Tweet

CASE:Mr. J was a 39 year-old white married male who came to the hospital for a tissue biopsy and was subsequently diagnosed with advanced adenocarcinoma of unknown primary origin. His disease had progressed to the point where the tumors could not be debulked. The previous week Mr. J had been working full time and leading a very active lifestyle, so his diagnosis and prognosis came as a shock to him and his family. The primary medical team consulted the Palliative Care Team (PCT) to assist with symptom management, discussion of treatment options and goals, and planning of end-of-life (EOL) care.

Once Mr. J became physically comfortable and accepting of his poor prognosis, he voiced concerns about how to talk to his 6 year-old son and 8 year-old daughter about his illness and likely death. The RN for the PCT provided Mr. J with books that aid parents in discussing death and dying with children, and the behavioral medicine specialist with the PCT assisted Mr. J in applying these materials to the conversation he would have with his children.

First, as a means of understanding each child’s developmental level, the behavioral medicine specialist asked Mr. J to simply talk about his two children – how they spent their time, what subjects were they good at in school, and what, if any, exposure they had to the death of a loved one or pet. This discussion naturally led into Mr. J identifying words and concepts about illness and death that his children would understand. Mr. J decided he would say the following to his children, “Sometimes people get sick and the doctors can cure them. Sometimes people get sick and the doctors can’t cure them. The doctors don’t think they can cure me, but I am hoping for a miracle because I don’t ever want to leave you.”

Although his message was brief, Mr. J feared he would emotionally break down when having this conversation with his children. He wanted to be “strong” for them so that they would not be too frightened. To promote his sense of self-control Mr. J practiced his conversation with the behavioral medicine specialist who in turn coached him on breathing techniques that would help him stay in control of his emotions.

The practice helped, but Mr. J still feared that “we’ll all end up crying and that’s not going to any of us any good in the long run.” So then the behavioral medicine specialist worked with him on identifying specific ways in which he was a father to his children, e.g., he helped his children with their homework and he read to them every night before they went to bed. She suggested that after he gives them the bad news and answers their questions, Mr. J might reassure his children that he’s still going to help them with their homework and read to them every night.

DISCUSSION:
Young children who are informed of their parents’ terminal illness are less anxious than those who are not told , but many terminally ill parents are daunted by this emotionally stressful task. Deciding how to break the news to children is made more difficult when taking into account the developmental level of each child. Palliative Care Teams often have several books available that guide parents through the process of discussing death and dying with their children. Parents’ abilities to apply the information in these books can be further enhanced with a session provided by the behavioral medicine consultant. The individual session allows parents to tailor their approach to their own families and to practice having and controlling very powerful feelings.

References
1. Rosenheim, E., Reicher, R. (1985). Informing children about a parent’s terminal illness. J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Disc. 26:995-998.

2. Siegel, K., Raveis, V., Karus, D. (1996). Pattern of communication with children when a parent has cancer. In L. Baider & L. Cooper (Eds) Cancer and the family, pp 109-128. John Wiley and Sons: New York.

Tweet

Case

CH is a 56-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer to bone, liver and brain. She is admitted to the hospital with increasing lethargy and a marked decrease in her oral intake. She has also not had a bowel movement for 10 days. Further interview reveals that she has been on a fentanyl patch 75 mcg for months, senna and colace, and hydrochlorothiazide. Her diuretic is stopped and she is placed on intravenous fluids. Except for dehydration, a metabolic work up is unremarkable. Her exam reveals hypoactive bowel sounds, a scaphoid abdomen with palpable mobile masses, and soft stool in the rectal vault. She is disimpacted. No active bowel movement follows despite suppositories. She is also not able to retain enemas. She has increasing nausea and anorexia. Given her inadequate response to a bowel regimen from below and inability to tolerate an oral regimen, she is dosed with methylnaltrexone subcutaneously x1. She has a large formed bowel movement 2 hours later.

Discussion

Constipation is a well recognized side effect from opioids. Tolerance does not occur. In fact, the dose that can cause constipation is ¼ of an analgesic dose. Opioids exert their constipating effects by decreasing GI motility, gastric emptying, increasing ileocecal valve tone, increasing fluid resorbtion, and decreasing the reflex to defecate.

Methylnaltrexone (MNTX) is a mu receptor antagonist that unlike naloxone does not cross the blood brain barrier as it is a quaternary amine. Naloxone has been used in the past for opioid induced constipation. However, this use has also been associated with opioid withdrawal and decreased pain relief. MNTX was approved for the treatment of opioid induced constipation by the FDA last year. Given its expense, many institutions have tried to limit its use. Our institution has made a Palliative Care consult one of three consultation services that can approve dosing.

The phase three clinical trials that led to approval of MNTX involved patients either enrolled in hospice or as part of a palliative care program, and opioids were thought to be the primary cause of the constipation. They must have been receiving opioids for two weeks and on a stable opioid and laxative regimen for three days.

Enrolled patients had had no bowel movement in greater than 48 hours or had had less than 3 bowel movements the week prior. Bowel obstruction, fecal impaction or other acute abdominal processes were ruled out. In addition, patients with peritoneal dialysis catheters and fecal ostomy bags were excluded. While 80 percent of the patient population had cancer, patients with cardiovascular disease, AIDS, dementia, and COPD were also included. MNTX is administered subcutaneously based on the patient’s weight. After administration of MNTX, greater than or equal to 50% of the study group had a bowel movement within 4 hours. Most patients had a bowel movement within 30-70 minutes. As compared to placebo, the most frequent side effects were abdominal cramping, nausea, dizziness, increased body temperature and flatulence. However, the number of patients who discontinued therapy secondary to side effects was similar to that in the placebo group. No decrease in pain control or signs of opioid withdrawal were noted as compared to the placebo group.

There are many medications and dosage forms that are available for opioid induced constipation. Previously, routes of administration have been oral and rectal. Dysphagia, nausea or decreased mental status can greatly hinder an adequate regimen by mouth. Rectal routes of suppositories and enemas can also be tried. Inability of the patient to participate can limit effectiveness of enemas. In properly selected patients, MNTX may be able to aid in relief of opioid constipation without adversely affecting pain control

References:

1. Thomas, Jay et. al. Methylnaltrexone for Opioid Induced Constipation in Advanced Illness. 2008. NEJM 358 (22): 2332-2343.

2. Yuan, Chun-Su. Methylnaltrexone Mechanisms of Action and Effects on Opioid Bowel Dysfuction and Other Opioid Adverse Side Effects. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 2007. 41: 984- 993

Tweet

Case

Mr BT is a 57 year old man with stage IV laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma, status post radiation and chemotherapy who is now thought to have no evidence of metastases or recurrence. He was followed in a palliative care clinic for chronic musculoskeletal pain and was referred to a new palliative care physician when his prior physician left the practice. Upon presentation to the new physician, the patient complained mainly of painful gynecomastia (excessive growth of breasts in a male) without galactorrhea (spontaneous flow of milk from the nipple) for the past several months. Besides some unrelated knee pain, his examination was remarkable only for bilateral tender gynecomastia. He had not undergone any endocrinological lab studies and a recent PET/CT of the head/neck/chest/abdomen/pelvis was unremarkable. Upon review of his medications, the only possible culprit was metoclopramide which had been started approximately one year prior for nausea. The nausea had since resolved but he was still taking the medication since it was prescribed on a scheduled basis. The metoclopramide was discontinued and several labs were ordered in consultation with endocrinology including testosterone, prolactin, TSH, free T4, FSH, LH, estradiol and HCG. Lab workup was largely unrevealing although most, including the prolactin level, were drawn after the metoclopramide was discontinued. Over the several months following metoclopramide discontinuation the patient’s gynecomastia resolved without any recurrence of his nausea.

Discussion

This case, although relatively simple, is important for two major reasons. First, it reminds us of a rare but significant side effect of a medicine commonly used in Palliative Care. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it highlights the dangers of polypharmacy in the Palliative Care setting.

Metoclopramide is a Dopamine type 2 (D2) receptor antagonist and is used as an antiemetic and prokinetic agent. In addition to these effects, it also reliably increases prolactin levels through its action on the D2 receptor. Dopamine normally inhibits pituitary secretion of prolactin. Metoclopramide administration blocks this inhibition resulting in increased prolactin levels.1 This effect has been used as both a research tool and as a clinical test. Symptomatic gynecomastia from elevated prolactin in patients taking metoclopramide, however, is rare, although it has been reported.² Galactorrhea has also been reported. In fact, metoclopramide has been used to augment lactation in breast-feeding women.³ Upon serologic testing, prolactin levels will generally be elevated in metoclopramideinduced gynecomastia. Discontinuation of the drug generally results in resolution of the symptoms.

Since metoclopramide is generally considered a first line antiemetic and is frequently used in clinical Palliative Care practice, this case serves as useful reminder of this rare but significant side effect. The equally or more important message from this case, however, is the need for careful medication management in this vulnerable population.⁴ Going back to Cicely Saunders, one of the guiding principles of Palliative Care is the scheduled administration of medications to provide continuous symptom control. Recent literature reinforces this concept in the management of nausea and vomiting.⁵ In addition, it is suggested to not only use scheduled antiemetics but to add second and third antiemetics as needed instead of stopping one and starting another. While this method has been shown to provide effective relief of symptoms, it can expose the patient to a high risk of side effects if the practitioner fails to taper the medications after the emetic impulse has resolved. This patient had no recurrence of his nausea with discontinuation of his metoclopramide, suggesting that he could have been spared the development of gynecomastia if the metoclopramide had been tapered earlier.

This case also reinforces one of the most basic but important principles in medicine: symptoms which emerge after initiation of a medication are most likely caused by that medication. Because of the serious and progressive nature of the illnesses encountered in Palliative Care, it can be easy to assume that all clinical deterioration is due to worsening of the underlying disease. This case reminds us of the importance of a solid understanding of medication adverse effects and the need for a constant vigilance for these outcomes. Fortunately for Mr BT, the culprit medication was discovered and the symptoms resolved with discontinuation, thereby allowing him to get back to enjoying his life after what appears to be a very successful initial treatment of his serious underlying cancer.

References:
1. Macullum RW, Sowers JR, Hershman JM, Sturdevant RAL. Metoclopramide stimulates prolactin secretion in man. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1976;43:1148-1152.

2. Madani S, Tolia V. Gynecomastia with metoclopramide use in pediatric patients. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1997;24:79-81.

3. Ehrenkranz RA, Ackerman BA. Metoclopramide effect on faltering milk production by mothers of premature infants. Pediatrics. 1986;78:614-620.

4. Bernard SA, Bruera E. Drug interactions in palliative care. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:1780-1799.

5. Wood GJ, Shega JW, Lynch B, Von Roenn JH. Management of intractable nausea and vomiting at the end of life: “I was feeling nauseous all of the time…nothing was working”. JAMA. 20087;298:1196-1207

Tweet

Tweet

Case:

Mary was a 58 year-old woman who was admitted to the hospital for management of a wound infection. Her past medical history included severe peripheral vascular disease, and she subsequently had bilateral, above-the-knee amputations. Her stumps were very necrotic, and did not respond well to antibiotic therapy. To further complicate her story, a routine imaging scan found suspicious lesions on both her lung and liver. This finding was highly suspicious for metastatic cancer since she also had a smoking history, significant weight loss and decreased appetite. Mary’s primary physician encouraged her to pursue a cancer workup, but she refused. She also decided that she did not want to pursue any other aggressive medical therapies that may prolong her life. Her only goal was to go back to her apartment where she could die in peace. The palliative care service was asked to become involved to help with discharge planning.

Since Mary previously lived alone, this was going to be a very difficult task. During her hospital stay, she became increasingly delirious, and it was clear that she would not be able to return home. We attempted to contact all of her relatives to recruit help. No one was able to take responsibility for her care at home, even with hospice assistance. So we attempted to make her hospital stay as pleasant as possible while these complicated issues were sorted out. We recruited a volunteer to sit with her several times per week to keep her company. Her delirium and agitation improved with the use of antipsychotics. Her pain had also improved after careful titration of her opiate and adjuvant medications. We also paid for a beautician to visit her here in the hospital. Mary was ultimately discharged to a local skilled nursing facility. To ensure continuity, our medical student on service wrote a letter to the attending physician there. We included some of the details of the care that we provided. We suggested that it would be very appropriate to provide Mary with some “luxuries” that would normally be contraindicated in her care such as milkshakes or ice cream.

Discussion:

Patients who do not have family or caregivers can create very challenging situations for hospital staff. Under usual conditions, palliative care extends the focus of care to family and friends of the dying patient. Family members are encouraged to create a home like environment in the hospital. Family photos, favorite music, or a blanket from home can make a hospital stay more pleasant. Patients that are alone often miss the comforts of home. According to Ferrell & Coyle, 2001, the discipline of palliative care provides physical, psychological, social and spiritual support to help the patient adapt to the anticipated decline, associated with advanced, progressive, incurable disease. Palliative care also alleviates isolation through a commitment to non-abandonment, ongoing communication, and sustaining relationships. The role of the volunteer and the medical student in this case was crucial. Volunteers are an integral part of the hospice and palliative care philosophy and approach. Beyond extending the available personnel, volunteers put a truly human, non-professionalized face on the provision of care.

References:

1. Ferrell, B.R., and Coyle, N. Textbook of Palliative Nursing. 2001. Oxford University Press, New York, 684.

2. Mount, B.M. Volunteer support services: A key component of palliative care. Journal of Palliative Care, 1992, 8(1):59-64. (no open access pdf)

Tweet

Case:

Mr CC is a 67-year-old with NSCLC (non-small cell lung cancer) and metastatic disease to his mediastinum and left chest. He was admitted to the hospital for increasing right sternal chest pain over the past month. Pain is described as burning and non-radiating. There are no exacerbating or relieving factors. The pain is so bad that he has anorexia. The month prior to admission, he was started on Oxycontin, and his dose was titrated up 160 mg twice a day with Dilaudid 8 mg every 3 hours PRN (as needed). Despite dose escalation, his pain was unchanged. While in the hospital, a fentanyl patch and a dilaudid PCA (patient controlled analgesia pump) were added to the original regimen. However, no increased analgesia occurred.

A palliative care consult was obtained. His regimen was simplified to a Dilaudid continuous intravenous infusion (CI) and PCA. Doses were escalated to 4 mg/hour CI and 4 mg PCA with 8 mg RN dose q1 hour. He reported no change in his pain. Co-analgesics of NSAIDS, Tylenol, dexamethasone, and a TCA (tricyclyic anti-depressant) were tried. Radiation oncology was consulted and saw no lesions to irradiate. The patient began to complain of worsening pain. As he continued to complain of 7-10/10 pain, the patient was changed to morphine and titrated to 10 mg continuous infusion and 10 mg PCA dose. Marked analgesia was noted. Attempts to transition to methadone were unsuccessful, as his need for morphine PCA doses remained unchanged. Despite initial complaints of sedation on morphine, the patient’s pain scores decreased to 3/10. As such, he was continued on morphine and discharged from the hospital on a PCA.

Discussion:

Opioid rotation, or trial of an alternative opioid, is commonly practiced when a patient’s pain responds poorly to one opioid or intolerable side effects develop. These intolerable side effects may include nausea, vomiting, sedation, or even hyperalgesia. Although rotation is a common practice, a Cochrane review in 2004 found that evidence to support the practice for opioid rotation was anecdotal and in non-controlled studies. Randomized trials were suggested. Since that time, several prospective studies have been performed where opioid analgesic effect was inadequate or side effects to the opioid were intolerable. Studies by both Narabayashi et al. and Wiraz et al. investigated rotation to an alternative long acting opioid, dilaudid or oxycodone. In addition, patients had increased analgesia compared to the prior regimen. Often the effective equianalgesic dose in these studies was greater than the prior dose, suggesting that prior side effects may have been dose limiting. More is being learned about the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics behind opioid metabolism. It is clear that there is variability between individuals. Some of this may be secondary to disease states (i.e. renal or hepatic impairment), or the effect on metabolism by other drugs. Other differences are due to genetic variations.

Inherited differences in opioid receptors, channels, and metabolism to active and inactive compounds have been found. These differences may extend to transporters effecting bioavailability from the GI tract to even penetration of the blood brain barrier. This variability may account for differences in effectiveness and side effects from one patient to another. For example, “non analgesic responders” to methadone were found to have lower blood levels of the drug when compared to the same dose with “responders.” This suggests that the “nonresponders” may actually just clear methadone faster. It is frequently cited that 5-10% of the Caucasian population has the inability to convert codeine to its active metabolite, making it an ineffective medication in those individuals. Differences in metabolism have also been found with tramadol and oxycodone. In trying to obtain adequate analgesia with these medications, large doses may be tried with the development of side effects.

When switching to a different opioid, it is recommended to decrease the dose by 25-50% and even greater when switching to methadone. The rationale behind this has been “incomplete cross tolerance” and the concern that a patient may be more sensitive to the side effects of the second opioid, especially sedation. Understanding possible individual genetic variability, gives this practice even more credence.

Mr. CC was tolerating 20 mg IV dilaudid /hour without analgesia. His basal rate of 4 mg/hour dilaudid may be equianalgesic to 20-30 mg IV morphine hour. Given his profound tolerance to IV dilaudid and oral oxycodone, a conservative CI of 7 mg morphine/hour was started with frequent PCA doses available. Even with sub-equianalgesic dosing, he noted marked analgesia.

When doses of an opioid are escalated without apparent benefit and/or with side effects, opioid rotation should be considered. An individual’s biochemistry may determine if a particular opioid regimen will be successful and tolerated.

References:

1. Smith, Howard S. “Variations in Opioid Responsiveness.” Pain Physician 11:237-248, 2008. (free pdf available)

2. Narabayashi, Masaru et al. “Opioid Rotation from Oral Morphine to Oral Oxycodone in Cancer Patients with Intolerable Adverse Effects: An Open- Label Trial.” Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 38: (4)296-304. 2008

3. Quigley C. Opioid switching to improve pain relief and drug tolerability. “Cochrane Database of Systematic Review 2004”, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD004847 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004847.

*Slight editorial changes were made for readability.

Tweet

Case:

Ms BB is a 57 year old woman with fallopian tube cancer with multiple mesenteric and peritoneal metastases and a history of large and small bowel obstructions. She presented with nausea, vomiting, and abdominal distention. She was found to have another bowel obstruction and had an NG tube placed with improvement in her symptoms. She then went to the OR for an exploratory laparotomy. She was found to have massive carcinomatosis and ascites and it was felt that a debulking was not possible so a venting gastrostomy tube (g-tube) was placed and the operation was aborted.

Palliative care was consulted to assist with postoperative nausea and vomiting. Despite placement of the venting gtube, the patient had persistent nausea and held a basin next to her during the interview to catch her frequent episodes of emesis. She was despondent because the surgeons had told her that the g-tube was working well and draining large amounts of fluid but that it was unable to keep up. Antiemetics were not helpful. The patient thought that there was nothing left to do and that she would have to live the rest of her life with this level of discomfort. A trial of octreotide 0.1mg subcutaneously three times daily was initiated in addition to continued drainage by her venting gtube. She was also given around-the-clock intravenous haloperidol and PRN intravenous ondansetron. By the next day, her g-tube output had decreased and her nausea and vomiting had resolved. Her pain was controlled with a hydromorphone PCA. She was eventually able to be discharged home with plans to follow up with her outpatient oncologist to consider next steps. With her symptoms controlled, she was able to move past her initial distress and talk openly about her hopes for the future and how she wanted to spend the time she had left.

Discussion:

Malignant bowel obstruction can occur with any cancer but is most commonly associated with advanced ovarian cancer, where it occurs in up to 50% of patients. It generally indicates a poor prognosis and carries a heavy symptom burden predominated by nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. Patients with carcinomatosis, like Ms BB, are generally not candidates for surgical correction of the obstruction or endoscopic stenting. Fortunately, medical management can be very effective. Abdominal pain is treated with opioids and nausea is treated with metoclopramide in partial obstructions and haloperidol in complete obstructions. Corticosteroids are also often used for help in symptom control and because there is some indication that they may promote resolution of the obstruction presumably by decreasing inflammation and promoting salt and water absorption. Gastrointestinal secretions can be controlled with anticholinergics (such as scopolamine) and/or somatostatin analogues (such as octreotide).

Two prospective, randomized controlled trials suggest octreotide is superior to scopolamine. Octreotide works by inhibiting the release of several gastrointestinal hormones thereby reducing secretions, slowing motility, increasing water and electrolyte absorption, and reducing bile and splanchnic blood flow. It is generally dosed 0.1-0.3mg subcutaneously TID. Some palliative care units will use continuous infusions at higher doses with anecdotal success.

Current guidelines suggest placing a venting g-tube if medical management is unsuccessful. A venting g-tube is similar to a traditional g-tube but is used solely for drainage of the gastrointestinal secretions and the liquids taken by mouth that are unable to bypass the obstruction. This drainage prevents the backup of these fluids that would normally stretch the viscus and stimulate vomiting. As experience with this intervention increases, many clinicians advocate g-tube placement early in the treatment algorithm because it can provide more complete relief of vomiting and allow more extensive pleasure feeding. Venting g-tubes can, however, place the patient at greater risk for electrolyte imbalances.

Most guidelines and many clinicians consider venting g-tube placement and medical management with octreotide/ anticholinergics as two separate treatment pathways. This case highlights the fact that, occasionally, both may be needed simultaneously. Although Ms BB’s venting g-tube was draining effectively, she still experienced severe nausea and vomiting, and it was not until octreotide was added to the regimen that her symptoms became controlled. This scenario is borne out in some of the data regarding venting g-tubes.

In one series of patients with gynecological malignancy and upper intestinal obstruction, 4 in 31 had incomplete resolution of their symptoms with placement of a venting g-tube alone. All 4 had complete symptom relief when octreotide was added to the regimen. Clinicians need to be aware that venting gastrostomy tubes and medical management with octreotide/anticholinergics are not mutually exclusive treatment algorithms and a small percentage of patients will require both for adequate symptom control. Fortunately, as was the case with Ms BB, this approach can allow almost all patients with malignant bowel obstruction to regain some measure of comfort.

References:

1. Ripamonti CI, Easson AM, Gerdes H. Management of malignant bowel obstruction. Eur J Cancer (2008). doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.02.028

2. Campagnutta E et al. Palliative treatment of upper intestinal obstruction by gynecological malignancy: the usefulness of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Gynecologic Oncology. 1996;62:103-105. doi:10.1006/gyno.1996.0197

3. Ripamonti CI et al. Clinical-practice recommendations for the management of bowel obstruction in patients with endstage cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2001; 9:223-233. doi:10.1007/s005200000198

Tweet

Case:MM is a 77-year-old woman who presented to the emergency department with flu-like symptoms. On exam she had a large palpable mass in her left breast. A CT scan revealed a 10cm left breast mass and liver and lung metastases. After admission to the hospital, the breast mass was biopsied. The consulting oncologist met with MM and told her that she most certainly had metastatic breast cancer, although the biopsy results were not yet available. The primary service asked palliative care to see MM because of her advanced disease. There was also concern that she did not understand her diagnosis.