Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Pallimed Case Conferences (cases.pallimed.org) is closed to comments and new posts as of April 25, 2013.
This site will stay online as an archived source, but will no longer be updated.
For active posts on these cases and new cases go to www.pallimed.com.
By Kevin Patterson, MD
Originally posted at the Institute to Enhance Palliative Care, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Case:Mr. R is a 65-year-old man who retired as a high-level executive at a large business. He had been hospitalized with worsening pulmonary fibrosis and had ultimately received a double lung transplant. Following transplant, Mr. R suffered multiple complications over a period of three months. In these months, Mr. R was a participant in his own care during times of relative medical improvement. Yet his primary team noticed at the present admission that, he seemed to be withdrawn and was not engaging well with physical or occupational therapy. The team also noted that he had more difficulty concentrating when they went into the room to see him. The team expressed concern that the stress of a prolonged hospitalization was getting to him and/or that Mr. R might be suffering from depression.
The team requested a palliative care consult and, as the psychiatrist on the service, I was asked to see Mr. R. When I first examined him, I indeed found him to be quiet and withdrawn and not at all the "go-getter" that his wife described. When the palliative care doctor had initially seen the patient, she was concerned that he appeared to be confused at times, and my examination bore this out. Mr. R was lethargic and would drift in and out of sleep while we talked. With a little prodding, he revealed that he had noticed a "problem" with his thinking and frequently found himself to be unsure of where he was and why people were coming in and out of his room. He denied any hallucinations or paranoia.
Discussion:
It is very common for doctors to identify hyperactive delirium in patients. Hyperactive delirium is the disturbance in thinking that results from physical illness, medications, or various other etiologies and is characterized by a previously stable individual becoming disoriented, agitated, paranoid, and hallucinatory. It frequently results in a disturbance on the medical unit, and is therefore usually diagnosed. Far more common, but less frequently noticed (estimates run from 32-66% missed) is the condition known as hypoactive delirium. Hypoactive delirium is also a disturbance of consciousness wherein the patient's mental status waxes and wanes, but it frequently manifests with symptoms more like those observed in Mr. R: patients become withdrawn, display less motivation, have lower energy, and are quietly confused.
It is not uncommon for patients with this symptom set to be mistaken for depressed or even as simply lacking the motivation to improve medically. The incidence of delirium among hospitalized patients has been estimated at around 10%. Among patients nearing the end of life, these numbers increase to approximately 60%. It is known that untreated delirium results in increased morbidity and mortality in the 6 months following a hospitalization. Identifying and treating hypoactive delirium is therefore an important component of improved quality and length of life for palliative care patients.
The treatment for both hyperactive and hypoactive delirium is the same: identification and treatment of the underlying cause, and short-term use of antipsychotic medications to reduce disruptive symptoms. Mr. R was started on risperidone 0.25mg twice a day with additional doses available as needed. Within two days of starting this regimen, he was interacting more with his providers, reengaging in rehab, and having conversations with his wife that both of them found to be more successful. Mr. R. never endorsed symptoms that would suggest depression. He was better able to communicate his needs and participate in his care.
References:
1. Casarett D, et al. Diagnosis and management of delirium near the end of life. Ann Int Med 2001; 135 (1): 32-40. (open access pdf)
2. Rea RS, et al. Atypical antipsychotics versus haloperidol for treatment of delirium in acutely ill patients. Pharmacotherapy 2007; 24 (4): 588-94.(no open access pdf)
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 by Christian Sinclair ·
Monday, August 4, 2008
Pallimed Case Conferences (cases.pallimed.org) is closed to comments and new posts as of April 25, 2013.
This site will stay online as an archived source, but will no longer be updated.
For active posts on these cases and new cases go to www.pallimed.com. \By Robert Arnold, MD and Tamara Sacks, MD
Originally posted at the Institute to Enhance Palliative Care, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Case:Mrs. Smith is a 52-year-old woman with metastatic lung cancer diagnosed two months ago when she developed chest wall and right arm pain. Since then she has seen her primary care physician, an oncologist, and a palliative medicine physician. Her opiate dose was escalated from nothing to 200 micrograms of fentanyl without any pain relief. She was admitted to the hospital two days ago for uncontrolled pain and placed on a hydromorphone PCA. She is currently using 10mg/hr (continuous and bolus), still rates her pain as a 10 out of 10, and has developed nausea.
She describes her pain as a throbbing of the right chest wall and numbness, burning, and tingling down her right arm. Her physical exam is consistent with a lower brachial plexopathy. Her radiographic studies reveal metastases to the sternum and ribs and a right upper lobe mass invading the brachial plexus.
Given the patient is currently using almost 5 grams of oral morphine equivalents a day with no relief and probable opioid induced nausea, what is the next step?
Discussion:
While cancer pain can be relieved in 80-90% of patients using the WHO analgesic ladder, this case raises the question of what should be done when a patient’s pain is uncontrolled even on very high opiate doses. In this discussion, we will assume the pain is caused by tumor rather than distress from psychological causes (delirium, anxiety, addiction) or spiritual/existential suffering.
A key question is whether the patient has ever been responsive to opiates for this condition. If the answer is yes, the increased pain should lead to a search for a worsening of the underlying disease or a new cause of pain. Prior to concluding that a patient’s pain is not opioid responsive, one needs to make sure that the patient has had an adequate trial. The dose should be increased until the patient has pain relief or unacceptable toxicities develop. Aggressively treating the opiate’s side effects may improve the analgesic window. Control of the patient’s vomiting, hyperalgesia, myoclonus, delirium or drowsiness may make it possible to increase the opiate dose to an effective level. In addition, a Cochrane review suggests that rotating from one opiate to another may help decrease side effects and widen the therapeutic window. In addition, recent studies have shown that for patients with opioid responsive pain and uncontrolled side effects, an epidural pump leads to better pain management and is cost-effective.
If analgesia is still ineffective, one can add a drug that produces independent analgesic effects. For example, this patient seems to have both bone and neuropathic pain syndromes. The former may respond to steroids, non-steroidals, or biphosphonates, the latter to topical lidocaine, antidepressant, or antiepileptic drugs. While the strongest evidence supports tri-cyclic antidepressants, gabapentin, and serotonergic neuroepinephrine reuptake inhibitors for the treatment of neuropathic pain, one may have to try five or six agents (including agents such as clonidine, intravenous lidocaine, or mexelitine) to get a significant decrease in pain. A combination of these may also be needed. One should systematically add a co-analgesic and increase the dose until the maximal dose, pain relief, or intolerable side effects occur. A medication should be continued if it results in at least a 50% decrease in pain.
One should also consider non-pharmacological analgesic interventions. Acupuncture and behavioral interventions have been shown to help with pain syndromes. Radiation to the patient’s sternum and ribs may help with bone related pain, while a regional nerve block may help the neuropathic component. In addition radiopharmaceuticals such as samarium, can be considered in patients with pain secondary to diffuse bone metastases.
In very difficult cases, one may need to try and enhance the opiate’s analgesic effect. Drugs that antagonize the NMDA receptor, for example, have both direct analgesic effects or may reverse opiate tolerance, resulting in better pain management. The three drugs that are most commonly used are ketamine, methadone, and dextromethorphan. The use of these drugs should only be done with a pain or palliative care consultation.
While opiate unresponsive pain is not that common, it is very frustrating. Systematically approaching the problem will ensure that one develops the best treatment plan.
References:
1. Mercadante S, Portenoy RK. Opiate Poorly Responsive Cancer Pain Parts 1-3 Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2001 Vol. 21 #1 page 144-150; Vol. 21 #2 page 255-264; Vol. 21(4) #3 page 338-354.
2. Smith, TJ, Staats, PS., Deer, T., et al. (2002). "Randomized clinical trial of an implantable drug delivery system compared with comprehensive medical management for refractory cancer pain: impact on pain, drug related toxicity, and survival." J Clin Oncol 20(19): 4040-9.
3. Fallon, M. (2008). "When morphine does not work." Support Care Cancer 2008: 16(7):771-5.
Acknowledgments: We appreciate input from David Weissman who helped us think through and provide part of the algorithm for this article.
Monday, August 4, 2008 by Christian Sinclair ·
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Pallimed Case Conferences (cases.pallimed.org) is closed to comments and new posts as of April 25, 2013.
This site will stay online as an archived source, but will no longer be updated.
For active posts on these cases and new cases go to www.pallimed.com.
By Tamara Sacks, MD
Originally posted at the Institute to Enhance Palliative Care, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
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.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008 by Christian Sinclair ·
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Pallimed Case Conferences (cases.pallimed.org) is closed to comments and new posts as of April 25, 2013.
This site will stay online as an archived source, but will no longer be updated.
For active posts on these cases and new cases go to www.pallimed.com.
By Linda King, M.D.
Originally posted at the Institute to Enhance Palliative Care, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Case:
Jane (not her real name), a 66 year-old woman with advanced COPD, has been hospitalized 5 times in the last six months for shortness of breath. During the current admission, she has been anxious, tearful, and stated to her nurse “I don’t know if it’s worth it anymore.” Nursing staff suggested a palliative care consultation to assist with managing Jane’s symptoms.
During her initial meeting with the palliative care team, Jane reported that she sees herself “going down hill” and is frightened of dying, specifically of suffocating. The palliative care team reviewed Jane’s recent clinical course and current medical regimen with her primary team and the other consulting teams. Given her persistent symptoms despite maximal therapy for her COPD, the palliative care team suggested a trial of opioids and benzodiazepines to manage her persistent dyspnea and associated anxiety.
Jane began taking:
oxycodone 5 mg every 4 hrs RTC (round the clock) for dyspneaand noted significant improvement. A fan was placed in her room and she continued on supplemental oxygen. A behavioral medicine specialist met with Jane and taught her relaxation techniques to use when her breathing was bothersome. With improvement in her shortness of breath, anxiety, and mood, Jane began to work with members of the palliative care team and her primary physician, as well as with representatives from social work and pastoral care, to clarify her overall goals and plans for the future.
oxycodone 5mg q2 hr prn (as needed) for dyspnea
lorazepam 0.5 mg every 6hr for anxiety
Discussion:
Dyspnea is a commonly feared symptom in patients with advanced diseases affecting the lungs. Careful assessment, based on the patient’s subjective symptoms, and a thorough history and physical examination, guide management. Identifying and treating the underlying cause of the shortness of breath (pulmonary edema, bronchospasm, pleural effusion, etc.) generally provides the most effective relief. If treating the underlying cause is not possible or practical, efforts to manage the symptom itself are essential.
Oxygen, opioids, and benzodiazepines, as well as non-pharmacological interventions, represent the main strategies for controlling dyspnea. Opioids, often in lower doses than used for pain, reliably relieve dyspnea. All opioids are effective for managing dyspnea, though morphine is often used because of its low cost and ease of titration. Clinicians often fear respiratory depression when using opioids to control dyspnea, but they can be used safely and effectively when titrated carefully and followed closely. Sedation occurs well before respiratory depression and can signal a need for dose adjustment or more cautious titration.
Benzodiazepines can be safely added to opioid therapy to manage co-existing anxiety, starting at low doses and titrating to effect. Simple relaxation techniques can be easily mastered by patients and can provide a sense of control over distressing symptoms. Fresh air from an open window or fan can also provide significant relief. Patients and families should be reassured that dyspnea can be effectively controlled with the modalities discussed above.
References:
1. Luce J, Luce J. Management of dyspnea in patients with far-advanced lung disease: “Once I lose it, it’s kind of hard to catch it…” JAMA 2001: 185:1331- 1337. doi:10.1001/jama.285.10.1331
2. Emanuel L, von Gunten C, Ferris F. Education for Physicians on End-of-Life Care (EPEC) Module 10: Common Physical Symptoms. American Medical Association, Chicago: 1999.
*Historical Cases are presented intermittently to allow for twice monthly publication on the blog.
**Slight editorial changes were made for improved readability.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 by Christian Sinclair ·
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Pallimed Case Conferences (cases.pallimed.org) is closed to comments and new posts as of April 25, 2013.
This site will stay online as an archived source, but will no longer be updated.
For active posts on these cases and new cases go to www.pallimed.com.
By Andrea Scheve, MM, NMT, MT-BC
Originally posted at the Institute to Enhance Palliative Care, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Case:
Mrs. D. is a 55-year-old woman with a history of cardiomyopathy. She was placed on a Ventricular Assist Device (VAD) and awaited heart transplant in the hospital for over 50 days. She received the heart transplant and remained in the hospital for about a month post-transplant before moving to an outside facility. Her husband was her main support system in this time, and the Palliative Care Team was consulted for support as well. When asked by the Palliative Care doctors if she would like a visit from the music therapist, Mrs. D. enthusiastically responded “Yes!”
During our first Music Therapy session, Mrs. D. shared that she was a “Sweet Adeline” (a member of a barbershop quartet) and she sings the “Lead.” She led us all in singing every gospel tune we could come up with that day, and played percussion instruments as well. She even sang to staff as they came into the room. Singing is a great tool to use in music therapy because it requires deep breathing, and produces a relaxation response. It is also great for respiratory therapy, and the percussion playing is good for physical conditioning.
Shortly thereafter, I received a phone call from Mr. D., whom I had not yet met. I learned that they had received bad news Mrs. D. was beginning to reject her new heart. He requested I come at my earliest convenience to see Mrs. D., that she needed Music Therapy. When I arrived, I found the two sitting side by side on the hospital bed. I set up in front of them, and we began with requested gospel tunes.
At a time of crisis, people often look for spiritual support, and music is one way people can express their spirituality and feel comforted. Mr. D. began to cry. As the tears flowed down his face, he sang “I once was lost, but now am found, was blind, but now I see.” I once again played every spiritual song I know to support Mr. D through his grief and allow him to safely cry. As Hogan (1999) documented, “music therapy was often experienced spiritually, reaffirming participants’ acceptance of dying, or allowing them to think of life thereafter, awaken to life’s meaning and/or reflect on the fortunate experiences of having shared love and kindness.”
Using all live music in this context is important because the music can be altered to meet the expectations and needs of the patient/family; e.g. faster, slower, louder, softer, changing the instrumentation, and allowing the patient to be the leader or the follower, the director, the performer, or the audience. They are allowed as much choice and control over the situation as they need, because often times they have little choice or control over what is happening to their bodies or the disease process.
As we moved on to oldies, Mr. D. stopped crying and they both started talking about their early romantic days together, how they first met, their children, and grandchildren. The music evoked memories from long ago and facilitated a life review for the couple. They were able to recall memories connected to songs, their first dance, their wedding song, and favorite songs of their children.
Musical life reviews are a way for people to celebrate their lives, their love for each other, and their family traditions. Just as certain olfactory sensations can trigger memories and emotional reactions, auditory sensations (music) are linked to memories and emotions, making the life review process seamless in musical form. Mrs. D. was discharged to another facility a few days later, and I suspect she and Mr. D. continue to sing together, using music to add quality to their lives.
References:
1. Hilliard, R. (2005). Hospice and palliative care music therapy: a guide to program development and clinical care.
2. Hogan, B. (1999). The experience of music therapy for terminally ill patients: A phenomenological research project. In R. R. Pratt & D. E. Grocke (Eds.) MusicMedicine 3: musicmedicine and music therapy: expanding horizons (pp. 242-254).
Tuesday, June 24, 2008 by Christian Sinclair ·
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
"Am I really going to have to live like this?":
The Role of Octreotide in Patients with Persistent Nausea and Vomiting after Venting Gastrostomy
Pallimed Case Conferences (cases.pallimed.org) is closed to comments and new posts as of April 25, 2013.
This site will stay online as an archived source, but will no longer be updated.
For active posts on these cases and new cases go to www.pallimed.com.
By Gordon J. Wood, MD
Originally posted at the Institute to Enhance Palliative Care, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
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
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 by Christian Sinclair ·
Monday, May 26, 2008
Pallimed Case Conferences (cases.pallimed.org) is closed to comments and new posts as of April 25, 2013.
This site will stay online as an archived source, but will no longer be updated.
For active posts on these cases and new cases go to www.pallimed.com.
By Winifred G. Teuteberg, MD
Originally posted at the Institute to Enhance Palliative Care, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
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.
I came into the patient’s room and introduced myself, saying, “I see many of the breast cancer patients on this floor.” The patient stopped me, saying, “I don’t have cancer.” I apologized and asked if I might sit down and talk with her. I asked her to explain what she understood of her illness. She said she had fallen several months before and bruised her left breast. It had been sore ever since but she was otherwise fine until she developed “flu” and came to the emergency department. She understood that a scan showed “something in my liver,” but believed that without the biopsy she did not have cancer.
I explained that her doctors were concerned she had cancer. I then asked her what she was most worried about. She told me that her husband died from lung cancer the year before after a two-year battle with the disease. She said, “I’m afraid I’ll suffer the way he did with chemotherapy and radiation and die anyway.” I counseled her that some patients with metastatic breast cancer choose to focus on comfort, rather than pursue aggressive therapies that may not help them achieve more quality time. She was relieved to hear that this was possible. She was discharged with a plan to discuss treatment options with her oncologist but was also considering referral to hospice.
Discussion:
A large part of my clinical practice involves providing inpatient palliative care consults to breast cancer patients. During my three years of practice in this setting, I frequently encounter women presenting with palpable, often fungating, breast masses. In nearly all of these cases patients sought medical attention for a symptom not obviously related to the mass or at the request of a concerned friend or family member. Even after being told their diagnosis, patients often did not accept it and continued to believe their symptoms were related to something else. They can continue in this belief for months and sometimes years. When other health care providers encounter these patients, they are struck by the magnitude of their denial.
Upon review of the literature, denial of obvious breast cancer and delay in presentation for medical care is quite common. Approximately one third of patients present for evaluation more than 12 weeks after developing symptoms and about 5% present more than a year after noticeable symptoms. Most of these patients present with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Studies identify several reasons for this delay, most of them related to the patients’ initial psychological response to their symptoms. Patients who delayed presentation were more likely to have significant fear of cancer itself and/or therapies for cancer including disfiguring surgery. Many patients noticed a lump but believed that the lump would go away or attributed it to another cause. Others did not know that breast cancer is a potentially curable illness and fatalistically did not seek treatment because they believed they were going to die no matter what they did. In several studies patients reported that they knew the symptom was serious, but were too busy caring for others such as young children or sick family members to take time to seek medical advice.
Interestingly, although some studies found a small increased incidence of psychiatric illness in patients who delayed presentation, studies found no significant differences in psychological well-being between patients with early versus late presentation.
When caring for such patients, it is important to realize that their reasons for delaying presentation or even acknowledging their illness are significant for them. Rather than initially attempting to change their beliefs and force them to accept their diagnosis, it is best to first explore their fears and identify ways to help allay these fears. In the case of MM, her fear was that she would suffer the way her husband did and die anyway. Although I was not able to cure her cancer, I was able to provide comfort by offering her a way to avoid the suffering that her husband endured.
1. Phelan M, Dobbs J, David AS. ‘I thought it would go away’: patient denial in breast cancer. J R Soc Med 1992;85;206-207. Full PDF
2. Mohamed IE, Williams KS, Tamburrino MB , et al. Understanding locally advanced breast cancer: What influences a woman’s decision to delay treatment? Preventive Medicine 2005;41:399-405. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.12.012 [doi]
3. Burgess CC, Potts HWW, Hamed H, et al. Why do older women delay presentation with breast cancer symptoms? Psycho-Oncology 2006;15:962-968. 10.1002/pon.1030 [doi]
Monday, May 26, 2008 by Christian Sinclair ·
Monday, May 12, 2008
Pallimed Case Conferences (cases.pallimed.org) is closed to comments and new posts as of April 25, 2013.
This site will stay online as an archived source, but will no longer be updated.
For active posts on these cases and new cases go to www.pallimed.com.
By Elizabeth Chaitin, MSW, MA, DHCE
Originally posted at the Institute to Enhance Palliative Care, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Vol 8, No. 1 - February 2008
(Original PDF)
Case:(Original PDF)
Mr. James Martin is 74-year-old man admitted to an outside hospital with a two-month history of shortness of breath, edema, and recent difficulty ambulating. He has a history of an aortic aneurysm, hypertension, cellulitis of his lower extremities, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from years of heavy smoking, as well as ischemic cardiomyopathy and congestive heart failure. Mr. Martin had worsening renal functioning upon admission and was found to have two masses, one on each adrenal gland. He was scheduled for surgery and an ethics consult was called because the patient “didn’t seem mentally right.” The ethics consultant interviewed the patient and family and discovered that Mr. Martin was “mentally slow” and was illiterate. He never attended school and was raised and cared for by family until his adult years when he rented a small apartment near his sister Debbie with whom he is quite close. The consultant recommended that his sister sign for consent for the surgery for she felt Mr. Martin was neither able to comprehend the severe nature of his current condition nor could he comprehend the risks undertaken with the recommended surgery. The sister consented to bilateral adrenalectomies.
In this case there were two different stories or viewpoints present, which could have been conflictual in nature depending on the approach taken by the Palliative Care and Ethics Team. In Story One, the attending believed strongly that it was possible the patient could “get well” with more time and encouraged the family to consider the placement of a feeding tube. In Story Two, the Palliative Care and Ethics Team was certain that the patient was dying and believed that the placement of a feeding tube would not add to the longevity or quality of the patient’s life.
1. Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila Heen. “Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most.” Penguin Books, 1999.
2. Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.” Penguin Books, 1991. (Wikipedia Link)
2. Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.” Penguin Books, 1991. (Wikipedia Link)
(Edit: (6/16) Added missing fragment "...consultant believed that the patient was dying and spoke with...)
Monday, May 12, 2008 by Christian Sinclair ·
Pallimed Case Conferences (cases.pallimed.org) is closed to comments and new posts as of April 25, 2013.
This site will stay online as an archived source, but will no longer be updated.
For active posts on these cases and new cases go to www.pallimed.com.
First of all, the cases shared here are from the wonderful resource at the University of Pittsburgh - Institute to Enhance Palliative Care (Bob Arnold, David Barnard).
One potential way to add case conferences to your fellowship program is to have your fellows post comments online about the cases. If the fellowship director reads the cases, comments and keeps up to date on the comments (via email notification), you now have a case conference series with documented involvement (the comments) without much production and effort. If you already have a case conference this could augment it, but by no means should it replace it.
As far as following your fellows comments, since the site is public, they have the option of posting openly or anonymously. I would encourage thoughtful open comments, since anonymous can allow civility to be checked at the door occasionally, but I understand the issues of liability for words as a physician when posted online. So if you really wanted your fellows to participate but they (or you) wanted them to stay semi-anonymous, have them pick a screen name that only you know, so you can track their comments to give credit for the participation. Now you should all know that nothing is truly anonymous on the internet, so they should still choose their words carefully.
If you decide to use this as part of your program, please email me christian@pallimed.org and let me know, or post it in the comments on this thread.
by Christian Sinclair ·
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Welcome to Pallimed: Case Conferences
FAQ
Founded: April 11, 2008
We are glad you found us and hope you enjoy the information and commentary we provide. If you are here we presume you have a basic understanding of the field of hospice and palliative medicine, and are likely part of the professional field. (Here is a good description of palliative medicine).
Origins
Pallimed: Case Conferences is a companion blog to Pallimed: A Hospice and Palliative Medicine Blog. Some readers have asked that Pallimed include cases for discussion of difficult and interesting situations in palliative medicine. We agree this is an important way to learn and decided to include it as a separate blog since it might appeal to a particular subset of readers. The cases presented have been reformatted with permission from David Barnard, JD, PhD from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Institute to Enhance Palliative Care.Our target audience is the professionals (MD, DO, RN, LPN, LVN, Home Health Aide, ARNP, SW, Chaplain, Administrators, PT, OT, Speech, Pharmacy, etc.) working in hospice & palliative medicine, but we welcome all readers to this blog, including patients, families and other medical professionals outside of this field.
Our goal is to review current palliative medicine, hospice, end-of-life research with a particular focus on publications not from the major palliative care journals. We also highlight important events in end-of-life care from the news media and entertainment arenas. Pallimed: Case Conferences is not intended to replace the patient-physician relationship.
Who is Pallimed: Case Conferences?
Christian Sinclair, MD
Pallimed: Case Conference Section Editor
Click here if you want to know more about us.
and
Pallimed: Case Conference Section Editor

Click here if you want to know more about us.
and
You, the readers!
Please email Drew or Christian to give us general feedback on the site.
What About Your Day Jobs?
We do this in our spare time, for fun and for the pursuit of knowledge and truth (sounds noble!). We have a standard disclaimer that the views we express here do not represent the views of our employers or former employers or institutions that we are affiliated with. Please see the disclaimer and copyright information at the very bottom of our homepage. Our effort here is not to provoke but to inform and have open conversation about some potentially thorny issues. Our clinical care is enhanced by being able to comprehend as much information in our field as possible, which is part of the reason we do this blog. We use our real names and not pseudonyms, because we feel it imparts credibility and responsibility for our words.
How To Make Pallimed: Case Conferences Work For You!
So what is the big deal about these blogs I hear so much about? If you are new to blogs the first thing to do is 'bookmark'/'add to favorites' this site in your browser (Ctrl+D in most browsers). You can even add the bookmark to your toolbars in your browser (Firefox, Internet Explorer) so that you can access Pallimed: Case Conferences with one click. This is a great start, but the main problem is you have to actively seek the site to get the information. Wouldn't it be nice if the information just came to you?
To get the information to come to you we have a two different options to subscribe to Pallimed: Case Conferences:
1) Email
Using a service called 'Feedblitz', Pallimed: Case Conferences can provide you with posts as they are written directly to your email box. Just type in your email and click the button and you are done. No signing up for a new account or anything. Give this a try and if it does not work for you then just unsubscribe.
2) RSS/Atom Feeds
If you are a little more tech savvy you can make use of the RSS/Atom feature present on most blogs or news sites. RSS (Really Simple Syndication) and Atom are very similar. You may be familiar with the orange button on many sites that looks like this:
or the icon that looks like this:
Here is a very helpful 3 minute video to explain RSS.
Basically RSS and Atom are computer languages for universal formating of information. It can be read using a RSS/Atom Reader. Many readers exist as separate programs or add-ons to your browser, but you can use Firefox 2.0, Safari or Internet Explorer 7 to do the same thing (links go to those sites tutorials). Those of you on IE6 need to upgrade to IE7 to get the RSS benefit.
Ours is located in the right column and is supported via Feedburner. If you click on this link it will take you to their site to pick your feed options.
Christian recommends Google Reader (especially if you have a Gmail account). It is very intuitive as are most other RSS readers. If all this talk scares you, it really is not that bad, just try it. You will not break your computer.
3) The cases
The cases are graciously shared from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's Institute to Enhance Palliative Care. David Barnard, JD, PhD and Bob Arnold, MD have agreed to reformat the IEPC's monthly cases series to open a wider discussion on Pallimed: Case Conferences.
4) Navigating Pallimed
We have a search bar located at the very upper left of the screen in the Blogger Toolbar.
Each post/case is labeled by common topics we cover here at Pallimed so you can quickly find other similar posts. On the left hand column you will also find a list of labels and the number of posts) Click on a link and see what you find! Many older posts do not yet have labels. These labels do not translate to posts on other Pallimed blogs (Pallimed or Pallimed Arts & Humanitites)
Also in the left hand column is a feature from Google reader that allows us to share Hospice & Palliative Medicine related stories that come across our desk, but are not so interesting that we feel compelled to write about it.
In the right hand column we also have a link to the Pallimed Archives (where you can browse blog posts by date).
5) Comments
Pallimed has a comment function (at the bottom of each post) that allows you to comment on each post. Just click on the "comments" link at the end of each post (the link usually tells you how many comments have been left so it says, e.g., "0 Comments" or "1 Comment"). Tell us your opinions and thoughts. This can be a great community for discussion. You can even add comments anonymously, especially if you want to say something controversial. Even something as pithy as 'great post' or 'what are you talking about?' helps us to keep working at the blog day in and day out for you.
We ask that you refrain from providing specific details about your own cases because of HIPAA restrictions. We strongly encourage you to change any minor details or talk about issues in the case in broader terms. We strongly encourage no discussion of exact prescribing information or giving or soliciting medical advice on Pallimed: Case Conferences. If you are not sure what you should write, please choose something more conservative.
The comment function has a simple verification system to prevent spammers from clogging the site.
You can find recent comments in the right hand sidebar.
Comment Disclaimer: Pallimed reserves the right to remove any comments we deem offensive/hateful, mean-spirited, commercial, or in any other way inappropriate. Please see the site disclaimer for more details.
6) What Can You Do For Pallimed: Case Conferences?
Read the posts, make a few comments, tell others about it. This site is free. No memberships necessary. No Advertisements. Thanks for reading!
7) Confidentiality/Privacy
Feel free to email us directly at our emails listed above. Subscribers (via RSS or email) are kept private and the information will not be distributed or accessible to anyone but Drew or Christian. Website stats for visitors are tracked by Google Analytics, but no identifiable information is kept which could identify a user. Pallimed uses 'cookies' to track returning visitors, but again this data will not identify a individual user, nor is it kept over time.
Sunday, May 11, 2008 by Christian Sinclair ·
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


