Biomedical subjects

David Warr

Publications and source records attributed to David Warr.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Bringing palliative care to a Canadian cancer center: the palliative care program at Princess Margaret Hospital.

It is increasingly recognized that complete care of the patient with cancer includes palliative care, which is applicable early in the course of illness, in conjunction with life-prolonging treatment. Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) is Canada's largest center for cancer care and research, and it is an international referral center for patients with cancer. The Palliative Care Program at PMH has developed into a comprehensive clinical, educational, and research program, with an acute palliative care unit, daily palliative care clinics, a cancer pain clinic, and a consultation service that sees urgent consultations on a same-day basis in inpatient and outpatient areas. We will describe the components, successes, and challenges of our program, which may be useful for others, who are developing palliative care programs in an academic setting.

Canada↗

PubMed2006

The neurokinin1 receptor antagonist aprepitant as an antiemetic for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

The neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist aprepitant has become part of standard antiemetic therapy for high-dose cisplatin. Recent results indicate that chemotherapy for breast cancer that contains an anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide is more emetogenic than has been previously realised. One large randomised trial demonstrated that aprepitant substantially reduces the risk of vomiting or retching when added to a corticosteroid and a 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (HT3) receptor antagonist. The adverse effects of standard antiemetics and chemotherapy do not appear to be increased by the addition of this novel antiemetic agent. Aprepitant should now also be considered to be part of prophylactic antiemetic therapy for women who receive chemotherapy that contains an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. The role of NK1 receptor antagonists in preventing emesis due to other cytotoxic agents that are deemed to be moderately emetogenic is still unclear.

Adrenal Cortex Hormones↗

PubMed2005

Evidence-based recommendations for the use of antiemetics in radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To report recommendations given in the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) International Consensus Conference regarding the use of antiemetics in radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A steering committee under MASCC auspice chose panel participants for the guidelines development process on prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced emesis (RIE). Pertinent information from published literature as of March 2004 was reviewed for the guideline process. Both the MASCC level of scientific confidence and level of consensus, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) type of evidence and grade for recommendation were adopted. RESULTS: Total body irradiation is classified at high risk, upper abdomen at moderate, lower thorax, pelvis, cranium (radiosurgery) and craniospinal at low, head and neck, extremities, cranium and breast at minimal risk. The recommendations for the use of antiemetics in radiotherapy are as follows: prophylaxis with a 5-HT3 antagonist in patients at high and moderate risk levels of RIE (+/-dexamethasone in the former group), prophylaxis or rescue with a 5-HT3 antagonist in the low risk group, and rescue with dopamine or a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist in minimal risk level. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations represent a valid tool for prophylaxis and treatment of RIE in clinical practice.

Antiemetics↗

PubMed2004

Radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV): antiemetic guidelines.

As many as 40-80% of patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT) will experience nausea and/or vomiting, depending on the site of irradiation. Fractionated RT may involve up to 40 fractions over a 6-8 weeks period, and prolonged symptoms of nausea and vomiting could affect quality of life. Furthermore, uncontrolled nausea and vomiting may result in patients delaying or refusing further radiotherapy. Nausea and vomiting are often underestimated by radiation oncologists. Incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting depend on RT-related factors (single and total dose, fractionation, irradiated volume, radiotherapy techniques) and patient-related factors (gender, general health of the patient, age, concurrent or recent chemotherapy, psychological state, tumor stage). Current antiemetic guidelines prescribe the emetogenicity of radiotherapy regimens and recommend the use of 5-HT(3) antagonists with or without a steroid for prophylaxis in moderately and highly emetogenic treatment (MASCC, ASCO, ASHP, NCCN). The new proposed guidelines summarise the updated data from the literature and take into consideration the existing guidelines. According to the irradiated area (the most frequently studied risk factor), the proposed guidelines are divided into four levels of emetogenic risk: high, moderate, low and minimal. They offer guidance to prescribing physicians for effective antiemetic therapies in RINV.

Antiemetics↗

PubMed2004

Acute emesis: moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

This paper is a review of the recommendations for the prophylaxis of acute emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy as concluded at the Perugia Consensus Conference, which took place at the end of March 2004. The review focuses on new studies appearing since the last consensus conference in 1997. The following issues are addressed: dose and schedule of antiemetics, different groups of antiemetics such as corticosteroids, serotonin (5-HT(3))-receptor antagonists, dopamine D(2) receptor antagonists, and neurokinin (NK(1)) receptor antagonists. Antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving multiple cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy is also reviewed. Consensus statements are given, including optimal dose and schedule of 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists and of dexamethasone. The new 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonist, palonosetron, is a reasonable alternative to the well-established agents of this class--ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron and dolasetron. It is concluded that the best prophylaxis in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy is still the combination of one of the 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists and dexamethasone. The results of studies adding a NK(1)-receptor antagonist to this combination are awaited and might change future recommendations.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed2004

Delayed emesis: moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

Data on the incidence and efficacy of antiemetic prophylaxis against delayed emesis induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy are scanty. An overview of the literature has been done that showed the efficacy of dexamethasone in two of three randomized trials. Its optimal dose and duration of administration has not been defined. Only one of four randomized studies showed a statistically significant efficacy of 5-HT(3) antagonists. Finally, only weak evidence has been published on the efficacy of dopamine receptor antagonists.

Antiemetics↗

PubMed2004

Antiemetics in children receiving chemotherapy.

Only a few studies have been carried out in children on the prevention of chemotherapy-induced acute emesis. 5-HT3 antagonists have been shown to be more efficacious and less toxic than metoclopramide, phenothiazines and cannabinoids. The optimal dose and scheduling of the 5-HT3 antagonists has not been identified. Combinations of a 5-HT3 antagonist and dexamethasone show increased efficacy with respect to 5-HT3 antagonists alone. All pediatric patients receiving chemotherapy of high or moderate emetogenic potential should receive a combination of a 5-HT3 antagonist and dexamethasone to prevent acute emesis. No studies have specifically evaluated antiemetic drugs in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced delayed and anticipatory emesis in children.

Antiemetics↗

PubMed2004

Acetaminophen (paracetamol) improves pain and well-being in people with advanced cancer already receiving a strong opioid regimen: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether adding regular acetaminophen (paracetamol) could improve pain and well-being in people with advanced cancer and pain despite strong opioids. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants took acetaminophen for 48 hours and placebo for 48 hours. The order (acetaminophen or placebo first) was randomly allocated. Pain was the primary outcome. Preferences, number of opioid breakthrough doses, overall well-being, nausea and vomiting, drowsiness, constipation, and cold sweats were secondary outcomes. Patients rated themselves daily with visual analog scales (VAS) and a verbal numeric scale (VNS) for pain, all scaled from 0 to 10. RESULTS: Thirty patients completed the trial. The oral opioid was morphine in 23 patients and hydromorphone in seven patients. The median daily opioid dose in oral morphine equivalents was 200 mg (range, 20 to 2,100 mg). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, or both were used by 16 patients. Pain and overall well-being were better for patients receiving acetaminophen than for those receiving placebo. The mean difference was 0.4 (95% CI, 0.1 to 0.8; P =.03) in VNS for pain, 0.6 (95% CI, -0.1 to 1.3; P =.09) in VAS for pain, and 0.7 (95% CI, 0.0 to 1.4; P =.05) in VAS for overall well-being. More patients preferred the period they took acetaminophen (n = 14) than the period they took placebo (n = 8), but many had no preference (n = 8). There were no differences in the other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Acetaminophen improved pain and well-being without major side effects in patients with cancer and persistent pain despite a strong opioid regimen. Its addition is worth considering in all such patients.

Acetaminophen↗

PubMed2003

Cognitive function, fatigue, and menopausal symptoms in women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: There is evidence that cognitive dysfunction, fatigue, and menopausal symptoms may occur in women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Here, we determine their incidence and severity, and interrelationships between them and quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, 110 women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy each nominated a female relative, friend, or neighbor (matched by age) as a control; 100 eligible matched pairs were evaluated. Patients and controls completed the following assessments: the High-Sensitivity Cognitive Screen, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) quality of life scale with subscales for fatigue (FACT-F) and endocrine symptoms (FACT-ES). They also performed tests of attention and reaction time. RESULTS: Patients and controls were well matched for age and level of education. There was a higher incidence of moderate or severe cognitive impairment in the patient group (16% v 4%; P =.008). Patients experienced much more fatigue than controls (median FACT-F scores, 31 v 46; P <.0001) and more menopausal symptoms (median FACT-ES scores, 58 v 64; P <.0001). Self-reported quality of life of the patients was poorer than for controls, especially in physical and functional domains (median FACT-G scores, 77 v 93; P <.0001). There was strong correlation between fatigue, menopausal symptoms, and quality of life (P <.0001 for each pair), but none were significantly associated with the presence of cognitive dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant chemotherapy causes cognitive dysfunction, fatigue, and menopausal symptoms in women with breast cancer. Priority should be given to the study of strategies that might reduce these toxic effects.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

Coping, catastrophizing and chronic pain in breast cancer.

This cross-sectional study investigated the relationships between individual differences in coping and catastrophizing, and markers of adaptation to chronic pain associated with breast cancer. Sixty-eight breast cancer patients with chronic pain due to either cancer or cancer-treatment were administered self-report instruments that assess active and passive coping, catastrophizing, pain, disability, and mood disturbance. Regression analyses were performed to investigate the unique contribution of differences in coping and catastrophizing to the various markers of adaptation. Both active and passive coping explained unique variance in self-reported disability; active coping was associated with less disability while passive coping was associated with greater disability. Catastrophizing explained unique variance in anxiety and depression scores; higher levels of catastrophizing were associated with greater emotional distress. The results suggest that coping and catastrophizing may contribute to different outcomes in chronic pain in breast cancer patients and provides preliminary evidence that they may be important targets of psychological treatments.

Adaptation, Psychological↗