Serfaty, M., Wilkinson, S., Freeman, C., Mannix, K., & King, M. (2012). The ToT study: Helping with Touch or Talk (ToT): A pilot randomised controlled trial to examine the clinical effectiveness of aromatherapy massage versus cognitive behaviour therapy for emotional distress in patients in cancer/palliative care. Psycho-Oncology, 21, 563–569.
To pilot a randomized trial examining the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and aromatherapy massage (AM) in reducing emotional distress in patients with cancer and to compare the differences in effectiveness between the CBT and AM groups
Participants were randomized to one of two treatment groups: CBT or AM. The study did not explain how the CBT intervention was actually implemented, except to note that trained and accredited therapists delivered the therapy. The study listed the topics covered in the CBT sessions but did not describe the procedures, group-session format, etc. AM was described as standard massage with 20 essential oils, delivered by a trained aromatherapist, in a quiet room with minimal talking. Each group received one of these interventions along with “treatment as usual” (standard care). Both groups were offered, after study entry, up to eight one-hour sessions delivered over 10 weeks. Time interval between treatments was not delineated.
Patients were undergoing multiple phases of care.
The study, a pilot, was a randomized, single-blind, prospective, repeated-measure clinical trial with no control group. Measures were collected at baseline and at three and six months postintervention.
The study was drastically underpowered, with too small a sample to allow researchers to draw meaningful conclusions. The study produced no statistically significant findings.
AM may be beneficial as a treatment for short-term anxiety. This poorly designed and controlled pilot study offers no other immediate nursing implication.
Sepulveda-Vildosola, A.C., Betanzos-Cabrera, Y., Lastiri, G.G., Rivera-Marquez, H., Villasis-Keever, M.A., Del Angel, V.W., … Lopez-Aguilar, E. (2008). Palonosetron hydrochloride is an effective and safe option to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children. Archives of Medical Research, 39, 601–606.
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron for management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in pediatric patients
Prior to every chemotherapy cycle, patients were randomized to receive either 0.25 mg palonosetron 30 minutes before chemotherapy or 8 mg/m2 IV ondansetron every 8 hours. Patients or guardians used a self-administered questionnaire to record emetic events and intensity of nausea during the next seven days. They also were asked to record secondary effects of palonosetron.
The study was conducted at a single site in Mexico.
All patients were in active treatment and pediatric.
This was a randomized, single-blind comparative study.
The authors developed a questionnaire for patients to record emesis and nausea intensity. Nausea was defined as absent, mild (decrease in oral intake), or intense (no oral intake).
Palonosetron appears to be safe and effective in pediatric patients. A regimen with single-dose palonosetron may be less expensive than multiple-dose ondansetron.
Palonosetron may be effective in this population, and single-dose palonosetron regimens may be a cost-effective alternative to multiple-day treatments. Improved symptom measurement methods in pediatric patients are worth exploring.
Seol, Y.M., Kim, H.J., Choi, Y.J., Lee, E.M., Kim, Y.S., Oh, S.Y., . . . Chung, J.S. (2016). Transdermal granisetron versus palonosetron for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: A multicenter, randomized, open-label, cross-over, active-controlled, and phase IV study. Supportive Care in Cancer, 24, 945–952.
To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the granisetron transdermal delivery system (GTDS) to palonosetron for the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC)
Eligible patients were randomized to either the granisetron group (GP) or palonosetron group (PG). The GP group received transdermal granisetron (one patch, seven days) for the first chemotherapy cycle and palonosetron (IV 0.25 mg/day, one day) for the second chemotherapy before receiving MEC in two consecutive cycles. The PG received palonosetron for cycle 1 and granisetron for cycle 2. Granisetron was applied 24–48 hours prior to the start of chemotherapy in both groups and left in place for seven days. IV injection of palonosetron 0.25 mg was given 30 minutes prior to chemotherapy on day 1. Both groups received dexamethasone (IV 10 mg) within 30 minutes before chemotherapy on day 1. All subjects were followed for a total of 15 days. Patient diaries were used to record the following: emetic episodes, use of rescue medications, patch adhesion, and severity of nausea (which was evaluated daily until day 4) by the CTCAE. Adverse events and vital signs were also recorded.
PHASE OF CARE: Active antitumor treatment
Multicenter, randomized, open-label, cross-over, active-controlled, phase IV study
The GTDS cycles showed noninferiority to palonosetron cycles during the acute phase. Complete responses were achieved by 75% of patients in the GTDS cycles and 80% in the palonosetron cycles. There was no significant difference in complete response rate of acute phase after the first cycle and the second cycle between the GP group and PG group (p = 0.405, p = 0.074). Similar proportions of compete response were noted during the overall period of 0–72 hours. In both groups, small portions of patients had severe nausea during the acute phase (3 of 175 in the GTDS cycle and 1 of 175 of the palonosetron cycle). Satisfaction scores were measured by FLI-E and were equal in both groups for patients in the PG group, but in the GP group, patients' scores were lower in the palonosetron cycle versus GTDS. There were no differences in adverse events between the groups.
This study demonstrated that the granisetron transdermal delivery system is noninferior to palonosetron for relieving CINV in patients receiving MEC. Patients' satisfaction was higher with the GTDS than with palonosetron.
The GTDS is noninferior to palonosetron for patients receiving MEC. This may be a valuable option for patients who are unable to swallow pills or who have impaired absorption.
Sencer, S. F., Zhou, T., Freedman, L. S., Ives, J. A., Chen, Z., Wall, D., et al. (2012). Traumeel S in preventing and treating mucositis in young patients undergoing SCT: a report of the Children's Oncology Group. Bone Marrow Transplantation, 47(11), 1409-1414.
To assess the use of Traumeel S for the prevention and treatment of mucositis. To replicate a previous study that showed benefit in using Traumeel S.
Patients were entered into COG Cancer Registry and identified by number. Study medications were identified by number only. Traumeel S and a placebo identical in appearance and taste were provided by Heel (company that makes Traumeel S). Patients were assigned by block randomization to receive Traumeel S or placebo (1:1). Participants were stratified by TBI (yes/no), allogeneic versus autologous transplant, and by COG institution versus Israeli institution. A pharmacist drew up the solution into an oral syringe, and patients were instructed to rinse the mouth vigorously, maintain it in their mouth, and then swallow. The medication was administered five times per day. Patients were instructed to be NPO for 30 minutes after the medication. Any type of analgesia was allowed, and the doses were normalized to morphine equivalents. Treatment began on the day before transplant and ended when patients met the completion criteria and no later that the 20th day post-transplant.
The study was comprised of 195 patients, age 3 to 25 years.
MALES (%) 62.6 (56 in Traumeel S group, 70 in placebo group), FEMALES (%) 37.4 (44 in Traumeel S group, 30 in placebo group).
KEY DISEASE CHARACTERISTICS: ALL (55 patients), AML (36 patients), CNS tumor (11 patients), lymphoma (26 patients), solid tumor (37 patients), hemoglobinopathy (13 patients), other (8 patients), and missing (4 patients)
OTHER KEY SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS: Median age in Traumeel S group = 12 years (range 3 to 24). Median age in placebo group = 11 years (age range 3 to 25)
SITE: Mutli-site
SETTING TYPE: Inpatient setting
PHASE OF CARE: Active treatment
CLINICAL APPLICATIONS: Pediatrics (and to age 25), palliative care
International, multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial.
No statistical significance between the placebo group and the Traumeel S group on chemotherapy-induced mucositis. Also, no statistically significant difference in narcotic use or days of total parenteral nutrition or nasogastric feeding.
Traumeel S is not a useful complementary medication for the prevention and treatment of oral mucositis.
Multiple centers with variable data collectors and a high non-compliance rate may have impacted this study.
Complimentary and alternative medicine (CAM) is an important topic for our patients, and it is important to study these therapies. There was no mention of adverse outcomes from using Traumeel S, but there was also not a benefit in this study. It is important to help our patients use their financial resources wisely and to invest their energies into treatments that are beneficial.
Seitz, D.C., Knaevelsrud, C., Duran, G., Waadt, S., Loos, S., & Goldbeck, L. (2014). Efficacy of an internet-based cognitive-behavioral intervention for long-term survivors of pediatric cancer: A pilot study. Supportive Care in Cancer, 22, 2075–2083.
To evaluate the efficacy of an internet-based psychological intervention in reducing post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) and anxiety
This study included cognitive-based therapy that included two Internet-based, 45-minute writing sessions per week (10 writing sessions total) with standardized text messaging and instructions. It included two modules, one to reproduce the cancer-related event and then another to build coping strategies. Treatment was provided by two trained psychologists via Internet messaging. Outcomes were assessed by several tools (listed under Measurement Instruments) and then analyzed.
Single-arm pilot study with a pre/post three-month follow-up design
Twenty participants completed the intervention. PTSS scores and anxiety/fear of progression/relapse significantly declined by the end of intervention. There was a significant decrease in symptoms of depression. All effects were sustained at three months postintervention except depression.
Internet-based psychological interventions (Onco-STEP) are an innovative way to address psychological late-term effects in young adult long-term survivors of pediatric cancer, specifically improving PTSS scores and anxiety. It also may help to reduce the fear of progression or relapse and symptoms of depression.
Although this was a small study, it demonstrates an innovative way to reach young adult survivors and assist them with their psychological needs. As nurses, we need to be open to new methods of assessment and intervention for psychosocial care in various populations.
Seicean, A., Cainap, C., Gulei, I., Tantau, M., & Seicean, R. (2013). Pain palliation by endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, 22, 59–64.
To evaluate the safety and initial efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) in patients with painful unresectable pancreatic cancer
All patients enrolled in the study received the EUS-CPN procedure once. As per protocol, patients were placed in left lateral position under either general anesthesia with propofol or IV deep sedation with midazolam, according to the patient’s personal preference. If the patient was found to have unresectable disease and the fine-gauge needle aspiration findings were consistent with pancreatic cancer, CPN was performed under EUS guidance. All procedures were performed by a single endosonographer. The 22-gauge injection needle was inserted into the targeted central position, advanced to the celiac trunk, and injected bupivacaine 1% and then a single injection of 10–15 ml of absolute alcohol. Each patient was monitored closely for two hours post-procedure in order to identify any immediate complications such as hypotension, tachycardia, pain enhancement, or paraplegia. Each patient was called 48 hours post-procedure to monitor for late effects such as diarrhea, hypotension, fever, or paraplegia.
Each participant had one session of EUS-CPN performed. No complications or side effects were noted. Overall, the average pain decreased by 2 or more points in 28 of 32 patients (87.5%). Physical, emotional, and functional well-being scores were improved after the procedure. Family and social support did not change after the procedure. Pain relief experienced with use of medication after the EUS-CPN intervention (90%) did not significantly increase compared to prior (80%). The rate of pain alleviation, defined as a decrease of 2 or more points in pain score, was 75% in short-term follow-up. All BPI-SF measures of effects of pain showed improvement after EUS-CPN, including walking, general activity, working, sleeping, and enjoyment of life.
The FACT-G quality of life questionnaire showed physical, functional, and emotional well-being improved after EUS-CPN, as well as subjective appreciation of life. Functional status, work capability, sleeping, and enjoyment of leisure activities improved. Difficulties in physical status such as lack of energy, poor physical condition, and feeling ill were improved. No differences were found in coping with the disease (i.e., hopefulness and satisfaction with one’s own behavior), acceptance of the disease, enjoyment of life, or fulfillment at work.
This study demonstrated that EUS-CPN provides a safe and effective method of short-term pain management in patients with inoperable pancreatic body-tail cancer. Diminishing pain resulted in improvements in the areas of functional status, sleeping, and quality of life. Acceptance of the illness and enjoyment of life did not change.
These results would have increased substantiation with further research that included longer-term follow-up as well as investigation into multiple doses with a control group for further comparison to determine more explicitly the results demonstrated here and the relational cues to the intervention (as opposed to simply having a different subjective experience at the date of the two-week follow-up visit).
These findings present an area for further nursing attention and related research. With no adverse effect noted during or post-procedure, this presents an opportunity for further research to determine comparison of results when a control group is implemented, increased frequency/doses of the intervention, and follow-up that continues at similar intervals but for a longer time (as appropriate with increased exposure to the intervention at regular intervals).
Segawa, Y., Aogi, K., Inoue, K., Sano, M., Sekine, I., Tokuda, Y., … Atagi, S. (2009). A phase II dose-ranging study of palonosetron in Japanese patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, including anthracycline and cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. Annals of Oncology, 20, 1874–1880.
To identify the most effective dose of palonosetron when combined with fixed doses of dexamethasone in patients receiving chemotherapy of emetogenicity level 3 or 4 on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) 2004 guidelines
Patients were randomly assigned to receive a single IV dose of palonosetron of 0.075, 0.25 or 0.75 mg over 30 seconds administered 30 minutes before the first dose of chemotherapy on day one. Daily episodes of vomiting, severity of nausea, and patient satisfaction were recorded daily in patient diaries. Care providers recorded the use of rescue medications. All patients received 8 mg IV dexamethasone 45 minutes prior to the palonosetron. Patients had to be hospitalized for the first two days. Follow-up assessment was done on days 6–10 and days 14–20.
The study was conducted at multisite, inpatient settings in Japan.
All patients were in active treatment.
This was a randomized, double-blind trial.
Palonosetron in single doses from 0.075 to 0.75 mg appeared to be well tolerated. Optimal dosages for prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in these patients remain unclear.
The optimal dosage of palonosetron in patients who are receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) remains unclear. A range of doses appears to be well tolerated.
Secola, R., Lewis, M. A., Pike, N., Needleman, J., & Doering, L. (2012). "Targeting to zero" in pediatric oncology: a review of central venous catheter-related bloodstream infections. Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing, 29, 14–27.
To summarize existing adult and pediatric data on central venous catheter (CVC)-related bloodstream infections (BSIs) and identify models of care that can improve pediatric oncology outcomes.
Databases searched were PubMed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar (1998–2010).
Keywords searched were CVC, BSI, and pediatric oncology.
Patients were included if they
No exclusion criteria were specified.
Strategies to reduce CVC-related BSIs reported were summarized. In regard to insertion site selection and catheter type, some data supported the use of an externalized catheter versus a port in children. Use of impregnated catheters in children is controversial. Evidence-based guidelines (CVC “bundles”) have been shown to be effective to reduce BSI rates.
Bundles include
For CVC education, studies showed that annual education enhanced adherence to policy.
Findings suggested that the implementation of CVC care bundles was effective in reducing CVC-related BSI rates.
Most studies involved critical care patients and not necessarily those with cancer who would be more immunocompromised. There was limited research information on pediatric oncology cases.
This review supported the use of CVC care bundles to reduce rates of CVC-related BSIs. Findings suggested that regular and repeated education on CVC care can improve adherence to care protocols.
Sebban, C., Lefranc, A., Perrier, L., Moreau, P., Espinouse, D., Schmidt, A., . . . Quittet, P. (2012). A randomised phase II study of the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of pegfilgrastim and filgrastim after autologous stem cell transplant for lymphoma and myeloma (PALM study). European Journal of Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990), 48, 713–720.
To compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a single dose of pegfilgrastim to daily injections of filgrastim after peripheral blood stem cell transplant (PBSCT).
Patients were randomized to receive either a single 6-mg dose of pegfilgrastim five days after PBSCT reinfusion or daily 5-µg/kg doses of filgrastim from day 5 posttransplantation until the resolution of neutropenia. Patients were followed for 100 days after transplantation. Complete blood cell counts were obtained daily during hospitalization and every two weeks thereafter.
Patients were undergoing the active antitumor treatment phase of care.
This was a randomized, unblinded, open-label study.
Patients on pegfilgrastim had a shorter duration of ANC <1 g/l, fewer days with fever, shorter hospital stay, and fewer days of antibiotic therapy. Significant differences for individual outcomes were not analyzed but were incorporated in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Severe mucositis was observed in 25% of patients taking pegfilgrastim versus 20% of those taking filgrastim. Mean total cost with pegfilgrastim was $32,326 compared to $35,373 with filgrastim. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the probability that pegfilgrastim is less costly and more effective than filgrastim is 62%.
Findings suggested that there is no substantial cost difference between a single dose of pegfilgrastim versus daily filgrastim in patients undergoing PBSCT and that the pegfilgrastim regimen may be more cost-effective.
* Although the costs of antifungals and antibiotics were provided, no information was provided regarding whether routine prophylaxis was also provided to patients in the sample.
Both of these colony-stimulating factor preparations have been shown to be effective. This study provided some initial information that the single dose regimen of pegfilgrastim is more cost-effective. The need to give fewer injections to achieve the same result can be of benefit to patients. Further evidence to confirm the findings of this study would be beneficial. Additional study regarding the most cost-effective formulations and schedules of these agents is warranted.
Seaman, S. (2006). Management of malignant fungating wounds in advanced cancer. Seminars in Oncology Nursing, 22, 185–193.
PURPOSE: To review an article from a non-peer-reviewed journal on the control of bleeding in malignant fungating wounds in advanced cancer