Purpose: Palliative sedation is a clinical procedure aimed at relieving refractory symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. It has been suggested that sedative drugs may shorten life, but few studies exist comparing the survival of sedated and nonsedated patients. We present a systematic review of literature on the clinical practice of palliative sedation to assess the effect, if any, on survival. Methods: A systematic review of literature published between January 1980 and December 2010 was performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Search terms included palliative sedation, terminal sedation, refractory symptoms, cancer, neoplasm, palliative care, terminally ill, end-of-life care, and survival. A manual search of the bibliographies of electronically identified articles was also performed. Results: Eleven published articles were identified describing 1,807 consecutive patients in 10 retrospective or prospective nonrandomized studies, 621 (34.4%) of whom were sedated. One case-control study was excluded from prevalence analysis. The most frequent reason for sedation was delirium in the terminal stages of illness (median, 57.1%; range, 13.8% to 91.3%). Benzodiazepines were the most common drug category prescribed. Comparing survival of sedated and nonsedated patients, the sedation approach was not shown to be associated with worse survival. Conclusion: Even if there is no direct evidence from randomized clinical trials, palliative sedation, when appropriately indicated and correctly used to relieve unbearable suffering, does not seem to have any detrimental effect on survival of patients with terminal cancer. In this setting, palliative sedation is a medical intervention that must be considered as part of a continuum of palliative care.

Background: Palliative sedation therapy (PST) is indicated for and used to control refractory symptoms in cancer patients undergoing palliative care. We aimed to evaluate whether PST has a detrimental effect on survival in terminally ill patients. Methods: This multicenter, observational, prospective, nonrandomized population-based study evaluated overall survival in two cohorts of hospice patients, one submitted to palliative sedation (A) and the other managed as per routine hospice practice (B). Cohorts were matched for age class, gender, reason for hospice admission, and Karnofsky performance status. Results: Of the 518 patients enrolled, 267 formed cohort A and 251 cohort B. In total, 25.1% of patients admitted to the participating hospices received PST. Mean and median duration of sedation was 4 (standard deviation 6.0) and 2 days (range 0–43), respectively. Median survival of arm A was 12 days [90% confidence interval (CI) 10–14], while that of arm B was 9 days (90% CI 8–10) (log rank = 0.95, P = 0.330) (unadjusted hazard ratio = 0.92, 90% CI 0.80–1.06). Conclusion: PST does not shorten life when used to relieve refractory symptoms and does not need the doctrine of double effect to justify its use from an ethical point of view.

Prostate cancer (PCa) patients are risk-stratified on the basis of clinical stage and PSA level at diagnosis and the Gleason Score (GS) in prostate biopsy. However, these parameters are not completely accurate in discriminating between high- and low-risk disease, creating a need for a reliable marker to determine aggressiveness. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) appears to fulfill this need. We analyzed 79 prostate biopsies and 28 prostatectomies to assess whether PSMA expression detected by immunohistochemistry is related to GS. PSMA expression was correlated with GS in both sample types (biopsies, P < 0.0001 and prostatectomy samples, P = 0.007). We observed lower PSMA expression in Gleason pattern 3 than Gleason pattern 4, suggesting that this biomarker could be useful to distinguish between these entities (p < 0.0001). The best cut-off value of 45% immunopositivity was determined by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. In Gleason pattern 3 vs. Gleason pattern 4 and 5, PSMA sensitivity was 84.1% (95% CI 76.5%-91.7%) and specificity was 95.2% (95% CI 90.6%-99.8%), with an area under the curve of 93.1 (95% CI 88.8–97.4). Our results suggest that PSMA represents a potential ally for the pathologist in the diagnostic work-up of PCa to overcome long-standing morphological classification limits.

Early palliative care (EPC) in oncology has been shown to have a positive impact on clinical outcome, quality-of-care outcomes, and costs. However, the optimal way for activating EPC has yet to be defined. This prospective, multicentre, randomised study was conducted on 207 outpatients with metastatic or locally advanced inoperable pancreatic cancer. Patients were randomised to receive 'standard cancer care plus on-demand EPC' (n = 100) or 'standard cancer care plus systematic EPC' (n = 107). Primary outcome was change in quality of life (QoL) evaluated through the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Hepatobiliary questionnaire between baseline (T0) and after 12 weeks (T1), in particular the integration of physical, functional, and Hepatic Cancer Subscale (HCS) combined in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI). Patient mood, survival, relatives' satisfaction with care, and indicators of aggressiveness of care were also evaluated. The mean changes in TOI score and HCS score between T0 and T1 were -4.47 and -0.63, with a difference between groups of 3.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10-7.57) (p = 0.041), and -2.23 and 0.28 (difference between groups of 2.51, 95% CI 0.40-4.61, p = 0.013), in favour of interventional group. QoL scores at T1 of TOI scale and HCS were 84.4 versus 78.1 (p = 0.022) and 52.0 versus 48.2 (p = 0.008), respectively, for interventional and standard arm. Until February 2016, 143 (76.9%) of the 186 evaluable patients had died. There was no difference in overall survival between treatment arms. Systematic EPC in advanced pancreatic cancer patients significantly improved QoL with respect to on-demand EPC.