BACKGROUND: Patients irradiated for brain tumors often suffer from cerebral edema and are usually treated with dexamethasone, which has various side effects. To investigate the activity of Boswellia serrata (BS) in radiotherapy‐related edema, we conducted a prospective, randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind, pilot trial.METHODS: Forty‐four patients with primary or secondary malignant cerebral tumors were randomly assigned to radiotherapy plus either BS 4200 mg/day or placebo. The volume of cerebral edema in the T2‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequence was analyzed as a primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were toxicity, cognitive function, quality of life, and the need for antiedematous (dexamethasone) medication. Blood samples were taken to analyze the serum concentration of boswellic acids (AKBA and KBA).RESULTS: Compared with baseline and if measured immediately after the end of radiotherapy and BS/placebo treatment, a reduction of cerebral edema of >75% was found in 60% of patients receiving BS and in 26% of patients receiving placebo (P = .023). These findings may be based on an additional antitumor effect. There were no severe adverse events in either group. In the BS group, 6 patients reported minor gastrointestinal discomfort. BS did not have a significant impact on quality of life or cognitive function. The dexamethasone dose during radiotherapy in both groups was not statistically different. Boswellic acids could be detected in patients' serum.CONCLUSIONS: BS significantly reduced cerebral edema measured by MRI in the study population. BS could potentially be steroid‐sparing for patients receiving brain irradiation. Our findings will need to be further validated in larger studies. Cancer 2011. © 2011 American Cancer Society.

In the modern hospital environment, increasing possibilities in medical examination techniques and increasing documentation tasks claim the physicians' energy and encroach on their time spent with patients. This study aimed to investigate how much time physicians at hospital wards spend on communication with patients and their families and how much time they spend on other specific work tasks. A non-participatory, observational study was conducted in thirty-six wards at the University Medical Center Freiburg, a 1700-bed academic hospital in Germany. All wards belonging to the clinics of internal medicine, surgery, radiology, neurology, and to the clinic for gynaecology took part in the study. Thirty-four ward doctors from fifteen different medical departments were observed during a randomly chosen complete work day. The Physicians' time for communication with patients and relatives and time spent on different working tasks during one day of work were assessed. 374 working hours were analysed. On average, a physician's workday on a university hospital ward added up to 658.91 minutes (10 hrs 58 min; range 490 - 848 min). Looking at single items of time consumption on the evaluation sheet, discussions with colleagues ranked first with 150 minutes on average. Documentation and administrative requirements took an average time of 148 minutes per day and ranked second. Total time for communication with patients and their relatives was 85 minutes per physician and day. Consequently, the available time for communication was 4 minutes and 17 seconds for each patient on the ward and 20 seconds for his or her relatives. Physicians assessed themselves to communicate twice as long with patients and sevenfold with relatives than they did according to this study. Workload and time pressure for physicians working on hospital wards are high. To offer excellent medical treatment combined with patient centred care and to meet the needs of patients and relatives on hospital wards, physicians should be given more time to focus on core clinical tasks. Time and health care management solutions to minimize time pressure are required. Further research is needed to assess quality of communication in hospital settings.

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a frequent symptom in patients treated with opioids and impacts the patients' quality of life. However, there is no generally accepted definition for OIC. The aims of this study were to identify definitions for OIC in clinical trials and Cochrane Reviews and to compile assessment tools and outcome measures that were used in clinical trials. In a systematic review, 5 databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE) were searched to identify clinical trials assessing OIC in adult patients or healthy volunteers. Studies published between 1993 and August 2013 were included. A total of 1488 studies were retrieved and 47 publications were included in the analysis. A minority of the publications (n=16, 34%) provided a clear definition for OIC. The definitions were highly variable and the present or recent history of opioid therapy was frequently (n=6, 38%) not included in these definitions. Of 46 clinical trials, 17 (37%) relied exclusively on objective measures such as bowel movement frequency, whereas another 17 studies additionally included patient-reported outcome measures such as, "feeling of incomplete bowel evacuation." Few trials (n=7, 15%) assessed the patient-reported global burden of OIC. Standard definitions and outcome measures are necessary (i) for consistency in OIC diagnosis in clinical practice and clinical trials; and (ii) to assure comparability of trial findings (eg, in meta-analyses). An OIC definition and outcome measures are proposed.