A prospective study of gastrointestinal radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Effect of nutrition impact symptoms on oral nutritional supplements energy intake and use days in patients with head and neck cancer: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

This study aims to explore the effect of nutritional impact symptoms (NIS) on oral nutritional supplements (ONS) energy intake and use days among head and neck cancer (HNC) patients.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted among HNC patients in a hospital in western China between January 2019 and June 2020. The NIS was from the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) scale. Mann-Whitney test was used to examine the differences between different kinds of NIS and ONS use days. Binary logistic regression was used to determine the effect of NIS on ONS energy intake.

RESULTS

The most prevalent four NIS were no appetite (35.3%), dysphagia (29.4%), vomiting (13.2%) and oral pain (12.5%), respectively. All patients in the study were malnutrition. Patients with xerostomia or oral pain had less ONS use days than those without these symptoms. Patients with vomiting (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02-0.50) or pain (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02-0.89) were less likely to have ONS energy intake ≥400 kcal/day than those without these symptoms after adjusting the confounding factors. In addition, one-point increase in total NIS score was associated with a lower proportion of ONS energy intake ≥400 kcal/day (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.59-0.99).

CONCLUSION

Xerostomia, oral pain, vomiting and pain should be strengthened and intervened to improve ONS use and nutritional status among HNC patients with malnutrition.

A 15-Year Single-Institution Retrospective Study of Primary Pancreatic Cancer Treated with Non-Ablative Palliative Radiotherapy

We studied the use of palliative radiotherapy (RT) among patients with primary, non-curable, locally advanced pancreatic cancer. In this subset of patients, with very poor survival, various palliative RT dose fractionation schemes are used; but, in the absence of a guideline, practice patterns vary, and dose choice is mainly based on the physician's intuition. We divided the patients into three groups, according to the dose fractionation schedules received: low (A), intermediate (B), and high (C) dose groups, to study the potential differences in outcome between the different dose prescriptions. Cohort: n = 184. Median age: 69 years. Male: n = 105 (57%), female: n = 79 (43%). Stage IV: n = 117 (64%). T4: n = 127 (69%). Tumor location: head: n = 109 (59%), body: n = 37 (20%), tail: n = 25 (14%), neck: n = 11 (6%), and uncinate: n = 2 (1%). Prior systemic therapy: n = 66 (36%). Most common dose fractionations received: 20 Gy in five fractions n = 67 (36%), 30 Gy in 10 fractions n = 49 (27%), and 8 Gy in one fraction n = 23 (13%). Group A: n = 33 (18%), median overall survival (OS) 19 days (95% CI 4-33). Group B: n = 84 (46%), median OS 52 days (95% CI 43-60). Group C: n = 67 (36%), median OS 126 days (95% CI 77-174). Median days to in-field progression: Group A 59 days (range 7-109), Group B 96 days (range 19-173), and Group C 97 days (range 13-475). To our knowledge, this is the largest reported retrospective cohort of patients receiving non-ablative palliative RT to treat their primary pancreatic tumors. Most patients had metastatic disease, T4 tumors of the pancreatic head and had not received prior systemic therapy. A significant survival benefit was seen favoring the high dose/longer RT fractionation group, presumably due to appropriate patient selection rather than an RT effect. Despite the relatively short median overall survival, one fifth of the patients were found to experience an in-field progression following RT.

Impact of Modern Low Dose Involved Site Radiation Therapy on Normal Tissue Toxicity in Cervicothoracic Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas: A Biophysical Study

This biophysical study aimed to determine fitting parameters for the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) dose-response model for normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) calculations of acute side effects and to investigate the impact of reduced radiation doses on the probability of their occurrence in supradiaphragmatic non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) irradiation. A cohort of 114 patients with NHL in the cervicothoracic region, treated between 2015 and 2021 at the University Hospitals of Münster, Hamburg, and Essen, with involved site radiation therapy (ISRT), were included. Among them, 68 patients with aggressive NHL (a-NHL) received consolidative radiation therapy with 24-54 Gy following (R-)CHOP chemotherapy. Additionally, 46 patients with indolent NHL (i-NHL) underwent radiotherapy with 22.5-45.0 Gy. Two treatment plans were prospectively created for each patient (a-NHL: 30.0/40.0 Gy; i-NHL: 24.0/30.0 Gy). NTCP were then calculated using the optimized LKB model. The adapted dose-response models properly predicted the patient's probability of developing acute side effects when receiving doses ≤ 50 Gy. In addition, it was shown that reduced radiation doses can influence the NTCP of acute side effects depending on the aggressiveness of NHL significantly. This study provided a foundation to prospectively assess the probability of adverse side effects among today's reduced radiation doses in the treatment of NHL.

Synergistic Strategies for Gastrointestinal Cancer Care: Unveiling the Benefits of Immunonutrition and Microbiota Modulation

Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are a group of highly prevalent malignant tumors affecting the gastrointestinal tract. Globally, one in four cancer cases and one in three cancer deaths are estimated to be GI cancers. They can alter digestive and absorption functions, leading to severe malnutrition which may worsen the prognosis of the patients. Therefore, nutritional intervention and monitoring play a fundamental role in managing metabolic alterations and cancer symptoms, as well as minimizing side effects and increasing the effectiveness of chemotherapy. In this scenario, the use of immunonutrients that are able to modulate the immune system and the modification/regulation of the gut microbiota composition have gained attention as a possible strategy to improve the conditions of these patients. The complex interaction between nutrients and microbiota might contribute to maintaining the homeostasis of each individual's immune system; therefore, concurrent use of specific nutrients in combination with traditional cancer treatments may synergistically improve the overall care of GI cancer patients. This work aims to review and discuss the role of immunonutrition and microbiota modulation in improving nutritional status, postoperative recovery, and response to therapies in patients with GI cancer.

Longitudinal Change in Symptom Clusters in Patients With Ovarian Cancer

BACKGROUND

The symptoms of patients with ovarian cancer at a specific time point during the treatment process have been investigated in previous studies. However, only a few longitudinal studies have been conducted in China to determine the symptom cluster of patients with ovarian cancer before surgery, after surgery, and during the initial stage of chemotherapy.

PURPOSE

This study was carried out to identify the symptom clusters in patients with ovarian cancer at different stages of treatment.

METHODS

A longitudinal survey was designed, and 430 patients with ovarian cancer who had undergone surgical operation combined with chemotherapy were recruited as participants. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify the components of symptom cluster at three different time points: 3 days before surgery (T1), 2 days after surgery (T2), and the first day after the completion of chemotherapy cycle 1 (T3).

RESULTS

The symptom clusters varied across the three time points. Notably, the pain-related, emotional, cognitive, and disease-related symptom clusters occurred at T1 and persisted through T2 and T3; the treatment-related symptom cluster occurred at T2 and persisted through T3; and the numbness symptom and gastrointestinal symptom clusters were observed at T3.

CONCLUSIONS

Priority symptom management interventions should be provided according to the most severe symptom clusters such as the emotional symptom cluster at T1, the treatment-related symptom cluster at T2, and the gastrointestinal symptom cluster at T3.

Nutrition risk screening and implications for patients with gynaecological cancers undergoing pelvic radiotherapy and/or other treatment modalities: A retrospective observational study

AIM

There is scarcity of research for the nutritional management of pelvic radiotherapy in gynaecological malignancies and delivery of specialised nutrition care is limited due to the current knowledge gap in guidelines. This study aimed to better understand the nutritional risk, weight changes and pattern of nutrition impact symptoms occurring at various treatment timepoints in this population, to inform an effective model of care.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational study included women with gynaecological cancers receiving pelvic radiotherapy at a tertiary hospital from January 2017 to December 2018 (n = 104). Information was collected on: first day of radiotherapy; weekly during treatment; acute-phase post-treatment (0-6 weeks); and intermediate-phase post-treatment (6 weeks to 6 months). This study reported on incidence of clinically significant weight change (±5%), documented nutrition impact symptoms and the current nutrition care model (nutrition screening, referral, assessment and interventions).

RESULTS

Clinically significant weight loss was experienced by 38% (n = 40/104) of patients prior to commencing treatment and 19% (n = 14/73) during treatment. Diarrhoea (n = 40/79), fatigue (n = 54/79), nausea (n = 38/79) and pain (n = 31/79) were frequently reported during treatment, and fatigue (n = 33/92) and pain (n = 25/92) continued acutely post-treatment. Despite high rates of weight loss and prevalence of nutrition impact symptoms, only 38% (n = 40/104) of patients were referred to a dietitian.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable proportion of patients with gynaecological cancers are at nutrition risk before and during treatment due to clinically significant weight loss and prevalence of nutrition impact symptoms experienced. This highlights the importance of nutrition-risk screening and access to specialised dietetic care as part of their model of care.

Nutrition Impact Symptom Clusters in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer Receiving Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to identify the nutrition impact symptom (NIS) clusters in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) and explore their relationships with the weight loss rate (WLR).

METHODS

This longitudinal study included 169 patients. At baseline (T₁), the demographics, clinical information, and weight before radiotherapy (RT) were recorded. At the third week (T₂) and the end of RT (T₃), we assessed the weight, prevalence, severity, and interference of the NIS with the Head and Neck Patient Symptom Checklist. The mean scores of the severity of NIS at T₂ and T₃ were used as a whole to perform the exploratory factor analysis and identify the symptom clusters. Cronbach's α coefficient was used to evaluate the internal consistency of the symptom clusters. Generalized estimating equations were used to analyze the relationships between clusters and the WLR.

RESULTS

We extracted three clusters from 14 NISs: the RT-specific symptom cluster including pain, difficulty swallowing, oral mucositis, thick saliva, difficulty chewing, and dry mouth (Cronbach's α = 0.820); the gastrointestinal symptom cluster including nausea, loss of appetite, feeling full, vomiting, and taste change (Cronbach's α = 0.592); the psychological status cluster including depressed, anxious, and lack of energy (Cronbach's α = 0.710). The multivariable model showed that participants with more serious RT-specific symptom cluster (β = 1.020, 95% CI: 0.570-1.471, P < 0.001) had higher WLR.

CONCLUSIONS

The NIS had close internal connections with each other, so the strategies applied by healthcare professionals should focus on multiple related symptoms, especially to manage the RT-specific symptom cluster.

A review on radiation induced nausea and vomiting: "Current management strategies and prominence of radio sensitizers"

Radiations dissipated are high energy waves used mostly as treatment intervention in controlling the unwanted multiplication of cell. About 60%-65% of cancer treatment requires radiation therapy and 40%-80% of radiation therapy causes RINV which are true troublemakers. Radiation therapy (RT) is targeted therapy mostly used to treat early stages of tumour and prevent their reoccurrence. They mainly destroy the genetic material (DNA) of cancerous cells to avoid their unwanted growth and division. The RINV affects the management and quality of life of patients which further reduces the patient outcome. RINV depends on RT related factors (dose, fractionation, irradiation volume, RT techniques) and patient related factors like (gender, health conditions, age, concurrent chemotherapy, psychological state, and tumour stage). RT is an active area of research and there is only limited progress in tackling the RINV crisis. Advanced technological methods are adopted that led to better understanding of total lethal doses. Radiation therapy also affects the immunity system that leads to radiation induced immune responses and inflammation. Radio sensitizers are used to sensitize the tumour cells to radiations that further prevent the normal cell damage from radiation exposure. There is a need for future studies and researches to re-evaluate the data available from previous trials in RINV to make better effective antiemetic regimen. The article focuses on radiation therapy induced nausea and vomiting along with their mechanism of action and treatment strategies in order to have a remarkable patient care.

Biophysical Analysis of Acute and Late Toxicity of Radiotherapy in Gastric Marginal Zone Lymphoma-Impact of Radiation Dose and Planning Target Volume

Simple Summary

Prospective evaluation of impact of dose and target volume in radiation planning of gastric lymphoma on organs at risk. New model parameters for calculation of normal tissue complication probabilities were developed from quality-assured cohort data. The study provides practicable data to calculate risks for neighbored organs at risk in modern radiation planning with currently lower radiation doses, representing a basis for future adaptation of previous model parameters.

Abstract

Successful studies on radiation therapy for gastric lymphoma led to a decrease in planning target volume (PTV) and radiation dose with low toxicities, maintaining excellent survival rates. It remains unclear as to which effects are to be expected concerning dose burden on organs at risk (OAR) by decrease in PTV vs. dose and whether a direct impact on toxicity might be expected. We evaluated 72 radiation plans, generated prospectively for a cohort of 18 patients who were treated for indolent gastric lymphoma in our department. As a prospective work, four radiation plans with different radiation doses and target volumes (40 Gy-involved field, 40 Gy-involved site, 30 Gy-involved field, 30 Gy-involved site) were generated for each patient. Mean dose burden on adjacent organs was compared between the planning groups. Cohort toxicity data served to estimate parameters for the Lyman–Kutcher–Burman (LKB) model for normal tissue complication probability (NTCP). These were used to anticipate adverse events for OAR. Literature parameters were used to estimate high-grade toxicities of OAR. Decrease of dose and/or PTV led to median dose reductions between 0.13 and 5.2 Gy, with a significant dose reduction on neighboring organs. Estimated model parameters for liver, spleen, and bowel toxicity were feasible to predict cohort toxicities. NTCP for the endpoints elevated liver enzymes, low platelet count, and diarrhea ranged between 15.9 and 22.8%, 27.6 and 32.4%, and 21.8 and 26.4% for the respective four plan variations. Field and dose reduction highly impact dose burden and NTCP for OAR during stomach radiation. Our estimated LKB model parameters offer a good approximation for low-grade toxicities in abdominal organs with modern radiation techniques.

Methodology Aspects of Nausea Measuring During Pelvic Radiotherapy: Daily Nausea Measuring Is Successful to Identify Patients Experiencing Nausea

BACKGROUND

Nausea seems underreported during pelvic radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to investigate if a 5-week recall measure of nausea covering the entire radiotherapy period was comparable with accumulated daily nausea measurements and to investigate if the measuring method affected potential difference in quality of life (QoL) between nauseated patients and patients free from nausea.

METHODS

This longitudinal methodology study covered 200 patients (mean age, 64 years; 84% women; 69% had gynecological cancer). The patients graded QoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General). They registered nausea daily and at a 5-week recall at the end of radiotherapy.

RESULTS

The nausea-intensity category scale and visual analog scale correlated well (Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.622). According to the 5-week recall, 57 of 157 answering patients (36%) experienced nausea during the radiotherapy period. Using the daily nausea measurements, 94 of 157 patients (60%) experienced nausea (relative risk, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.10). Of these 94 nauseated patients, 39 (42%) did not report nausea using the 5-week recall. The nauseated patients experienced worse QoL (physical/functional subscores) than patients free from nausea whether nausea was registered daily or at the 5-week recall.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost half, 42%, of the patients who experienced nausea according to daily nausea measurements did not report having had nausea according to the 5-week recall. Nauseated patients graded worse QoL than patients who were free from nausea.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Nursing professionals should measure nausea repeatedly to identify patients at risk of nausea and worsened QoL, to be able to deliver evidence-based antiemetic treatment strategies.

A multidisciplinary expert opinion on CINV and RINV, unmet needs and practical real-life approaches

Introduction: A range of combination chemotherapy regimens are currently used in clinical practice. However, international antiemetic guidelines often only categorize the emetogenic potential of single agents rather than the emetogenicity of combination chemotherapy regimens. To manage the nausea and vomiting induced by antineoplastic combinations, guidelines suggest antiemetics that are appropriate for the component drug with the highest emetogenic potential. Furthermore, antiemetic guidelines generally do not consider the influence of other factors, including individual patient characteristics, on the emetic effects of cancer treatments. Similarly, the emetogenic potential of radiotherapy is stratified only according to the site of radiation, while other factors contributing to emetic risk are overlooked.Areas covered: An Expert Panel was convened to examine unresolved issues and summarize the current clinical research on managing nausea and vomiting associated with combination chemotherapy and radiotherapy.Expert opinion: The panel identified the incidence of nausea and vomiting induced by multi-drug combination therapies currently used to treat cancer at different anatomic sites and by radiotherapy in the presence of other risk factors. Based on these data and the clinical experience of panel members, several suggestions are made for a practical approach to prevent or manage nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy regimens and radiation therapy.

Quality of life changes after stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for liver metastases: A prospective cohort analysis

PURPOSE

To report the changes in quality of life (QoL) after stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in patients with liver metastases (LM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study was undertaken to measure the acute changes in QoL after SABR. Patients with 1-3 treated LM were eligible. Doses of 30-60 Gy in 3-5 fractions were delivered. Prospective QoL was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires, Core 15 for Palliative Care (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL) and liver metastases (LM21), at baseline, 1st week and last day of treatment, then 1, 6 and 12 weeks after SABR. The functional living index-emesis (FLIE) was collected at baseline, 1st week, last day and 1 week after treatment. Univariable and multivariable linear mixed modeling were performed as appropriate to assess changes in QoL over time.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were included. The most common primary cancer was colorectal (42%). The global health score measured by QLQ-C15-PAL was significantly worse at treatment completion (p = 0.001), 1 week (p = 0.003) and 6 weeks (p = 0.002) after SABR but recovered by 12 weeks (p = 0.124). Nausea and constipation were worse at treatment completion (p < 0.05) but recovered 1 week after while fatigue recovered 6 weeks post-SABR. The majority of patients reported stable QoL at 12 weeks for all domains in the C15-PAL and LM21 questionnaires.

CONCLUSION

SABR offers a non-invasive mean of ablating LM with minimal impact on acute QoL.

An Overview of Radiation-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

BACKGROUND

Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) is common occurrence in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. When radiation is prescribed to certain sites, it can lead to retching, vomiting, and nausea that can lead to impairments on quality of life and even effect adherence to treatment regimes. The present study reports select literature examining RINV phenomena and reviews mechanisms of RINV as well as current management strategies.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on PubMed using search strategies such as "radiation-induced nausea vomiting," "RINV," and "radiation and antiemetics." The search was limited to articles published from January 2000 to April 2016 and those that involved humans and were published in English. Information regarding emetic risk of each treatment and management strategies used were extracted from each article.

RESULTS

A total of 25 articles were included in this select review. The current evidence regarding the standard antiemetics for RIINV are discussed, as well as upcoming therapies and future potential endeavors.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer patients treated with emetogenic radiotherapy are at risk of experiencing RINV. RINV has the potential to impact patient quality of life and treatment delivery and optimal prophylactic strategies should be implemented, particularly in radiation naïve patients. More awareness on these topics is warranted, so that standard antiemetic regimens can be used in both the prophylactic and rescue settings.

Nausea and vomiting induced by gastrointestinal radiation therapy: current status and future directions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Radiation therapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) are common and troublesome symptoms among patients receiving radiation therapy for gastrointestinal cancers. Their impact on function, quality of life and, ultimately, cancer control warrant a review of their incidence, underlying mechanisms, treatments and research themes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Research in RINV is underrepresented relative to that in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The incidence of RINV among patients receiving modern day radiation therapy is questioned and supportive care practice patterns vary among radiation oncologists. Antiemetic guideline recommendations for prophylactic and rescue therapy are based solely on the anatomic region being irradiated and not other patient-related, radiation therapy-related, or organ-specific dosimetric factors that likely modulate the risk of RINV. Dosimetric predictors are likely the most attainable biomarker moving forward, but only early steps have been taken. The small bowel and stomach will be the best first candidates for study among patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Studies of the mechanisms underlying RINV are conspicuously lacking. A new generation of observational studies and therapeutic clinical trials is needed, and more attention must be given to the relative impact of nausea and vomiting on the function and quality of life among specific homogeneous patient populations.

SUMMARY

Optimal supportive care strategies for RINV following radiation therapy for gastrointestinal cancers are lacking, and will not be known until future research answers the many open questions regarding the mechanisms underlying RINV, the true incidence and impact of these symptoms among patients and the best way to predict and mitigate them.

Prophylactic Management of Radiation-Induced Nausea and Vomiting

The incidence of nausea and vomiting after radiotherapy is often underestimated by physicians, though some 50–80% of patients may experience these symptoms. The occurrence of radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) will depend on radiotherapy-related factors, such as the site of irradiation, the dosing, fractionation, irradiated volume, and radiotherapy techniques. Patients should receive antiemetic prophylaxis as suggested by the international antiemetic guidelines based upon a risk assessment, taking especially into account the affected anatomic region and the planned radiotherapy regimen. In this field the international guidelines from the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines as well as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) are widely endorsed. The emetogenicity of radiotherapy regimens and recommendations for the appropriate use of antiemetics including 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists, steroids, and other antiemetics will be reviewed in regard to the applied radiotherapy or radiochemotherapy regimen.

Symptom clusters of gastrointestinal cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy using the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) quality-of-life tool

OBJECTIVE

The Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE) instrument is a validated nausea and vomiting specific quality of life (QOL) tool originally created as a 3-day test of the impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on cancer patients' daily life. The primary objective of the present study was to retrospectively explore the use of the FLIE from data obtained in a previously published study of patients with gastrointestinal radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV) and compare the extracted symptom clusters on a weekly basis for the entirety of gastrointestinal cancer patients' radiotherapy treatments.

METHODS

QOL was assessed on a weekly basis using the 18-item FLIE questionnaire for patients' radiotherapy treatments. A principal component analysis with varimax rotation was performed at each visit. The internal consistency and reliability of the derived clusters was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. Robust relationship and correlation among symptoms was displayed with biplot graphics.

RESULTS

A total of 460 FLIE assessments were completed for the 86 gastrointestinal patients who underwent radiotherapy. Two components were consistently identified except for week 5 where only one component was identified. Component 1 contained the items "Q10-Q18" which included all vomiting items. Component 2 included all nausea items from "Q1 to Q9". All the variables were well accounted for by two components for most weeks of treatment with excellent internal consistency. Biplots indicate that the two symptom clusters were evident at each week, with the exception of the first week of treatment. Strong correlations were seen between the effect of nausea on patients' ability to make meals, patients' ability to do tasks within the home, and patients' willingness to spend time with family and friends.

CONCLUSION

The high internal consistency at all timepoints indicates that the FLIE QOL instrument is useful for the RINV population.

Palliative Radiotherapy with or without Additional Care by a Multidisciplinary Palliative Care Team: A Retrospective Comparison

Purpose. To analyze pattern of care and survival after palliative radiotherapy (RT) in patients managed exclusively by regular oncology staff or a multidisciplinary palliative care team (MPCT) in addition. Methods. Retrospective analysis of 522 RT courses. Comparison of Two Groups: MPCT versus none. Results. We analyzed 140 RT courses (27%) with MPCT care and 382 without it. The following statistically significant differences were observed: 33% of female patients had MPCT care versus only 23% of male patients and 37% of patients <65 years had MPCT care versus only 22% of older patients. MPCT patients were more likely to have poor performance status and liver metastases. In the MPCT group steroid and opioid use was significantly more common. Dose-fractionation regimens were similar. Median survival was significantly shorter in the MPCT group, 3.9 versus 6.9 months. In multivariate analysis, MPCT care was not associated with survival. Adjusted for confounders, MPCT care reduced the likelihood of incomplete RT by 33%, P > 0.05. Conclusions. Patterns of referral and care differed, for example, regarding age and medication use. It seems possible that MPCT care reduces likelihood of incomplete RT. Therefore, the impact of MPCT care on symptom control should be investigated and objective referral criteria should be developed.