Comparisons of Patient and Physician Assessment of Pain-Related Domains in Cancer Pain Classification: Results From a Large International Multicenter Study

Opioid initiation timing and palliative care referrals in advanced cancer: retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

Early opioid initiation is recommended for advanced cancer pain, however the timing of opioid commencement in relation to diagnosis has not been described, and the role of palliative care prescribers is unclear. This study aims to determine the timing of opioid initiation by prescriber and cancer type in relation to key timepoints in the cancer illness course (diagnosis, palliative care referral and death).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients at a quaternary cancer centre with incurable advanced cancer of five different subtype groups. Demographics, clinical characteristics, health service use and details of first slow and immediate release opioid prescription are reported.

RESULTS

Among 200 patients, median time to first immediate release opioid prescription was 23 days (IQR 1-82) and to slow release opioid prescription was 47 days (IQR 14-155). Most patients (95%, (n=190) were referred to palliative care (median time to referral 54 days (IQR 18-190)). Non-palliative care prescribers initiated slow release opioids for half the cohort (49%, n=97) prior to referral. Patients with pancreatic cancer had the shortest time to slow/immediate release opioid prescription (median 10 days (IQR 0-39) and 26 days (IQR 1-43) respectively) and shortest survival (median 136 days (IQR 82-214)).

CONCLUSIONS

Median time to opioid commencement was approximately 3 weeks after diagnosis. Despite early palliative care involvement, opioid initiation by non-palliative care clinicians was common and remains important. Timely palliative care referral for those with pancreatic cancer may include consideration of earlier complex pain presentations and shorter prognosis.

Supportive Care Needs of Newly Diagnosed Cancer Patients in a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Identifying Care Profiles and Future Perspectives

The prompt introduction of supportive care for patients with cancer leads to a better quality of life, potential survival benefits, and improvements in treatment safety. Considering that patients' needs vary, descriptive assessments could serve as a compass for an efficient and prompt healthcare response. The aim of this study was to identify supportive care needs in newly diagnosed patients according to cancer type. A retrospective study was conducted by collecting data from the case consultation and medical records of a comprehensive cancer center in France. Patients' needs were divided into twelve domains: nutrition, psychological support, psychiatric support, social care, physiotherapy, addictology, pain management, palliative care, pharmacology, complementary and alternative practice (CAM), sexual health, and speech therapy. Out of 6217 newly diagnosed patients of various cancer types who sought medical care at Gustave Roussy in 2021, 2541 (41%) required supportive cancer care (SCC), and of them, 1331 patients (52%) required two or more different SCC specialist interventions. The top five interventions were dietary (for 60% of patients), physiotherapy (33%), psychology (29%), social care (28%), and pain management (16%). Subgroup analysis according to cancer department highlighted additional specific needs: CAM for breast cancer patients (11%), speech specialist (27%) and addictologist (22%) interventions for ENT patients, psychiatry consultations for neurological patients (16%), and palliative care for dermatology patients (23%). The aforementioned data suggest that an early, multidisciplinary supportive care intervention should be required. Assembling human resources at the time of diagnosis within a dedicated day unit would be the next appropriate step in developing personalized care pathways related to the highlighted needs.

End-of-life cancer patients' total pain: the necessity to supplement pharmacology with psycho-socio-spiritual treatments

Aim: To analyze pain considering its different bio-psycho-social-spiritual manifestations and to assess the effectiveness of the analgesic treatments in end-of-life cancer patients. Materials & methods: The study was cross-sectional. A total of 376 end-of-life cancer inpatients participated in the research. Their socio-demographic and clinical data were collected and, during the first psychological consultancy, they filled in a set of validated rating scales assessing pain, anxiety, depression and quality of life. Results: The results show that physical pain was well managed for almost all patients. Nevertheless, the majority showed clinically significant levels of psychological distress. Conclusion: Treating pain means caring for all its possible manifestations including psychological symptoms and reduced wellbeing. Thus, integrating pharmacological treatment with psycho-socio-spiritual interventions, in other words, psychological, social and spiritual support, could be effective and desirable.

Dyspnea could be accurately assessed by a caregiver in hospitalized patients with respiratory diseases: Interrater reliability and agreement study

BACKGROUND

The perception of dyspnea is a subjective feeling typically self-assessed by the patient. However, the assessment by a caregiver is sometimes required.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim was to compare patient self-assessment and caregiver assessment of dyspnea (interrater reliability) using the modified Borg and visual analog scale (VAS) in hospitalized patients. The secondary aim was to compare dyspnea assessment between the two scales for patients and caregiver (inter-instrument reliability).

METHODS

Self-assessment of dyspnea intensity of hospitalized patients with respiratory diseases was compared with caregiver's assessment. Dyspnea intensity was measured using two scales, the modified Borg scale (0-10 scale) and the 10 cm VAS. Mean difference and 95% confidence interval (CI) between assessors (i.e. patient versus caregiver) were calculated for each scale. Inter- and intra-rater reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).

RESULTS

A total of 254 patients were recruited. The mean differences between patient and caregiver ratings were 0.31 (95% CI: 0.09, 0.53) for the modified Borg scale and 0.36 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.65) for the VAS scale. Interrater reliability was good for both scales with ICC of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.73, 0.84) for VAS and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.86) for the modified Borg scale. The mean differences in scores between scales were 0.93 (95% CI 0.69, 1.17) for patients' ratings and 0.88 (95% CI 0.72, 1.04) for caregiver's rating. The inter-instrument reliability was moderate to good and similar for both assessors.

CONCLUSION

Dyspnea can be accurately estimated by caregivers when patients with lung diseases cannot self-report. Scores on the VAS to rate dyspnea were higher than the scores on the Borg scale.

Neuropathic pain: clinical classification and assessment in patients with pain due to cancer

ABSTRACT

Neuropathic cancer pain (NcP) is associated with worse treatment responses and specific therapy indications, but a standardized clinical diagnosis of NcP is still lacking. This is a prospective observational study on outpatients with cancer, comparing different clinical approaches with NcP evaluation. A three-step assessment of NcP was performed using DN4 (cutoff of 4), palliative care physician Clinical Impression, including etiology and pain syndrome identification, and Retrospective Clinical Classification by a board of specialists with the IASP Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group criteria. Neuropathic cancer pain classification was specifically referred to pain directly due to cancer. Three hundred fifty patients were assessed, and NcP prevalence was 20% (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.9%-24.6%), 36.9%, (95% CI 31.6%-42.1%), and 28.6% (95% CI 23.8%-33.9%) according to DN4, Clinical Impression, and Retrospective Clinical Classification, respectively. Cohen's kappa concordance coefficient between DN4 and Retrospective Clinical Classification was 0.57 (95% CI 0.47-0.67), indicating moderate concordance. Higher percentages of discordance were found for specific pain syndromes such as pain due to deep soft tissue infiltration and pain associated with tenesmus. Disagreement among clinicians accounted also for different NcP diagnoses and highlighted lack of homogeneous clinical criteria. Rigorous application of etiological and syndrome diagnosis to explain pain cause, associated with standardized diagnostic criteria and assessment of pain characteristics, that is also specific for the cancer pain condition could improve clinical classification of NcP.

Episodic Cancer Pain: Patient Reporting, Prevalence, and Clinicodemographic Associations at Initial Cancer Pain Clinic Assessment

Background

Better understanding of the episodic cancer pain (CP) spectrum, including pains that occur in addition to its conventionally defined breakthrough CP (BTcP) and incident CP (IcP) components, may inform CP assessment and management. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of episodic patient-reported CP and the prevalence and associations of study-defined BTcP (S-BTcP) and IcP (S-IcP) in patients with CP.

Methods

In a cross-sectional study at their first CP clinic attendance, participants with CP had the following assessments: Brief Pain Inventory (BPI); Pain Management Index (PMI), with PMI-negative status indicating undertreatment; standardized neuropathic pain component (NPC) status; S-BTcP (no trigger identified) and S-IcP (trigger identified) status, based on a preceding 7-day history of transitory pain flares distinct from background pain, and BPI-Worst or BPI-Now pain intensity ≥ 4. Clinicodemographic variables' association with S-BTcP and S-IcP was examined in logistic regression analyses.

Results

Of 371 participants, 308 (83%) had episodic CP by history alone; 140 (37.7%) and 181 (48.8%) had S-BTcP and S-IcP, respectively. Multivariable analyses demonstrated significant (p < 0.05) associations (odds ratios: 95% CIs) for 6 variables with S-BTcP: head and neck pain location (2.53; 1.20–5.37), NPC (2.39; 1.34–4.26), BPI average pain (1.64; 1.36–1.99), abdominal pain (0.324; 0.120–0.873), S-IcP (0.207; 0.116–0.369), and PMI-negative status (0.443; 0.213–0.918). Similar independent associations (p < 0.05) occurred for S-IcP with NPC, BPI average pain, and PMI-negative status, in addition to radiotherapy, S-BTcP, soft tissue pain, and sleep interference.

Conclusions

Episodic or transient patient-reported CP flares often do not meet the more conventional criteria that define BTcP and IcP, the principal episodic CP types. Both BTcP and IcP occur frequently and both are associated with a NPC, higher pain intensity, and less opioid underuse in the management of CP. Further studies are warranted to both better understand the complex presentations of episodic CP and inform its classification.

Mobile Health Technologies for Continuous Monitoring of Cancer Patients in Palliative Care Aiming to Predict Health Status Deterioration: A Feasibility Study

Background: Unplanned readmissions or emergency visits (EVs) after discharge from hospital are frequent in patients in palliative care. Strategies to anticipate and prevent rapid deterioration of health are needed. Objective: Assessing feasibility and predictive ability of remote monitoring using wearables. Design: Prospective observational feasibility study in a single center. Setting/Subjects: Thirty cancer patients with an estimated life expectancy of >8 weeks to <12 months, aged >18 years and being discharged from inpatient to outpatient care were included. Measurements: Patients were provided with a smartphone, including the preinstalled "Activity Monitoring" application and a sensor-equipped bracelet. Follow-up was 12 weeks. Both devices recorded several features (e.g., vital signs). Visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and distress was reported once daily and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) once weekly. Statistical methods were applied to explore relationship between sensor data, self-reports, and EVs or readmissions or death. Results: Between February 2017 and May 2018, 30 patients were included. Twenty-five of 30 participants (83%) completed 12 weeks of follow-up. On average, bracelet was worn on 53% and smartphone on 85% of study days. Completion rate of daily digital questionnaires for subjective ratings was 73%. Eight unplanned hospital readmissions occurred. Ratings of pain, distress, and QLQ-C30 scores were not associated with readmission, whereas resting heart rate, resting heart rate variability, as well as speed of steps differed significantly in patients with and without readmission. Conclusions: Monitoring of palliative cancer patients using wearables is feasible. First results indicate that mobile health features might be promising biomarkers to predict unplanned readmissions.

Pain management index (PMI)-does it reflect cancer patients' wish for focus on pain?

BACKGROUND

The pain management index (PMI) was developed to combine information about the prescribed analgesics and the self-reported pain intensity in order to assess physicians' response to patients' pain. However, PMI has been used to explore undertreatment of cancer pain. The present study explores prevalence of negative PMI and its associations to clinical variables, including the patient-perceived wish for more attention to pain.

METHODS

A single-center, cross-sectional, observational study of cancer patients was conducted. Data on demographics and clinical variables, as well as patient-perceived wish for more attention to pain, were registered. PMI was calculated. Negative PMI indicates that the analgesics prescribed might not be appropriate to the pain intensity reported by the patient, and associations to negative PMI were explored by logistic regression models.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-seven patients were included, 53% had a negative PMI score. Negative PMI scores were more frequent among patients with breast cancer (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.3, 13.5), in a follow-up setting (OR 12.1, 95% CI 1.4, 101.4), and were inversely associated to low performance status (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03, 0.65). Twenty-two percent of patients with negative PMI scores reported that they wanted more focus on pain management, versus 13% among patients with a non-negative PMI score; the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

A high prevalence of negative PMI was observed, but only 1/5 of patients with a negative PMI wanted more attention to pain by their physician. Our findings challenge the use of PMI as a measure of undertreatment of cancer pain.

mHealth Technologies for Palliative Care Patients at the Interface of In-Patient to Outpatient Care: Protocol of Feasibility Study Aiming to Early Predict Deterioration of Patient's Health Status

Background

Palliative care patients are a particularly vulnerable population and one of the critical phases in patients’ trajectories is discharge from specialized in-patient palliative care into outpatient care, where availability of a palliative care infrastructure is highly variable. A relevant number of potentially avoidable readmissions and emergency visits of palliative patients is observed due to rapid exacerbation of symptoms indicating the need for a closer patient monitoring. In the last years, different mHealth technology applications have been evaluated in many different patient groups.

Objective

The aim of our study is to test feasibility of a remote physical and social tracking system in palliative care patients.

Methods

A feasibility study with explorative, descriptive study design, comprised of 3 work packages. From the wards of the Clinic of Radiation-Oncology at the University Hospital Zurich, including the specialized palliative care ward, 30 patients will be recruited and will receive a mobile phone and a tracking bracelet before discharge. The aim of work package A is to evaluate if severely ill patients accept to be equipped with a tracking bracelet and a mobile phone (by semiquantitative questionnaires and guideline interviews). Work package B evaluates the technical feasibility and quality of the acquired electronic health data. Work package C will demonstrate whether physical activity parameters, such as step count, sleep duration, social activity patterns like making calls, and vital signs (eg, heart rate) do correlate with subjective health data and can serve as indicator to early detect and predict changes in patients’ health status. Activity parameters will be extracted from the mobile phone’s and wristband’s sensor data using signal processing methods. Subjective health data is captured via electronic version of visual analog scale and Distress Thermometer as well as the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer – Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 in paper version.

Results

Enrollment began in February 2017. First study results will be reported in the middle of 2018.

Conclusions

Our project will deliver relevant data on patients’ acceptance of activity and social tracking and test the correlation between subjective symptom assessment and objective activity in the vulnerable population of palliative care patients. The proposed study is meant to be preparatory work for an intervention study to test the effect of wireless monitoring of palliative care patients on symptom control and quality of life.

Breakthrough Cancer Pain: Preliminary Data of The Italian Oncologic Pain Multisetting Multicentric Survey (IOPS-MS)

Introduction

An ongoing national multicenter survey [Italian Oncologic Pain multiSetting Multicentric Survey (IOPS-MS)] is evaluating the characteristics of breakthrough cancer pain (BTP) in different clinical settings. Preliminary data from the first 1500 cancer patients with BTP enrolled in this study are presented here.

Methods

Thirty-two clinical centers are involved in the survey. A diagnosis of BTP was performed by a standard algorithm. Epidemiological data, Karnofsky index, stage of disease, presence and sites of metastases, ongoing oncologic treatment, and characteristics of background pain and BTP and their treatments were recorded. Background pain and BTP intensity were measured. Patients were also questioned about BTP predictability, BTP onset (≤10 or >10 min), BTP duration, background and BTP medications and their doses, time to meaningful pain relief after BTP medication, and satisfaction with BTP medication. The occurrence of adverse reactions was also assessed, as well as mucosal toxicity.

Results

Background pain was well controlled with opioid treatment (numerical rating scale 3.0 ± 1.1). Patients reported 2.5 ± 1.6 BTP episodes/day with a mean intensity of 7.5 ± 1.4 and duration of 43 ± 40 min; 977 patients (65.1%) reported non-predictable BTP, and 1076 patients (71.7%) reported a rapid onset of BTP (≤10 min). Higher patient satisfaction was reported by patients treated with fast onset opioids.

Conclusions

These preliminary data underline that the standard algorithm used is a valid tool for a proper diagnosis of BTP in cancer patients. Moreover, rapid relief of pain is crucial for patients’ satisfaction. The final IOPS-MS data are necessary to understand relationships between BTP characteristics and other clinical variables in oncologic patients.

Funding

Molteni Farmaceutici, Italy.

[Prevalence and management of pain in patients with metastatic cancer in Franche-Comté]

INTRODUCTION

Pain management is a major public health problem, especially in oncology. In order to assess professional practice, the IRFC-FC conducted a survey amongst patients with metastatic osteophilic solid tumor in Franche-Comté. The aims were to assess the pain prevalence, and its characteristics, its management and its impact on patients' quality of life in patients in pain.

METHODS

An observational, prospective and multicenter survey was conducted using a self-report questionnaire. Patients with metastatic breast or prostate cancer managed in 5 day-hospitals of the IRFC-FC over a period of three months were included.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-three questionnaires were analyzed. Pain prevalence rate was 48.5%. Three quarters of patients in pain had chronic background pain, moderate to severe, with or without breakthrough pain. Considering their pain intensity and their analgesic therapy, 42.0% of patients seem to have an inadequate treatment. Eighty-five percent of treated patients reported to be compliant and felt that their pain was well managed despite a strong impact on their quality of life.

CONCLUSION

The setting of a specific clinical pathway is essential to secure the standardized, optimal and efficient management of patients in pain. The assessment of patient satisfaction and quality of life must be integrated in clinical practice to identify patients in pain for which the treatment is inappropriate.

Cancer pain assessment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Adequate cancer pain assessment using valid and reliable tools is essential for proper cancer pain management. Because cancer pain can be a complex construct, assessment of its many domains should be conducted using multidimensional tools. Furthermore, there is a need to develop a standard, consensus classification system for prognosis of cancer pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Unidimensional tools for assessing cancer pain are useful for measuring cancer pain intensity. Other domains and symptoms of the cancer pain experience are assessed using a variety of multidimensional tools. There is a lack of agreement on a standard assessment tool or a standard classification system for cancer pain, although research continues to be undertaken to develop such resources for clinical and research purposes.

SUMMARY

Many pain and symptom assessment tools exist for use in the cancer patient, including the Brief Pain Inventory, the McGill Pain Questionnaire, the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, among others. Recent literature reveals the move toward translating these and other tools to electronic applications. Further study is also underway to create a standard, prognostic classification system for cancer pain.

Pain intensity as prognostic factor in cancer pain management

AIM

The aim of this study was to prospectively assess the prognostic value of initial pain intensity and its duration in advanced cancer patients.

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted in a sample of patients with cancer requiring pain control. Patients underwent standard analgesic strategies used in our palliative care units. Pain intensity was measured at admission (T0) and after successful dose titration or opioid/route switching within a week (Ts). Patients were also asked about their pain intensity reported 15 days before admission (T-15). Doses of opioids and duration of opioid use were recorded. Patients were also assessed for the presence of incident pain, neuropathic pain, alcoholism, delirium, and symptom intensity, including items representing psychological distress. One week after or at time of stabilization (Ts), the opioid response was clinically graded as follows: (1) good pain control; (2) adequate pain control requiring more aggressive opioid escalation; (3) adequate pain control associated with the occurrence of adverse effects; (4) incapacity to achieve pain control within a week. Opioid escalation indexes and days for dose finding were also recorded.

RESULTS

Pain intensity at T0 and at T-15, opioid doses, duration of opioid therapy, and age were associated with more complex analgesic therapies, which were effective in almost all patients within a week.

CONCLUSION

High levels of pain intensity, often due to previous undertreatment, are predictive of more complex analgesic treatment. Opioid tolerance, as well as younger age, may also play a role.