Management of Constipation in Patients with Cancer

In patients with cancer, constipation is a common complication. However, unlike in the general population, the impact of the symptoms of constipation on the quality of life in cancer patients is often greater. More importantly, in patients who are in the more advanced stages of the disease, constipation may also be suggestive of disease progression. Constipation as a symptom in this population is of significant importance as it may lead to life-threatening complications, i.e. bowel perforation due to fecal impaction. Therefore, in this regard, this problem deserves particular attention, as early recognition and management of complications may prevent further physical deterioration. This review aims to provide an overview of the management of constipation in patients with cancer. A symptom-based criteria definition for chronic constipation and prevalence of the problem in cancer patients provides a brief introduction. For the initial assessment and evaluation of constipation in cancer patients, an algorithm is described. The different possible etiologies of constipation in cancer patients are also discussed. Regarding therapeutic management, guidelines and recommendations for the use of different types of laxatives, stool softeners, suppositories and rectal enemas, prokinetic agents, antidepressant medications, and miscellaneous agents are succinctly discussed. Management of fecal impaction and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction are also described. Lastly, a brief overview of the management of acute colonic pseudo-obstruction and surgical or endoscopic options for large bowel obstruction are described.     

FM sonography in diffuse liver disease: prospective assessment and blinded analysis

FM sonography - a signal-processing technique that uses frequency and phase information as well as amplitude data - shows promise in evaluation of patients with diffuse liver disease. In a prospective blinded review of 37 patients with biopsy-proved liver disease and 42 healthy volunteers, FM sonography was clearly superior to traditional amplitude-based (AM) sonography in distinguishing healthy from diseased subjects. Statistically significant differences were seen in accuracy (FM, 98.7%; AM, 84.8%), sensitivity (FM, 97.3%; AM, 70.3%), and negative predictive value (FM, 97.7%; AM, 78.8%). Our data also suggest that current FM sonographic techniques cannot differentiate among histologic findings associated with different hepatic parenchymal abnormalities. It is unclear, therefore, whether FM imaging can reduce the numbers of patients who require biopsy for diagnosis or the frequency of biopsy procedures in patients with known disease.