Managing Cancer Pain, Monitoring for Cancer Recurrence, and Mitigating Risk of Opioid Use Disorders: A Team-Based, Interdisciplinary Approach to Cancer Survivorship

Interdisciplinary Pain Board for Managing Patients with Palliative Care Needs and Substance Use Disorder: A Pilot Study

Context: Patients with cancer-related pain and concurrent substance use disorder (SUD) present a unique set of challenges for palliative care clinicians. A structured forum for interdisciplinary collaboration is needed to effectively manage this complex population. Objectives: Describe the feasibility and acceptability of a palliative care Complex Pain Board (CPB), an interdisciplinary team meeting to provide concrete care recommendations for patients with cancer-related pain and concurrent SUD and/or psychosocial complexity. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of cases presented at CPB between May 2021 and June 2022 and a cross-sectional analysis of CBP participant surveys. Results: Among 28 cases included for analysis, gastrointestinal cancers (n = 7, 25.9%) and multiple myeloma (n = 5, 18.5%) were the most frequent cancer diagnoses. Primary reasons for referral were SUD (n = 22, 78.6%) and provider/team distress (n = 13, 46.4%). The most frequent recommendations made at CBP were encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration (n = 18, 64.3%), maintaining healthy boundaries (n = 15, 53.6%), and SUD management (n = 13, 46.4%). Of 14 scheduled meetings, most meetings involved the presentation of ≥1 cases (n = 12, 86%). Among 40 CBP participant surveys, most attendees (n = 38, 95%) were likely or highly likely to continue to attend. Conclusion: CPB is a feasible and acceptable intervention that allows for palliative care clinicians to collaborate and receive interdisciplinary team feedback and peer support on the management of patients with cancer-related pain and concurrent SUD and/or psychosocial complexity in the ambulatory care setting. Key Message: A regular, interdisciplinary team meeting (CPB) is a feasible and acceptable intervention to help palliative care clinicians manage challenging cases involving patients with cancer and concurrent SUD and/or psychosocial complexity.

The role of specialist palliative care in individuals "living beyond cancer": a narrative review of the literature

PURPOSE

Many patients living beyond cancer experience significant unmet needs, although few of these patients are currently reviewed by specialist palliative care teams (SPCTs). The aim of this narrative review was to explore the current and potential role of SPCTs in this cohort of patients.

METHODS

A search strategy was developed for Medline, and adapted for Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo. Additionally, websites of leading oncology, cancer survivorship, and specialist palliative care organisations were examined. The focus of the search was on individuals living beyond cancer rather than other groups of cancer survivors.

RESULTS

111 articles were retrieved from the search for full text review, and 101 other sources of information were identified after hand searching the reference lists of the full text articles, and the aforesaid websites. The themes of the review encompass the definition of palliative care/specialist palliative care, current models of specialist palliative care, core activities of SPCTs, relevant expertise of SPCTs, and potential barriers to change in relation to extending their support and expertise to individuals living beyond cancer. The review identified a paucity of evidence to support the role of SPCTs in the management of patients living beyond cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals living beyond cancer have many unmet needs, and specific services are required to manage these problems. Currently, there is limited evidence to support the role of specialist palliative care teams in the management of this cohort of people, and several potential barriers to greater involvement, including limited resources, and lack of relevant expertise.

Bowel Management Protocol: Impact on Care Transitions of Oncology Patients

PURPOSE OF STUDY

The project aimed to determine the impact of a standardized bowel regimen protocol for patients receiving opioids on the rate of stool softener prescription, occurrence of bowel movements of oncology patients, and improving the length of stay (LOS).

PRIMARY PRACTICE OF SETTING

Oncology unit in a community hospital.

METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE

A posttest design was utilized, and a prospective medical record review of patients was completed after 8 weeks of the pilot study. The study sample (N = 164) included oncology patients admitted to a community hospital in the Southeast. The χ2 test was used to determine the impact of implementing a bowel panel order on the rate of stool softener prescriptions, the occurrence of bowel movements, and the LOS.

RESULTS

Only 43% (n = 40) of the patients from the comparison group were ordered laxatives, and more patients from the intervention group (68%; n = 49) received the bowel regimen protocol, whereas 26% (n = 19) of the patients used a laxative or stool softener using providers' preference and demonstrated statistical significance (p = .001). In the intervention group, 93% of the patients (n = 67) reported having bowel movements compared with the comparison group, whereas only 32% (n = 32) demonstrated statistical significance (p = .001). The average LOS in the intervention group is less than 9 days compared with the comparison group, which was at 9 days (p = .001).

IMPLICATIONS TO CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

Case managers play a critical role in coordinating care, improving transitions of care, and reducing LOS. Case managers can have a significant impact by monitoring and reminding nurses to report the gastrointestinal movements of oncology patients and then escalate opioid-induced constipation with the providers immediately. Case managers can facilitate the implementation of bowel regimen protocols, which may reduce hospitalizations and enhance patient outcomes, by taking this action.

Managing Chronic Pain in Cancer Survivorship: Communication Challenges and Opportunities as Described by Cancer Survivors

OBJECTIVES

Many cancer survivors experience chronic pain after completing curative-intent treatment. Based on available data, chronic pain may be undertreated in this context; however, little is known about cancer survivors' experiences with clinical management of chronic pain. The purpose of this study was to better understand cancer survivors' pain management experiences after curative-intent treatment.

METHODS

We conducted 13 semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of cancer survivors who had completed treatment for stage I-III breast, head/neck, lung or colorectal cancer. We used a thematic approach to qualitative data analysis.

RESULTS

Participants described that chronic pain often goes unrecognized by their providers, potentially due to limitations in how pain is assessed clinically and the tendency of both cancer survivors and providers to minimize or invalidate the pain experience. To improve communication, participants suggested that providers ask more open-ended questions about their pain, help them to establish functional goals, and provide patients with options for pain management.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

This study demonstrates the importance of provider-initiated communication around pain management for cancer survivors to make them feel more supported in their care. Communication and shared decision-making interventions may improve cancer survivor-provider communication around chronic pain management, addressing an important gap in survivorship care.

The Contribution of Cancer-Specific Psychosocial Factors to the Pain Experience in Cancer Survivors

Palliative care teams are increasingly called up to manage chronic pain in cancer survivors. Chronic pain is common in cancer survivors and is heavily influenced by biopsychosocial factors. This study aimed to determine the relative contribution of unique cancer-specific psychosocial factors, pain catastrophizing, and multisite pain to the pain experience in 41 cancer survivors who completed curative cancer treatment. To test the research hypotheses, a series of nested linear regression models were used with likelihood ratio testing to test the individual and collective contribution of cancer-specific psychosocial factors (fear of cancer recurrence, cancer distress, cancer-related trauma), pain catastrophizing, and the number of pain sites on the pain experience. The results indicate pain catastrophizing and multisite pain explained a significant degree of variance in pain interference scores ( P < .001) and pain severity ( P = .005). Cancer-specific psychosocial factors did not significantly predict variability in pain interference ( P = .313) or pain severity ( P = .668) over and above pain catastrophizing and the number of sites of pain. In summary, pain catastrophizing and multisite pain contribute to the chronic cancer-related pain experienced by cancer survivors. Palliative care nurses are well positioned to improve chronic pain among cancer survivors by assessing and treating pain catastrophizing and multisite pain.

"It Is So Easy For Them to Dismiss": A Phenomenological Study of Cancer Survivors With Chronic Cancer-Related Pain

Background: For many cancer survivors post-cure, chronic pain is a devastating complication of cancer treatment. The prevalence of chronic pain among cancer survivors is double that of the general population. However, little is known about the pain experience of cancer survivors who may have a different perspective than people with advanced cancer or people with noncancer pain. Objective: To understand the lived experience of chronic cancer-related pain in cancer survivors. Methods: We used a qualitative design with a descriptive phenomenological method to conduct in-depth interviews of 13 cancer survivors residing in the United States who completed curative cancer therapy, were at least three months from treatment, and experienced pain attributable to cancer. Data collection was focused on the lived experience and management of chronic cancer-related pain and a deep understanding of how the experience of chronic cancer-related pain shapes pain management choices. Results: The participants had a variety of primary cancer types and cancer pain syndromes. Three essential themes epitomized the experience of living with chronic cancer-related pain: invisible suffering at the cost of survival, an opioid paradox, and a lack of answers on what to expect and what might help. Conclusion and Implications: The results highlight an opportunity for pain self-management, education, and psychosocial interventions to optimize pain in cancer. Participants' experiences identify several opportunities to improve chronic cancer-related pain. Future efforts should prioritize access to multimodal pain treatments, high-quality communication, and expand clinicians' knowledge and skills to manage chronic pain.

Clinician Perspectives on Managing Chronic Pain After Curative-Intent Cancer Treatment

PURPOSE

Among cancer survivors who have completed curative-intent treatment, the high prevalence and adverse consequences of chronic pain are well documented. Yet, research on clinicians' experiences with and perspectives on managing chronic pain among cancer survivors is critically lacking.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with 17 clinicians (six oncology, three palliative care, and eight primary care) affiliated with an academic medical center. Interview questions addressed clinicians' experiences with and perspectives on managing chronic pain (with or without opioid therapy) during the transition from active treatment to survivorship. A multidisciplinary team conducted content analysis of interview transcripts to identify and refine themes related to current practices and challenges in managing chronic pain in this context.

RESULTS

Overall, clinicians perceived chronic pain to be relatively uncommon among cancer survivors. Identified challenges included a lack of clarity about which clinician (or clinicians) are best positioned to manage chronic pain among cancer survivors, and (relatedly) complexities introduced by long-term opioid management, with many clinicians describing this practice as outside their skill set. Additionally, although most clinicians recognized chronic pain as a biopsychosocial phenomenon, they described challenges with effectively managing psychosocial stressors, including difficulty accessing mental or behavioral health services for cancer survivors.

CONCLUSION

Discovered challenges highlight unmet needs related to cancer survivor-clinician communication about chronic pain and the absence of a chronic pain management home for cancer survivors, including those requiring long-term opioid therapy. Research evaluating routine pain monitoring and accessible, tailored models of multimodal pain care in survivorship may help to address these challenges.

Society of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacists White Paper on the Role of Opioid Stewardship Pharmacists

Opioid stewardship is one essential function of pain and palliative care pharmacists and a critical need in the United States. In recent years, this country has been plagued by two public health emergencies: an opioid crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, which has exacerbated the opioid epidemic through its economic and psychosocial toll. To develop an opioid stewardship program, a systematic approach is needed. This will be detailed in part here by the Opioid Stewardship Taskforce of the Society of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacists (SPPCP), focusing on the role of the pharmacist. Many pain and palliative care pharmacists have made significant contributions to the development and daily operation of such programs while also completing other competing clinical tasks, including direct patient care. To ensure dedicated time and attention to critical opioid stewardship efforts, SPPCP recommends and endorses opioid stewardship models employing a full time, opioid stewardship pharmacist in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. Early research suggests that opioid stewardship pharmacists are pivotal to improving opioid metrics and pain care outcomes. However, further research and development in this area of practice is needed and encouraged.

Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of opioid use disorder under the supervision of opioid stewardship programs: it's time to act now

The third opium war may have already started, not only due to illicit opioid trafficking from the Golden Crescent and Golden Triangle on the international front but also through indiscriminate opioid prescription and opioid diversion at home. Opioid use disorder (OUD), among unintentional injuries, has become one of the top 4 causes of death in the United States (U.S.). An OUD is defined as a problematic pattern of opioid use resulting in clinically significant impairment or distress, consisting of 2 or more of 11 problems within 1 year, as described by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Observation of aberrant behaviors of OUD is also helpful for overworked clinicians. For the prevention of OUD, the Opioid Risk Tool and the Current Opioid Misuse Measure are appropriate screening tests before and during opioid administration, respectively. Treatment of OUD consists of 3 opioid-based U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved medications, including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone, and non-opioid-based symptomatic medications for reducing opioid withdrawal syndromes, such as α2 agonists, β-blockers, antidiarrheals, antiemetics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and benzodiazepines. There are at least 6 recommendable guidelines and essential terms related to OUD. Opioid stewardship programs are now critical to promoting appropriate use of opioid medications, improving patient outcomes, and reducing misuse of opioids, influenced by the successful implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Despite the lack of previous motivation, now is the critical time for trying to reduce the risk of OUD.

A Survey on Opioid Tapering Practices, Policies, and Perspectives by Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacists

Opioid tapering is an essential clinical tool to utilize for a variety of reasons, including safety and analgesic optimization. The need for individualized regimens reveals a corresponding need for healthcare providers who can actively manage patients throughout the process. Pharmacists have taken on an integral role for achieving success in opioid tapering. This survey was conducted to describe the current opioid tapering practices of pain and palliative care pharmacists. A Qualtrics survey was offered to the Society of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacist members. The majority (87%) indicated they specialized in pain management. Almost all respondents (98%) reported providing tapering recommendations and 82% reported being involved with patient monitoring throughout the taper. The majority (multiple responses could be chosen) noted that the indication for initiating an opioid taper was due to abuse/misuse (91%), reduced overall efficacy (89%), and adverse drug reactions (78%). The most common follow-up intervals during tapering were weekly (15%), every 2 weeks (22%), and every 4 weeks (44%). This practice-based survey, though small, showed that pharmacists in pain management and palliative care are actively involved in opioid tapering. This survey will hopefully serve as a foundation for continuing research into opioid tapering and the pharmacist's role therein.

How Do We Taper and Discontinue Opioids in Cancer Patients? Considerations from the Activities of a Palliative Care Team at a University Hospital

Background: The more the cancer treatments progress, the more the needs increase to taper and discontinue opioids in cancer patients. Furthermore, opioid dependence of cancer survivors has become a bigger problem. However, a safe opioid tapering and discontinuation method has not yet been established in cancer patients.

Objective: To suggest a safe opioid tapering and discontinuation method in cancer patients.

Design: We reviewed opioid type, dose, administration route, administration duration, reason for tapering and discontinuation, and presence/absence of opioid withdrawal symptoms in cancer patients whose opioids needed to be tapered and discontinued.

Setting/Subjects: We recruited cancer patients referred to the palliative care team of Kyoto University Hospital-Japan whose opioids were tapered and discontinued.

Measurements: Opioid withdrawal symptoms were assessed by two physicians, one nurse, and one pharmacist of palliative care team.

Results: Opioids were tapered and discontinued in 25 out of 145 cancer patients (17%). Opioid withdrawal symptoms were observed in 3 of the 25 cases (12%). In withdrawal symptom cases and nonwithdrawal symptom cases, the mean maximum oral morphine-equivalent doses of opioids were 352.0 and 55.7 mg/day, and the mean administration duration of opioid were 82.3 and 28.7 days, respectively. Withdrawal symptoms occurred in patients receiving higher-dose opioids with longer administration duration and their symptoms tended to appear at approximately 10% of the maximum dose.

Conclusions: We suggest that withdrawal symptoms may be prevented by using a two-stage method rather than a monotonous tapering method in cancer patients whose higher-dose opioid with longer administration duration needed to be tapered and discontinued.

Opioid use by cancer status and time since diagnosis among older adults enrolled in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian screening trial in the United States

BACKGROUND

Dosing limits in opioid clinical practice guidelines in the United States are likely misapplied to cancer patients, however, opioid use may be difficult to ascertain as they are largely excluded from opioid use studies.

METHODS

The primary objective was to determine whether cancer patients were more likely to be chronic opioid users after diagnosis. We described prescription opioid use among U.S. older adult cancer patients during two time periods, within 2 years of diagnosis (short-term) and at least 2 years beyond diagnosis (long-term), compared to those without cancer (controls). Among participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) screening trial with linkages to Medicare Part D data during 2011-2015, we used multivariable logistic regression to estimate the association between cancer diagnosis and opioid use outcomes controlling for demographics. The primary outcome of opioid use was measured with the following metrics: Any opioid use, chronic use (90 consecutive days supply of opioid use while allowing for a 7-day gap between refills), high use (average daily morphine equivalent (MME) ≥120 mg for any 90-day period), and total MME dose above 2,000 mg (MME₂₀₀₀ ).

RESULTS

The short-term cohort included 1,491 cancer patients and 24,930 controls. Any use in the 2-year post-diagnosis period was higher among cancer patients OR 3.3 (95% CI: 3.0-3.7). Chronic use rates were similar by cancer status (4.6% vs. 3.8% for cases and controls, respectively). The long-term cohort included 4,377 cancer patients and 27,545 controls. Rates of any use were similar among cancer patients and controls (63% vs. 59%).

CONCLUSIONS

Any opioid use was similar among long-term cancer survivors compared to controls, but differed among short-term survivors for any opioid use and marginally for chronic opioid use.

Exploring Factors Associated With Long-Term Opioid Therapy in Cancer Survivors: An Integrative Review

CONTEXT

The prevalence of chronic pain in cancer survivors is double that of the general U.S.

POPULATION

Opioids have been the foundation of cancer pain management for decades; however, there is a paucity of literature on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) in cancer survivors. An understanding of factors related to LTOT use in cancer survivors is needed to address chronic pain and balance opioid harms in the expanding population of cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the research of LTOT utilization and factors associated with persistent opioid use in cancer survivors.

METHODS

A five-stage integrative review process was adapted from Whittemore and Knafl. Data sources searched included Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. Quantitative research studies from 2010 to present related to cancer survivors managed on LTOT were included. Editorials, reviews, or abstracts were excluded.

RESULTS

After reviewing 315 articles, 21 articles were included. We found that there were several definitions of LTOT in the reviewed studies, but the duration of opioid use (i.e., more than three months after completion of curative treatment) was the most common. The reviewed literature describes a relationship between LTOT and important biopsychosocial factors (cancer type, socioeconomic factors, and comorbidities).

CONCLUSION

The studies in this review shed light on the factors associated with LTOT in cancer survivors. LTOT was common in certain populations of cancer survivors and those with a collection of patient-specific characteristics. This review suggests that there is a critical need for specialized research on chronic cancer pain and opioid safety in cancer survivors.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Opioid Use Disorder

Since the prevalence of substance use disorders, and opioid use disorder (OUD) specifically, remains high and represents a public health crisis, it is critical that palliative care (PC) providers have a broad understanding of this class of chronic, yet treatable, diseases. Conceptualizing stigma associated with OUD, treatment modalities available, and educational opportunities are key factors in providing patient-centered care. A solid foundation of knowledge about OUD in the setting of serious illness is also crucial as PC providers often recommend or prescribe opioids for symptom management in patients who also have OUD. Furthermore, the PC interdisciplinary team is particularly well poised to care for patients suffering from OUD due to the inherently holistic approach already present in the specialty of PC. This article offers PC teams a framework for understanding the diagnosis and treatment of OUD, methods for performing risk stratification and monitoring, and an overview of opportunities to enhance our care of PC patients with OUD.