Development of a computer-administered mobility questionnaire

Neuropathic cancer pain: prevalence, severity, analgesics and impact from the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative-Computerised Symptom Assessment study

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain causes greater pain intensity and worse quality of life than nociceptive pain. There are no published data that confirm this in the cancer population.

AIM

We hypothesised that patients with neuropathic cancer pain had more intense pain, experienced greater suffering and were treated with more analgesics than those with nociceptive cancer pain, and a neuropathic pain screening tool, painDETECT, would perform as well in those with cancer pain as is reported in those with non-cancer pain.

DESIGN

The data were obtained from an international cross-sectional observational study.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1051 patients from inpatients and outpatients, with incurable cancer completed a computerised assessment on symptoms, function and quality of life. In all, 17 centres within eight countries participated. Medical data were recorded by physicians. Pain type was a clinical diagnosis recorded on the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 670 had pain: 534 with nociceptive pain, 113 with neuropathic pain and 23 were unclassified. Patients with neuropathic cancer pain were significantly more likely to be receiving oncological treatment, strong opioids and adjuvant analgesia and have a reduced performance status. They reported worse physical, cognitive and social function. Sensitivity and specificity of painDETECT for identifying neuropathic cancer pain was less accurate than when used in non-cancer populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuropathic cancer pain is associated with a negative impact on daily living and greater analgesic requirements than nociceptive cancer pain. Validated assessment methods are needed to enable early identification of neuropathic cancer pain, leading to more appropriate treatment and reduced burden on patients.

Computer-based symptom assessment is feasible in patients with advanced cancer: results from an international multicenter study, the EPCRC-CSA

CONTEXT

Symptom assessment by computers is only effective if it provides valid results and is perceived as useful for clinical use by the end users: patients and health care providers.

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors associated with discontinuation, time expenditure, and patient preferences of the computerized symptom assessment used in an international multicenter data collection project: the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative-Computerized Symptom Assessment.

METHODS

Cancer patients with incurable metastatic or locally advanced disease were recruited from 17 centers in eight countries, providing 1017 records for analyses. Observer-based registrations and patient-reported measures on pain, depression, and physical function were entered on touch screen laptop computers.

RESULTS

The entire assessment was completed by 94.9% (n = 965), with median age 63 years (range 18-91 years) and median Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score of 70 (range 20-100). Predictive factors for noncompletion were higher age, lower KPS, and more pain (P ≤ 0.012). Time expenditure among completers increased with higher age, male gender, Norwegian nationality, number of comorbidities, and lower physical functioning (P ≤ 0.007) but was inversely related to pain levels and tiredness (P ≤ 0.03). Need for assistance was predicted by higher age, nationality other than Norwegian, lower KPS, and lower educational level (P < 0.001). More than 50% of patients preferred computerized assessment to a paper and pencil version.

CONCLUSION

The high completion rate shows that symptom assessment by computers is feasible in patients with advanced cancer. However, reduced performance status reduces compliance and increases the need for assistance. Future work should aim at identifying the minimum set of valid screening questions and refine the software to optimize symptom assessment and reduce respondent burden in frail patients.