Health-related quality of life in patients with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction: secondary outcome from a double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled randomised trial of octreotide

The Impact of Palliative Decompressive Gastrostomy Tube Placement on Patients and Their Caregivers: A Mixed Methods Analysis

BACKGROUND

Palliative decompressive gastrostomy tubes are intended to relieve the severe physical symptoms of malignant small bowel obstruction (SBO) near the end of life. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of palliative decompressive gastrostomy tube on patient and caregiver well-being.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients with a malignant SBO and their caregivers at the time of informed consent for decompressive gastrostomy tube placement. We collected the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative (FACIT-Pal-14) surveys from patients at baseline and at 2-week post-procedure follow-up. The Caregiver Burden Scale survey was administered to caregivers at baseline. Survey scores were compared using paired t-tests. We also conducted semistructured interviews with patients and their caregivers at two-week follow-up until thematic saturation was reached. Content analysis was used to identify themes with two independent coders.

RESULTS

We enrolled 15 patient-caregiver dyads. Preprocedure, the median caregiver burden scale score was 37.5 (significant burden ≥ 21). Eight patients (53%) survived to 2 weeks; among these patients, median ESAS scores (51 versus 43.5, p < 0.001) and median FACIT-Pal-14 scores (22 versus 32, p = 0.015) were significantly improved at 2-week follow-up. Interviews revealed three major themes: improved symptom management, new stressors, and opportunities for better education and resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Decompressive gastrostomy tubes effectively alleviated symptoms in patients with inoperable malignant SBOs. This palliative intervention may provide greater benefit if performed earlier, and caregivers and patients need improved resources and education for tube management to minimize added stressors.

Inoperable malignant bowel obstruction: palliative interventions outcomes - mixed-methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Parenteral nutrition (PN) and palliative venting gastrostomies (PVG) are two interventions used clinically to manage inoperable malignant bowel obstruction (MBO); however, little is known about their role in clinical and quality-of-life outcomes to inform clinical decision making.

AIM

To examine the impact of PN and PVG on clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in inoperable MBO.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods systematic review and narrative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

The following databases were searched (from inception to 29 April 2021): MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, CINAHL, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Health Technology Assessment and CareSearch for qualitative or quantitative studies of MBO, and PN or PVG. Titles, abstracts and papers were independently screened and quality appraised.

RESULTS

A total of 47 studies representing 3538 participants were included. Current evidence cannot tell us whether these interventions improve MBO survival, but this was a firm belief by patients and clinicians informing their decision. Both interventions appear to allow patients valuable time at home. PVG provides relief from nausea and vomiting. Both interventions improve quality of life but not without significant burdens. Nutritional and performance status may be maintained or improved with PN.

CONCLUSION

PN and PVG seem to allow valuable time at home. We found no conclusive evidence to show either intervention prolonged survival, due to the lack of randomised controlled trials that have to date not been performed due to concerns about equipoise. Well-designed studies regarding survival for both interventions are needed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020164170.

What Aspects of Quality of Life are Important from Palliative Care Patients' Perspectives? A Framework Analysis to Inform Preference-Based Measures for Palliative and End-of-Life Settings

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Preference-based outcome measures are commonly applied in economic analyses to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions. Few preference-based outcome measures have been specifically developed for palliative and end-of-life settings. This study aimed to identify which quality-of-life domains are most important to Australians receiving specialised palliative care services to help determine if the development of a new condition-specific preference-based outcome measure is warranted.

METHODS

In-depth face-to-face interviews were conducted with 18 participants recruited from palliative care services in South Australia. Data were analysed using a framework analysis drawing on findings from a systematic review of international qualitative studies investigating the quality-of-life preferences of patients receiving palliation (domains identified included cognitive, emotional, healthcare, personal autonomy, physical, preparatory, social, spiritual). Participants identified missing or irrelevant domains in the EQ-5D and QLU-C10D questionnaires and ranked the importance of domains.

RESULTS

A priori domains were refined into cognitive, environmental, financial, independence, physical, psychological, social and spiritual. The confirmation of the eight important quality-of-life domains across multiple international studies suggests there is a relatively high degree of convergence on the perspectives of patients in different countries. Four domains derived from the interviews are not covered by the EQ-5D and QLU-C10D (cognitive, environmental, financial, spiritual), including one of the most important (spiritual).

CONCLUSIONS

Existing, popular, preference-based outcome measures such as the EQ-5D do not incorporate the most important, patient-valued, quality-of-life domains in the palliative and end-of-life settings. Development of a new, more relevant and comprehensive preference-based outcome measure could improve the allocation of resources to patient-valued services and have wide applicability internationally.

Consideration of quality-of-life in the treatment decision-making for patients with advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

INTRODUCTION

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are a complex and heterogenous family of solid malignancies that originate from neuroendocrine tissue in the gastrointestinal tract or pancreas. Most patients diagnosed with GEP-NETs present with advanced or metastatic disease, and quality of life (QoL) is often an important priority when selecting treatments for these patients. Patients with advanced GEP-NETs often experience a substantial and persistent symptom burden that undermines their QoL. Addressing a patient's individual symptoms through judicious selection of treatment may improve QoL.

AREAS COVERED

The objectives of this narrative review are to summarize the impact of advanced GEP-NETs on patient QoL, assess the potential value of current treatments for maintaining or improving patient QoL, and offer a clinical framework for how these QoL data can be translated to inform clinical decision-making for patients with advanced GEP-NETs.

EXPERT OPINION

Patients with advanced GEP-NETs experience a significant and persistent symptom burden that impacts their daily lifestyle, activities, work life, and financial health, leading to erosion of their QoL. Ongoing and future studies incorporating longitudinal QoL assessments and head-to-head treatment evaluations will further inform the incorporation of QoL into clinical decision-making.

Treatment patterns and out-of-hospital healthcare resource utilisation by patients with advanced cancer living with pain: An analysis from the Stop Cancer PAIN trial

BACKGROUND

About 70% of patients with advanced cancer experience pain. Few studies have investigated the use of healthcare in this population and the relationship between pain intensity and costs.

METHODS

Adults with advanced cancer and scored worst pain ≥ 2/10 on a numeric rating scale (NRS) were recruited from 6 Australian oncology/palliative care outpatient services to the Stop Cancer PAIN trial (08/15-06/19). Out-of-hospital, publicly funded services, prescriptions and costs were estimated for the three months before pain screening. Descriptive statistics summarize the clinico-demographic variables, health services and costs, treatments and pain scores. Relationships with costs were explored using Spearman correlations, Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and a gamma log-link generalized linear model.

RESULTS

Overall, 212 participants had median worst pain scores of five (inter-quartile range 4). The most frequently prescribed medications were opioids (60.1%) and peptic ulcer/gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) drugs (51.6%). The total average healthcare cost in the three months before the census date was A$6,742 (95% CI $5,637, $7,847), approximately $27,000 annually. Men had higher mean healthcare costs than women, adjusting for age, cancer type and pain levels (men $7,872, women $4,493, p<0.01) and higher expenditure on prescriptions (men $5,559, women $2,034, p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population with pain and cancer, there was no clear relationship between healthcare costs and pain severity. These treatment patterns requiring further exploration including the prevalence of peptic ulcer/GORD drugs, and lipid lowering agents and the higher healthcare costs for men.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12615000064505. World Health Organisation unique trial number U1111-1164-4649. Registered 23 January 2015.

The range and suitability of outcome measures used in the assessment of palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Malignant bowel obstruction, a complication of certain advanced cancers, causes severe symptoms which profoundly affect quality of life. Clinical management remains complex, and outcome assessment is inconsistent.

AIM

To identify outcomes evaluating palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction, as part of a four-phase study developing a core outcome set.

DESIGN

The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA); PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019150648). Eligible studies included at least one subgroup with obstruction below the ligament of Treitz undergoing palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction. Study quality was not assessed because the review does not evaluate efficacy.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Database, CINAHL, PSYCinfo Caresearch, Open Grey and BASE were searched for trials and observational studies in October 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 4769 studies were screened, 290 full texts retrieved and 80 (13,898 participants) included in a narrative synthesis; 343 outcomes were extracted verbatim and pooled into 90 unique terms across six domains: physiological, nutrition, life impact, resource use, mortality and survival. Prevalent outcomes included adverse events (78% of studies), survival (54%), symptom control (39%) and mortality (31%). Key individual symptoms assessed were vomiting (41% of studies), nausea (34%) and pain (33%); 19% of studies assessed quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment focuses on survival, complications and overall symptom control. There is a need for definitions of treatment 'success' that are meaningful to patients, a more consistent approach to symptom assessment, and greater consideration of how to measure wellbeing in this population.

MASCC multidisciplinary evidence-based recommendations for the management of malignant bowel obstruction in advanced cancer

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based recommendations on the management of malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) for patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) MBO study group conducted a systematic review of databases (inception to March 2021) to identify studies about patients with advanced cancer and MBO that reported on the following outcomes: symptom management, bowel obstruction resolution, prognosis, overall survival, and quality of life. The review was restricted to studies published in English, but no restrictions were placed on publication year, country, and study type. As per the MASCC Guidelines Policy, the findings were synthesized to determine the levels of evidence to support each MBO intervention and, ultimately, the graded recommendations and suggestions.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 17,656 published studies and 397 selected for the guidelines. The MASCC study group developed a total of 25 evidence-based suggestions and recommendations about the management of MBO-related nausea and vomiting, bowel movements, pain, inflammation, bowel decompression, and nutrition. Expert consensus-based guidance about advanced care planning and psychosocial support is also provided.

CONCLUSION

This MASCC Guideline provides comprehensive, evidence-based recommendations about MBO management for patients with advanced cancer.

Medical management of malignant bowel obstruction in patients with advanced cancer: 2021 MASCC guideline update

BACKGROUND

Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a frequent complication in patients with advanced cancer, particularly colon or gynecological malignancies. MASCC previously published a guideline for symptom management of MBO in 2017. This is a 5-year update.

METHOD

A systematic search and review of relevant literature includes a review published in 2010 and 2017. The guideline update used the same literature search process as followed in 2015. The dates of the new search included 2015 up to February 2, 2021. The guidelines involved the pharmacologic management of nausea and vomiting in malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) only. Only randomized trials were included in the updated guideline as evidence. The evidence was reviewed by the panel and the MASCC criteria for establishing a guideline were followed using MASCC level of grading and category of evidence.

RESULTS

There was one systematic review and 3 randomized trials accepted as evidence from 257 abstracts. Octreotide is effective in reducing gastrointestinal secretions and colic and thereby reduces nausea and vomiting caused by MBO. Scopolamine butylbromide is inferior to octreotide in the doses used in the comparison study. Olanzapine or metoclopramide may be effective in reducing nausea and vomiting secondary to partial bowel obstructions. The panel suggests using either drug. Additional studies are needed to clarify benefits. Haloperidol has been used by convention as an antiemetic but has not been subjected to a randomized comparison. Ranitidine plus dexamethasone may be effective in reducing nausea and vomiting from MBO but cannot be recommended until there is a comparison with octreotide.

DISCUSSION

Octreotide remains the drug of choice in managing MBO. Ranitidine was used in one randomized trial in all participants and so its effectiveness as a single drug is not known until there is a randomized comparison with octreotide. Antiemetics such as metoclopramide and olanzapine may be effective, but we have very few randomized trials of antiemetics in MBO.

CONCLUSION

The panel recommends octreotide in non-operable MBO. Randomized trials are needed to clarify ranitidine and antiemetic choices.

Opportunities to Improve Symptom Control with Somatostatin Congeners in GEP-NETs: A Review of Key Issues

Octreotide acetate (octreotide) is the most prescribed and most studied somatostatin congener, or analog, for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP‐NETs) and carcinoid syndrome, the latter of which may be characterized by debilitating diarrhea and flushing. Approved in the U.S. more than 30 years ago, octreotide is widely used to control the symptoms of carcinoid syndrome and has been shown to demonstrate antiproliferative activity. The two formulations available in the U.S. include a subcutaneous immediate‐release (IR) injection introduced in 1989 and a long‐acting repeatable (LAR) intramuscular injection approved in 1999. Lanreotide depot (lanreotide), a more recent somatostatin congener, has been available in the U.S. since 2014.

Despite widespread use of octreotide LAR, several key challenges exist with the current depot‐based treatment paradigm. Studies indicate that LAR formulations are associated with continued unmet patient needs, owing in part to a loss of bioactivity over time that may necessitate progressive supplemental treatment with IR octreotide to adequately control symptoms. Clinicians should understand the key differences in the pharmacokinetic profiles of the LAR and IR formulations that may contribute to bioactivity loss and somatostatin receptor desensitization. In addition, there is a need to re‐evaluate the role of IR octreotide in combination with depot therapy to provide consistent bioavailability and better control of carcinoid syndrome symptoms.

The purpose of this review is to explore all these issues and to re‐establish a rationale for the IR formulation, particularly with respect to novel use cases and its use during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

This review explores key challenges with depot‐based treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors with octreotide and the key differences between the LAR and IR formulations.