Entries Tagged as 'Cancer'
Characteristics of patients who refuse do-not-resuscitate orders upon admission to an acute palliative care unit in a comprehensive cancer center.
Cancer. 2010 Jun 15;116(12):3061-70
Authors: Parsons HA, de la Cruz MJ, Zhukovsky DS, Hui D, Delgado-Guay MO, Akitoye AE, El Osta B, Palmer L, Palla SL, Bruera E
BACKGROUND: Refusal of appropriately indicated do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders may cause harm and distress for patients, families, and the medical team. We conducted a retrospective study to determine the frequency and predictors of refusals of DNR in advanced cancer patients admitted to an acute palliative care unit. METHODS: A total of 2538 consecutive admissions were reviewed. Demographic and clinical characteristics from 200 consecutive patients with DNR orders and 100 consecutive patients who refused DNR were collected, and differences between the groups were determined by multivariate regression and recursive partitioning analysis. RESULTS: Of 2538 admissions, 2530 (99%) were appropriate for DNR discussion. Of the 2530 admissions, 2374 were unique patients, and 100 (4%) of 2374 refused DNR. Refusers had median (interquartile range, IQR) pain of 7 (4-9) versus 5 (3-8, P = .0005), nausea of 2 (0-7) versus 1 (0-4, P = .05), and dyspnea of 1 (0-5) versus 4 (0-7, P = .002) as compared with DNR nonrefusers, respectively. Patients with hematological malignancies and advance directives had a lower DNR refusal risk (odds ratio [OR], 0.38; P = .02, and OR, 0.36; P < .0001, respectively). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that patients with moderate-severe pain (OR, 3.19; P = .002) and with no advance directives (OR, 2.94; P < or = .001) had higher DNR refusal risk. There were more inpatient deaths among DNR nonrefusers (87 of 200 vs 1 of 100, P < .0001). Median (IQR) time from discharge to death was 18 (8-35) days for those with DNR orders and 85 (25-206) days for DNR refusers (P < or = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: DNR refusal in patients admitted to the acute palliative care unit is low, more frequent in patients with more pain and nausea and no advance directives, and associated with longer survival. This study demonstrates possible predictors of complicated DNR discussions.
PMID: 20564412 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
[Read more →]
Tags: Cancer
Evaluation of direct medical costs of hospitalization for febrile neutropenia.
Cancer. 2010 Feb 1;116(3):742-8
Authors: Lathia N, Mittmann N, DeAngelis C, Knowles S, Cheung M, Piliotis E, Shear N, Walker S
BACKGROUND: Treatment of febrile neutropenia (FN) is costly, because it typically involves hospitalization. As cancer rates continue to increase, the number of patients suffering from FN will also increase, making it important to quantify the costs of treating this condition accurately and comprehensively. METHODS: A consecutive sample of patients admitted to an inpatient hematology/oncology ward at a tertiary care hospital for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced FN was enrolled in this study. Patients were followed prospectively during hospitalization, and information on medical resource utilization including length of stay, medications, and laboratory and diagnostic tests was collected. Costs, extracted from hospital and provincial databases, were used to calculate the overall cost per FN episode, from the hospital perspective. RESULTS: Fifty-one episodes of FN that occurred in 46 patients were included in the study. Approximately 52% of these episodes occurred in women, and 65% of these episodes occurred in patients with hematologic malignancies. The mean +/- standard deviation age of patients was 60.3 +/- 13.4 years. The mean length of stay per episode was 6.8 +/- 4.9 days. The mean overall cost per episode was 6324 +/- 4783 in 2007 Canadian dollars. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalization for the treatment of FN is expensive. The results of this study could be used in future economic evaluations of preventive measures and treatments for FN, including primary prophylactic administration of hematopoietic growth factors and outpatient treatment of this condition.
PMID: 20029970 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
[Read more →]
Tags: Cancer
Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer: a systematic review.
Cancer. 2008 Oct 1;113(7):1685-94
Authors: Akl EA, Rohilla S, Barba M, Sperati F, Terrenato I, Muti P, Bdair F, Schünemann HJ
BACKGROUND: The authors compared the relative efficacy and safety of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) between patients with and without cancer. METHODS: By using Cochrane methodology for systematic reviews, separate meta-analyses were conducted for subgroups of patients with and without cancer, and relative risks (RRs) were compared for statistical significance. The methodologic quality for each outcome was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: LMWH reduced mortality significantly compared with UFH in patients with cancer (RR of 0.71; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.52-0.98 [moderate-quality evidence]) but not in patients without cancer (RR of 0.97; 95% CI, 0.65-1.46 [low-quality evidence]). However, the difference in the RR for the 2 subgroups did not reach statistical significance (P = .113). The difference between LMWH and UFH in the effect on recurrent VTE was not statistically significant in the subgroup with cancer (RR of 0.78; 95% CI, 0.29-2.08 [low-quality evidence]), in the subgroup without cancer (RR of 0.94; 95% CI, 0.60-1.46 [low-quality evidence]), or between the 2 subgroups (P = .367). No data were available for bleeding outcomes, thrombocytopenia, or postphlebitic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicated that LMWH most likely is superior to UFH in reducing mortality in the initial treatment of VTE for patients with cancer. There is a need for more and better designed trials to confirm these findings.
PMID: 18720360 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
[Read more →]
Tags: Cancer
Thromboprophylaxis for patients with cancer and central venous catheters: a systematic review and a meta-analysis.
Cancer. 2008 Jun;112(11):2483-92
Authors: Akl EA, Kamath G, Yosuico V, Kim SY, Barba M, Sperati F, Cook DJ, Schünemann HJ
BACKGROUND: Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis and subsequent death in patients with cancer. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in reducing mortality and thromboembolic events in cancer patients with a CVC. METHODS: The authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI the Web of Science databases. They included randomized controlled trials in patients with cancer comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists, fondaparinux, or ximelagatran with no intervention, placebo, or each other. The standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration were used for the analyses. RESULTS: Of 3986 identified citations we included 9 randomized clinical trials, none of which evaluated fondaparinux or ximelagatran. Heparin therapy (UFH or LMWH) was associated with a trend toward a reduction in symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (relative risk (RR), 0.43; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.18-1.06), but there was no statistically significant effect on mortality (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.40-1.36), infection (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.36-2.28), major bleeding (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.10-4.78), or thrombocytopenia (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.49-1.46). The effect of warfarin on symptomatic DVT also was not statistically significant (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.27). CONCLUSIONS: The balance of benefits and downsides of thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients with CVC are uncertain. Clinicians together with their patients must weigh these factors carefully when making decisions regarding thromboprophylaxis.
PMID: 18404702 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
[Read more →]
Tags: Cancer
