Palliative cancer surgery: Prioritize patient values

Risk-assessment tools can give surgeons a clinical framework to help inform decisions about palliative care surgery in patients with advanced malignancies, but cannot replace nuanced clinical judgment that incorporates patients’ priorities, according to results of a meta-analysis.

Ian W. Folkert, MD, and Robert E. Roses, MD, of the department of surgery at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, reviewed the available research on the indications for palliative surgery for patients with advanced disease and risk-assessment tools for patient selection. Emergent and palliative surgery in such situations require a careful consideration of many clinical factors such as overall prognosis and risk of a surgical approach, compared with nonsurgical interventions (J Surg Oncol. 2016;114:[3]311-15). But the investigators concluded that while an evidence-based approach to patient selection for palliative cancer surgery can offer some guidance on the potential for achieving clinical goals, ultimately the decision to proceed must prioritize patient values and orientation to treatment.

Tumor bleeding

Tumor-related complications often initiate the question of palliative surgical and nonsurgical interventions.

Studies of acute hemorrhage from malignancies indicate that bleeding originating from a tumor is rarely massive and usually can be managed endoscopically (Clin Endosc. 2015 Mar;48[2]:121-7; Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:144-50; Mayo Clin Proc. 1994;69[8]:736-40). Transcatheter arterial embolization also is used successfully to manage tumor bleeding (J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015 Sep;26[9]:1297-304; Indian J Cancer. 2014 Feb; 51[6]56-9). The investigators stated, “Although tumor rebleeding may be frequent, repeat endoscopy is often effective and is self-recommending given the high risk of major morbidity after a palliative foregut resection ... [and] all efforts should be made to avoid emergency gastrectomy or esophagectomy.”

Obstructing tumors

Patients with acute colonic obstruction because of colon cancer typically have been treated with a proximal diverting colostomy, but palliative self-expanding metallic stent placement (SEMS) has emerged as an option. Recent studies have shown both short- and long-term clinical success of SEMS, but rates of major morbidity and mortality for emergent surgery and SEMS were similar, as were rates of overall survival (Surg Endosc. 2015;29[6];1580-5; World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Sep 7;19[33]:5565-74). SEMS-related mortality was primarily because of perforation (Endoscopy. 2008 Mar;40[3]:184-91). Stenting for esophageal and gastroesophageal (GE) function obstruction is also emerging as a nonsurgical option. The investigators noted, “There is a very limited role for palliative surgery for esophageal and GE junction tumors.” Gastric outlet obstruction, proximal duodenal obstruction, and biliary tract obstruction are treated palliatively with stents, but “gastrojejunostomy and other bypass operations may provide effective palliation in carefully selected patients.”

Tumor perforation

Few nonsurgical treatment options are available for tumor perforation. Palliative surgical intervention often is undertaken in the context of neutropenia and abdominal pain, the investigators said. These patients are at high risk for morbidity and mortality. One study reviewed found that “prolonged neutropenia and severe sepsis were associated with poor outcomes in all patients, while surgical management was associated with improved survival (Ann Surg. 2008;248[1];104-9), but nonoperative management and comfort care were deemed appropriate for those patients with advanced disease and for those in whom surgery is high risk.

Patient selection for palliative surgery

The studies examined suggest that patient selection for palliative surgical intervention requires the weighing of clinical variables of frailty, morbidity, and mortality. The investigators reviewed a variety of risk-assessment tools developed to help surgeons with that decision (J Am Coll Surg. 2003;197[1];16-21; J Palliat Med. 2014;17:37-42; Ann Surg. 2011;254[2]:333-8). Among the factors considered are the amplified risks of mortality in these patients, the high cost of emergent operations, and most importantly, the chances of extending survival. The complexity of palliative and emergent surgical indications means that risk-assessment studies are “frequently too reductive to provide meaningful guidance” to the surgeon.

Dr. Folkert and Dr. Roses concluded that risk-assessment tools underscore the poor outcomes associated with operations in this setting, and, to some extent, guide decision making, but “they do not supplant clinical judgment, nor do they account for patient values and orientation toward treatment. It remains impossible to place a uniform value on length and quality of life, and patients’ values are paramount in informing treatment decisions.”

The authors had no conflicts to disclose.

Risk-assessment tools can give surgeons a clinical framework to help inform decisions about palliative care surgery in patients with advanced malignancies, but cannot replace nuanced clinical judgment that incorporates patients’ priorities, according to results of a meta-analysis.

Ian W. Folkert, MD, and Robert E. Roses, MD, of the department of surgery at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, reviewed the available research on the indications for palliative surgery for patients with advanced disease and risk-assessment tools for patient selection. Emergent and palliative surgery in such situations require a careful consideration of many clinical factors such as overall prognosis and risk of a surgical approach, compared with nonsurgical interventions (J Surg Oncol. 2016;114:[3]311-15). But the investigators concluded that while an evidence-based approach to patient selection for palliative cancer surgery can offer some guidance on the potential for achieving clinical goals, ultimately the decision to proceed must prioritize patient values and orientation to treatment.

Tumor bleeding

Tumor-related complications often initiate the question of palliative surgical and nonsurgical interventions.

Studies of acute hemorrhage from malignancies indicate that bleeding originating from a tumor is rarely massive and usually can be managed endoscopically (Clin Endosc. 2015 Mar;48[2]:121-7; Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:144-50; Mayo Clin Proc. 1994;69[8]:736-40). Transcatheter arterial embolization also is used successfully to manage tumor bleeding (J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015 Sep;26[9]:1297-304; Indian J Cancer. 2014 Feb; 51[6]56-9). The investigators stated, “Although tumor rebleeding may be frequent, repeat endoscopy is often effective and is self-recommending given the high risk of major morbidity after a palliative foregut resection ... [and] all efforts should be made to avoid emergency gastrectomy or esophagectomy.”

Obstructing tumors

Patients with acute colonic obstruction because of colon cancer typically have been treated with a proximal diverting colostomy, but palliative self-expanding metallic stent placement (SEMS) has emerged as an option. Recent studies have shown both short- and long-term clinical success of SEMS, but rates of major morbidity and mortality for emergent surgery and SEMS were similar, as were rates of overall survival (Surg Endosc. 2015;29[6];1580-5; World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Sep 7;19[33]:5565-74). SEMS-related mortality was primarily because of perforation (Endoscopy. 2008 Mar;40[3]:184-91). Stenting for esophageal and gastroesophageal (GE) function obstruction is also emerging as a nonsurgical option. The investigators noted, “There is a very limited role for palliative surgery for esophageal and GE junction tumors.” Gastric outlet obstruction, proximal duodenal obstruction, and biliary tract obstruction are treated palliatively with stents, but “gastrojejunostomy and other bypass operations may provide effective palliation in carefully selected patients.”

Tumor perforation

Few nonsurgical treatment options are available for tumor perforation. Palliative surgical intervention often is undertaken in the context of neutropenia and abdominal pain, the investigators said. These patients are at high risk for morbidity and mortality. One study reviewed found that “prolonged neutropenia and severe sepsis were associated with poor outcomes in all patients, while surgical management was associated with improved survival (Ann Surg. 2008;248[1];104-9), but nonoperative management and comfort care were deemed appropriate for those patients with advanced disease and for those in whom surgery is high risk.

Patient selection for palliative surgery

The studies examined suggest that patient selection for palliative surgical intervention requires the weighing of clinical variables of frailty, morbidity, and mortality. The investigators reviewed a variety of risk-assessment tools developed to help surgeons with that decision (J Am Coll Surg. 2003;197[1];16-21; J Palliat Med. 2014;17:37-42; Ann Surg. 2011;254[2]:333-8). Among the factors considered are the amplified risks of mortality in these patients, the high cost of emergent operations, and most importantly, the chances of extending survival. The complexity of palliative and emergent surgical indications means that risk-assessment studies are “frequently too reductive to provide meaningful guidance” to the surgeon.

Dr. Folkert and Dr. Roses concluded that risk-assessment tools underscore the poor outcomes associated with operations in this setting, and, to some extent, guide decision making, but “they do not supplant clinical judgment, nor do they account for patient values and orientation toward treatment. It remains impossible to place a uniform value on length and quality of life, and patients’ values are paramount in informing treatment decisions.”

The authors had no conflicts to disclose.

Risk-assessment tools can give surgeons a clinical framework to help inform decisions about palliative care surgery in patients with advanced malignancies, but cannot replace nuanced clinical judgment that incorporates patients’ priorities, according to results of a meta-analysis.

Ian W. Folkert, MD, and Robert E. Roses, MD, of the department of surgery at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, reviewed the available research on the indications for palliative surgery for patients with advanced disease and risk-assessment tools for patient selection. Emergent and palliative surgery in such situations require a careful consideration of many clinical factors such as overall prognosis and risk of a surgical approach, compared with nonsurgical interventions (J Surg Oncol. 2016;114:[3]311-15). But the investigators concluded that while an evidence-based approach to patient selection for palliative cancer surgery can offer some guidance on the potential for achieving clinical goals, ultimately the decision to proceed must prioritize patient values and orientation to treatment.

Tumor bleeding

Tumor-related complications often initiate the question of palliative surgical and nonsurgical interventions.

Studies of acute hemorrhage from malignancies indicate that bleeding originating from a tumor is rarely massive and usually can be managed endoscopically (Clin Endosc. 2015 Mar;48[2]:121-7; Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:144-50; Mayo Clin Proc. 1994;69[8]:736-40). Transcatheter arterial embolization also is used successfully to manage tumor bleeding (J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015 Sep;26[9]:1297-304; Indian J Cancer. 2014 Feb; 51[6]56-9). The investigators stated, “Although tumor rebleeding may be frequent, repeat endoscopy is often effective and is self-recommending given the high risk of major morbidity after a palliative foregut resection ... [and] all efforts should be made to avoid emergency gastrectomy or esophagectomy.”

Obstructing tumors

Patients with acute colonic obstruction because of colon cancer typically have been treated with a proximal diverting colostomy, but palliative self-expanding metallic stent placement (SEMS) has emerged as an option. Recent studies have shown both short- and long-term clinical success of SEMS, but rates of major morbidity and mortality for emergent surgery and SEMS were similar, as were rates of overall survival (Surg Endosc. 2015;29[6];1580-5; World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Sep 7;19[33]:5565-74). SEMS-related mortality was primarily because of perforation (Endoscopy. 2008 Mar;40[3]:184-91). Stenting for esophageal and gastroesophageal (GE) function obstruction is also emerging as a nonsurgical option. The investigators noted, “There is a very limited role for palliative surgery for esophageal and GE junction tumors.” Gastric outlet obstruction, proximal duodenal obstruction, and biliary tract obstruction are treated palliatively with stents, but “gastrojejunostomy and other bypass operations may provide effective palliation in carefully selected patients.”

Tumor perforation

Few nonsurgical treatment options are available for tumor perforation. Palliative surgical intervention often is undertaken in the context of neutropenia and abdominal pain, the investigators said. These patients are at high risk for morbidity and mortality. One study reviewed found that “prolonged neutropenia and severe sepsis were associated with poor outcomes in all patients, while surgical management was associated with improved survival (Ann Surg. 2008;248[1];104-9), but nonoperative management and comfort care were deemed appropriate for those patients with advanced disease and for those in whom surgery is high risk.

Patient selection for palliative surgery

The studies examined suggest that patient selection for palliative surgical intervention requires the weighing of clinical variables of frailty, morbidity, and mortality. The investigators reviewed a variety of risk-assessment tools developed to help surgeons with that decision (J Am Coll Surg. 2003;197[1];16-21; J Palliat Med. 2014;17:37-42; Ann Surg. 2011;254[2]:333-8). Among the factors considered are the amplified risks of mortality in these patients, the high cost of emergent operations, and most importantly, the chances of extending survival. The complexity of palliative and emergent surgical indications means that risk-assessment studies are “frequently too reductive to provide meaningful guidance” to the surgeon.

Dr. Folkert and Dr. Roses concluded that risk-assessment tools underscore the poor outcomes associated with operations in this setting, and, to some extent, guide decision making, but “they do not supplant clinical judgment, nor do they account for patient values and orientation toward treatment. It remains impossible to place a uniform value on length and quality of life, and patients’ values are paramount in informing treatment decisions.”

The authors had no conflicts to disclose.