to this prospective multicenter study in order to assess the accuracy of a staging system for cancer pain. The staging system (SS) was completed by a trained physician during the initial consultation. This system included the assessment of pain mechanism (PM, neuropathic versus nonneuropathic), pain characteristic (PC, continuous versus incidental), previous opioid dose (OD), cognitive function (CF), psychological distress (PD), tolerance (T), past history of alcohol or drugs (A). During day 21, a final assessment of pain control was made. Agreement for staging was observed in 96% of cases for investigators 1 and 2 (kappa 0.76, P < 0.001), and in 84% of cases between investigators 1 and 3 (kappa 0.723, P < 0.001). Of 276 evaluable patients, 86/92 Stage I (good prognosis) patients achieved good PC (93%) versus 102/184 Stage II and III (poor prognosis) patients (55%, P < 0.001). Sensitivity and specificity of the system were found to be 0.93 and 0.46, respectively. Univariate correlation found significant correlation between pain control and all variables except CF. In logistic regression, CF and OD showed no significant correlation. We, therefore, propose a more simple SS of five categories (PM, PC, PD, T, and A) and two stages (good and poor prognosis). We conclude that the SS is highly accurate in predicting patients with good prognosis, but patients with "poor prognosis" can still achieve good pain control in more than 50% of cases.

In a prospective open study, 61 consecutive patients with advanced cancer admitted to a Palliative Care Unit underwent survival estimation by two independent physicians after a complete medical exam performed during the first day of admission. An independent research nurse also assessed each patient during the first day of admission. The assessment included activity, pain, nausea, depression, anxiety, anorexia, dry mouth, dyspnea, dysphagia, weight loss, and cognitive status. After the assessment was completed, patients were followed until discharge or death. In 47 evaluable patients, logistic regression showed a significant correlation between survival and dysphagia, cognitive failure, and weight loss. Accordingly, an "indicator of poor prognosis" was considered to exist in any patient who demonstrated weight loss of 10 kg or more plus cognitive failure (Mini-Mental State Questionnaire less than 24) plus dysphagia to solids or liquids. This indicator had a similar level of sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy, and a higher level of significance as compared with the assessment by physician #1 and physician #2, respectively. Our data suggest that three simple determinations, which may be performed by a nurse, can predict survival more or less than 4 wk as well as the assessments of two skilled physicians. These results need to be confirmed in other trials with large numbers of patients. Perhaps confirmation of these results and identification of other prognostic factors will result in staging systems for survival estimation of terminally ill cancer patients.

The purpose of this study was to compare patient and proxy (physician and nurse) assessments of symptoms in advanced cancer patients. The sample consisted of 49 patients with advanced cancer admitted to an acute palliative care unit. Three independent assessments were completed for each patient on two occasions within 11 days of admission. On each occasion, symptoms were rated independently by the patient and two proxies (treating physician and nurse), using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). The ESAS is a nine-item visual analogue scale (VAS) for assessing pain, activity, nausea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, appetite, well-being and shortness of breath. Symptom ratings were compared using a repeated-measures ANOVA procedure and correlations. Average physician ratings were generally lower than average patient ratings for both occasions. Average nurse ratings agreed more closely with patient ratings, with a trend towards lower ratings on occasion 1 and higher ratings on occasion 2. There was a significant rater (person rating the effects) effect (P < 0.01) for three of the nine symptoms: physicians rated drowsiness, shortness of breath and pain significantly lower than patients. For drowsiness and shortness of breath, these differences were clinically relevant, representing a difference of more than 12 mm on a 100-mm VAS. The accuracy of assessments amongst those rating the symptoms did not improve over time. Proxy assessments of symptom intensity, particularly by physicians, were significantly lower than patient assessments for three of the nine symptoms. Further research regarding the reliability of patient and proxy assessments is needed to assess and manage symptoms in advanced cancer effectively.

No abstract