The impact of demographic and disease-specific variables on pain in cancer patients

Predictors of quality of life in oncology outpatients with pain from bone metastasis

The relationship between pain and quality of life (QOL) in cancer patients is complex due to the number and the diversity of factors that can influence pain and QOL. The aims of this study of oncology outpatients with pain from bone metastasis were: 1) to determine the extent to which pain characteristics (i.e., severity, duration, meaning of pain, and perceived availability and efficacy of pain relief), psychological distress (i.e., depression), physical functioning, social functioning and QOL are intercorrelated, and 2) to determine which of these variables are important predictors of QOL. A total of 157 oncology outpatients completed questionnaires that evaluated pain, QOL, depression, physical functioning, and social functioning at the time of enrollment into a randomized clinical trial that evaluated the effectiveness of a psychoeducational intervention to improve cancer pain management. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were calculated to examine the relationships among the study variables. A blockwise, hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to determine which variables were the most important predictors of QOL. Meaning of pain was significantly correlated with all the other variables, in particular pain intensity and duration. The most important factors that predicted QOL were depression, social functioning, and physical functioning. Depression proved to be the most important predictor of QOL.

Opioid switch in palliative care, opioid choice by clinical need and opioid availability

Availability of different WHO-step 3 opioids has encouraged the discussion on their value and led to the concepts of opioid rotation. Rotation is suggested, when other measures fail to achieve optimal analgesia and tolerability in cancer pain treatment. Opioid use was assessed in a prospective cohort study of 412 palliative care patients from 14 inpatient and outpatient palliative care facilities in Germany. The most frequently used opioids at baseline were morphine and fentanyl. The most frequent changes in medication (N=106) occurred from oral to parenteral morphine. Only in 49 cases true switches to other long acting opioids were recorded. This is far less than expected from other reports. True switches and adverse side effects were found to occur more frequently in inpatients, while efficacy problems were more frequently recorded in outpatients. There was no correlation between the opioid used at baseline and switch frequency, but numbers of cases receiving other opioids than fentanyl or morphine were low. Reasons for and frequencies of changes in medication were found to be largely shaped by the setting reflecting patients' needs and clinical necessities. Recommendation of first line therapy and availability of opioid formulations define the frequency of opioid use. This impedes evaluation of specific differences between the opioids.

Relationship between three palliative care outcome scales

Background

Various scales have been used to assess palliative outcomes. But measurement can still be problematic and core components of measures have not been identified. This study aimed to determine the relationships between, and factorial structure of, three widely used scales among advanced cancer patients.

Methods

Patients were recruited who received home or hospital palliative care services in the south of England. Hope, quality of life and palliative outcomes were assessed by patients in face to face interviews, using three previously established scales – a generic measure (EQoL), a palliative care specific measure (POS) and a measure of hope (Herth Hope Index). Analysis comprised: exploratory factor analysis of each individual scale, and all scales combined, and confirmatory factor analysis for model building and validation.

Results

Of 171 patients identified, 140 (81%) consented and completed first interviews; mean age was 71 years, 54% were women, 132 had cancer. In exploratory analysis of individual means, three out of the five factors in the EQoL explained 75% of its variability, four out of the 10 factors in POS explained 63% of its variability, and in the Hope Index, nine out of the 12 items explained 69% of its variability. When exploring the relative factorial structure of all three scales, five factors explained 56% of total combined variability. Confirmatory analysis reduced this to a model with four factors – self-sufficiency, positivity, symptoms and spiritual. Removal of the spiritual factor left a model with an improved goodness of fit and a measure with 11 items.

Conclusion

We identified three factors which are important outcomes and would be simple to measure in clinical practice and research.