The lower the expectations in controlling the symptoms of advanced cancer patients, the better the clinical response

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare patients' global impression (PGI) and the achievement of personalised symptom goal response (PSGR), after a comprehensive palliative care treatment in advanced cancer patients having high (HPSG) and low symptom goals (LPSG).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units rated symptoms intensity by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) at admission and then after one week of comprehensive palliative care treatment. For each symptom, patients were divided into two groups, according to their patient symptom goal (PSG): ≥4 (HPSG), and 0-2 (LPSG). PGI and PSGR were evaluated after one week of palliative care. The Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) was assessed at admission.

RESULTS

After one week of palliative care, changes in ESAS items were significantly larger in the HPSG group. HPSG patients had a better PGI and reached their target more frequently than LPSG patients for pain, weakness, and poor well-being. LPSG patients were more likely to obtain their target for appetite and insomnia. HPSG patients were more likely to have a lower Karnofsky, a lower educational level, older age, or higher MDAS values for the different ESAS items.

CONCLUSION

Advanced cancer patients with low expectations (HPSG) were more likely to achieve their PSGR after a comprehensive palliative care treatment, reporting also a better PGI for some leading symptoms such as pain, weakness, and poor well-being. More fragile patients seem to have lower expectations and to be more likely to be satisfied.

Personalized Pain Goals and Responses in Advanced Cancer Patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess the personalized pain intensity goal (PPIG), the achievement of a personalized pain goal response (PPGR), and patients' global impression (PGI) in advanced cancer patients after a comprehensive pain and symptom management.

DESIGN

Prospective, longitudinal.

SETTING

Acute pain relief and palliative/supportive care.

SUBJECTS

689 advanced cancer patients.

METHODS

Measurement of Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) and personalized pain intensity goal (PPIG) at admission (T0). After a week (T7) personalized pain goal response (PPGR) and patients' global impression (PGI) were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean PPIG was 1.33 (SD 1.59). A mean decrease in pain intensity of - 2.09 was required on PPIG to perceive a minimal clinically important difference (MCID). A better improvement corresponded to a mean change of - 3.41 points, while a much better improvement corresponded to a mean of - 4.59 points. Patients perceived a MCID (little worse) with a mean increase in pain intensity of 0.25, and a worse with a mean increase of 2.33 points. Higher pain intensity at T0 and lower pain intensity at T7 were independently related to PGI. 207 (30.0%) patients achieved PPGR. PPGR was associated with higher PPIG at T0 and T7, and inversely associated to pain intensity at T0 and T7, and Karnofsky level. Patients with high pain intensity at T0 achieved a favorable PGI, even when PPIG was not achieved by PPGR.

CONCLUSION

PPIG, PPGR and PGI seem to be relevant for evaluating the effects of a comprehensive management of pain, assisting decision-making process according to patients' expectations. Some factors may be implicated in determining the individual target and the clinical response.

Personalized goal for insomnia and clinical response in advanced cancer patients

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess the Personalized Insomnia Intensity Goal (PIIG), the achievement of Personalized Goal Response (PGR), and Patient Global Impression (PGI) after a comprehensive symptom management.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units rated pain and symptoms intensity and their PIIG by using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) (T0). In patients with significant levels of insomnia, the achievement of target expected (PIIG) was measured (patient goal response, PIGR), as well the patient global impression (PGI), by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), after a comprehensive symptom management (T7).

RESULTS

Three hundred ninety-seven patients with a level of insomnia of ≥ 3 on ESAS were analyzed in this study. The mean values of PIIG at T0 and T7 were 1.2 (SD 1.5) and 0.9 (SD 1.4), respectively. Most patients (n = 406, 89.8%) indicated a PIIG of ≤ 3 as a target at T0. Such target was significantly lower at T7 (p = < 0.0005). PGI, expressed as MCID, was perceived with a mean decrease in insomnia intensity of - 2.3. In a minority of patients (n = 26; 5.8%) insomnia worsened, with a MCID of 0.50 (SD 2.8). Higher insomnia intensity at T0 and lower insomnia intensity at T7 were independently related to PGI. PIGR was achieved in 87.9% of patients. PIGR was associated with PIIG at T0, and inversely associated to insomnia intensity at T0 and T7, and PIIG at T7.

CONCLUSION

PGIR and PGI seem to be relevant for evaluating the effects of a comprehensive management of insomnia, suggesting therapeutic decisions according to PIIG. Some factors influencing the individual target and clinical response have been detected.

Personalized Goal for Dyspnea and Clinical Response in Advanced Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

The clinical response after comprehensive symptom management is difficult to determine in terms of a clinically important difference. Moreover, therapies should try to reach the threshold perceived by the individual patient for the determination of a favorable response to a treatment.

MEASURES

The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) was measured at admission (T0), and seven days after starting palliative care (T7). Patient Global Impression and Goal Response after one week of palliative care and its relation with the Personalized Dyspnea Goal were measured at T7.

INTERVENTION

Patients admitted to palliative care units underwent a comprehensive symptom assessment by a specialist palliative care team. At T0, patients were asked about their Personalized Dyspnea Intensity Goal on ESAS. One week later (T7), after a comprehensive palliative care treatment, Personalized Dyspnea Intensity Goals were measured again. Patients were considered to have achieved a Patient Dyspnea Goal Response if dyspnea intensity (measured at T7) was equal or less than their expected Personalized Dyspnea Intensity Goal. At the same interval (T7), Patient Global Impression (improvement or deterioration) was measured.

OUTCOMES

279 patients were analyzed in this study. The mean Personalized Dyspnea Intensity Goal at T0 and T7 were 0.97 (SD 1.3), and 0.71 (SD 2.1), respectively. 263 patients (94.2%) indicated a Personalized Dyspnea Intensity Goal of ≤3 as a target at T0. Patients perceived a bit better, a better improvement, and a much better improvement with a mean decrease in dyspnea intensity of -2.1, -3.5, and -4.3 points on the dyspnea intensity scale, respectively. In 60 patients (21.5%), dyspnea intensity did not change, and in 4.7%, dyspnea intensity worsened. Patients perceived a Minimal Clinically Important Difference (little worse) with a mean increase in dyspnea intensity of 0.10, and they perceived a worse with a mean increase of 1.7 points. Higher dyspnea intensity at T0 and lower dyspnea intensity at T7 were independently related to Patient Global Impression. At T7, 93 (33.3%) patients achieved their Personalized Goal Response, based on Personalized Dyspnea Intensity. Patient Dyspnea Goal Response was associated with Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale score and Personalized Dyspnea Intensity Goal at T0, and inversely associated with dyspnea intensity at T0 and T7, and lower Karnofsky level. For Patient Dyspnea Goal Response, no significant differences among categories of dyspnea intensity were found (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patient Dyspnea Goal Response and Patient Global Impression seem to be relevant for evaluating the effects of a comprehensive management of symptoms, including dyspnea, assisting decision making process. Some factors may be implicated in determining the individual target and clinical response. A personalized symptom goal may translate in terms of therapeutic intervention, according to the achievement of the patients' expectations. High values of dyspnea intensity, a lower Karnofsky level, as well as high level of Dyspnea Intensity Goal (that is less patients' expectations) favor the achievement of the target.

Personalized Symptom Goals and Patient Global Impression on Clinical Changes in Advanced Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the patients' global impression (PGI) after symptom management, as well as the achievement of personalized symptom goals (PSG). The secondary outcome was to assess related factors.

SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS

Advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units rated symptom intensity by using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) at admission and then after 1 week. For each symptom, patient-reported PGI and PSG, as well as the rate of PSG response, were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eight hundred seventy-six patients were taken into consideration for this study. A mean of 1.71-2.16 points was necessary to perceive a bit better improvement of symptom intensity. Most patients had a PSG of ≤3. A statistically significant number of patients achieved their PSG after starting palliative care. Patients with high intensity of ESAS items at admission achieved a more favorable PGI response. In the multivariate analysis, symptom intensity and PSG were the most frequent factors independently associated to a best PGI, whereas high levels of Karnofsky had a lower odd ratio.

CONCLUSION

PSG and PGI seem to be relevant for patients' assessment and decision-making process, translating in terms of therapeutic intervention. Some factors may be implicated in determining the individual target and clinical response.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Personalized symptom goals and global impression of change are relevant for patients' assessment and decision-making process, translating in terms of therapeutic intervention. Some factors may be implicated in determining the individual target and clinical response.

The rationale for a multimodal approach in the management of breakthrough cancer pain: a review

Breakthrough pain has been described differently in various countries, and not surprisingly, recommendations for its management vary according to the institution. Usually when breakthrough pain occurs, the patient's pain has already been managed according to the World Health Organization 3-step ladder for cancer pain. After this point, the treatment choice is usually based on clinical judgment, the physician's personal experience with interventional procedures, and local resources available. Opioids remain the mainstay of the management of breakthrough cancer pain. However, the combination of radio-oncology, adjuvant drugs, and interventional pain procedures can improve pain relief. This review addresses those questions and proposes a multimodal approach to manage breakthrough cancer pain.