Ethical issues in pain and palliation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Increased public awareness of ethical issues in pain and palliative care, along with patient advocacy groups, put pressure on healthcare systems and professionals to address these concerns.Our aim is to review the ethics dilemmas concerning palliative care in ICU, artificial intelligence applications in pain therapy and palliative care, and the opioids epidemics.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this focus review, we highlighted state of the art papers that were published in the last 18 months, on ethical issues in palliative care within the ICU, artificial intelligence trajectories, and how opioids epidemics has impacted pain management practices (see Visual Abstract).

SUMMARY

Palliative care in the ICU should involve a multidisciplinary team, to mitigate patients suffering and futility. Providing spiritual support in the ICU is an important aspect of holistic patient care too.Increasingly sophisticated tools for diagnosing and treating pain, as those involving artificial intelligence, might favour disparities in access, cause informed consent problems, and surely, they need prudence and reproducibility.Pain clinicians worldwide continue to face the ethical dilemma of prescribing opioids for patients with chronic noncancer pain. Balancing the need for effective pain relief with the risk of opioid misuse, addiction, and overdose is a very controversial task.

Can an Integrated Palliative and Oncology Co-rounding Model Reduce Aggressive Care at the End of Life? Secondary Analysis of an Open-label Stepped-wedge Cluster-randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial evidence on the effect of palliative care models in reducing aggressive end-of-life care is inconclusive. We previously reported on an integrated inpatient palliative care and medical oncology co-rounding model that significantly reduced hospital bed-days and postulate additional effect on reducing care aggressiveness.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of a co-rounding model vs usual care in reducing receipt of aggressive treatment at end-of-life.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of an open-label stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial comparing two integrated palliative care models within the inpatient oncology setting. The co-rounding model involved pooling specialist palliative care and oncology into one team with daily review of admission issues, while usual care constituted discretionary specialist palliative care referrals by the oncology team. We compared odds of receiving aggressive care at end-of-life: acute healthcare utilization in last 30 days of life, death in hospital, and cancer treatment in last 14 days of life between patients in two trial arms.

RESULTS

2145 patients were included in the analysis, and 1803 patients died by 4th April 2021. Median overall survival was 4.90 (4.07 - 5.72) months in co-rounding and 3.75 (3.22 - 4.21) months in usual care, with no difference in survival (P = .12). We found no significant differences between both models with respect to receipt of aggressive care at end-of-life. (Odds Ratio .67 - 1.27; all P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The co-rounding model within an inpatient setting did not reduce aggressiveness of care at end-of-life. This could be due in part to the overall focus on resolving episodic admission issues.

PALLiative care in ONcology (PALLiON): A cluster-randomised trial investigating the effect of palliative care on the use of anticancer treatment at the end of life

BACKGROUND

Effects on anticancer therapy following the integration of palliative care and oncology are rarely investigated. Thus, its potential effect is unknown.

AIM

To investigate the effects of the complex intervention PALLiON versus usual care on end-of-life anticancer therapy.

DESIGN

Cluster-randomised controlled trial (RCT), registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (No. NCT01362816). The complex intervention consisted of a physician education program enhancing theoretical, clinical and communication skills, a patient-centred care pathway and patient symptom reporting prior to all consultations. Primary outcome was overall use, start and cessation of anticancer therapy in the last 3 months before death. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported outcomes. Mixed effects logistic regression models and Cox proportional hazard were used.

SETTING

A total of 12 Norwegian hospitals (03/2017-02/2021).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients ⩾18 years, advanced stage solid tumour, starting last line of anticancer therapy, estimated life expectancy ⩽12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 616 (93%) patients were included (intervention: 309/control:307); 63% males, median age 69, 77% had gastrointestinal cancers. Median survival time from inclusion was 8 (IQR 3-14) and 7 months (IQR 3-12), and days between anticancer therapy start and death were 204 (90-378) and 168 (69-351) (intervention/control). Overall, 78 patients (13%) received anticancer therapy in the last month (intervention: 33 [11%]/control: 45 [15%]). No differences were found in patient-reported outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We found no significant differences in the probability of receiving end-of-life anticancer therapy. The intervention did not have the desired effect. It was probably too general and too focussed on communication skills to exert a substantial influence on conventional clinical practice.

Termination of Palliative Chemotherapy Near the End of Life: A Retrospective Study of Gastrointestinal Cancer Patients

Background

Palliative chemotherapy is commonly used for advanced cancer patients. The timing of chemotherapy termination is crucial for efforts to maintain quality of life.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective study included gastrointestinal cancer patients who were treated with chemotherapy and died between 2013 and 2022 at Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital. Data were reviewed regarding age, gender, cancer type, reason for chemotherapy termination, cause of death, survival after chemotherapy termination, and place of death.

Results

In total, 388 patients were included; the median survival after chemotherapy was 73 days. Patients aged <67 years had shorter survival durations (59 days), compared with patients aged >67 years (82 days). Ten (2.6%) patients began a new chemotherapy regimen, whereas 17 (4.4%) patients received chemotherapy, within 4 weeks before death. The most common reason for chemotherapy termination was disease progression, and most deaths occurred in hospitals.

Conclusion

The rates of chemotherapy and initiation of new chemotherapeutic regimens near the end of life were lower than previously reported. Most deaths occurred in hospitals, highlighting the need for development of hospices.

Administration of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Near the End of Life

PURPOSE

Recent literature suggests an increasing use of systemic treatment in patients with advanced cancer near the end of life (EOL), partially driven by the increasing adoption of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). While studies have identified this trend, additional variables associated with ICI use at EOL are limited. Our aim was to characterize a population of patients who received a dose of ICI in the last 30 days of life.

METHODS

We performed a manual retrospective chart review of patients ≥ 18 years who died within 30 days of receiving a dose of ICI. Metrics such as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), number of ICI doses, need for hospitalization, and numerous other variables were evaluated.

RESULTS

Over a 4-year time period, 97 patients received an ICI at EOL. For 40% of patients, the ICI given in the 30 days before death was their only dose. Over 50% of patients had an ECOG PS of ≥ 2, including 17% of patients with an ECOG PS of 3. Over 60% were hospitalized, 65% visited the emergency department, 20% required intensive care unit admission, and 25% died in the hospital.

CONCLUSION

Our study contributes to the ongoing literature regarding the risks and benefits of ICI use in patients with advanced cancer near the EOL. While accurate predictions regarding the EOL are challenging, oncologists may routinely use clinical factors such as ECOG PS along with patient preferences to guide recommendations and shared decision making. Ultimately, further follow-up studies to better characterize and prognosticate this population of patients are needed.

Impact of gastric cancer treatment on quality of life of patients

Treatment of gastric cancer is stage specific and ranges from endoscopic resections in early gastric cancer to gastrectomy and multimodal treatment in locally advanced tumour situations. Palliative systemic treatment has the potential to prolong survival in advanced tumour stages. However, tumour-directed therapies and their side-effects potentially worsen the general condition of a patient. Treatment discussions and decisions, especially when trading-off the options with the patient, have widened their focus from 'technical' terms like overall survival, disease-free survival and progression-free survival to patient reported outcomes (PROs) including quality of life (QoL). The assessment of PROs has evolved as important endpoint in clinical studies. A precise definition of QoL seems impossible. Its multiple dimensions can be evaluated by various validated questionnaires like the QLQ-C30 and FACT-G focusing on different priorities. Special additional tools have been developed and validated to assess QoL in gastric cancer patients (QLQ-STO22, FACT-Ga). We herein give an overview on the options to evaluate QoL in patients with gastric cancer and on published data on the impact of tumour-targeted therapy on QoL in these patients.