Total pain, opioids, and immune checkpoint inhibitors in the survival of patients with cancer.

Experimental and observational studies have shown that opioid analgesics may increase tumor growth, potentially reduce immunotherapy efficacy, and shorten survival. As a result of the lack of clinical data, the current rationale for continuing opioid analgesic treatment is based on animal models, which suggests that physical pain itself may potentially influence cancer growth and exert immunosuppressive effects. Total pain encompasses the various factors that patients may experience during their cancer journey: physical symptoms, social isolation/loneliness, psychological, spiritual/existential, and financial distress. These need to be screened and discussed with patients to help them cope with the treatment and disease. As each issue may affect survival, it is essential to identify them to understand how they might affect the patient's immune system, influence immunotherapy outcomes, and ultimately, survival. The question arises whether a single factor, such as the combination of opioids and immune checkpoint inhibitors, negatively affects treatment outcomes. While there is a risk of fostering opioid phobia, the complex interplay between total pain, quality of life, and the immune system must be considered. Thus, in studies that appropriately investigate the interactions between opioid analgesics and the immune system, it is essential to consider all the distress factors that patients may experience at each stage of their illness.

ESMO expert consensus statements on the screening and management of financial toxicity in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity, defined as both the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress from a cancer diagnosis and its treatment, is a topic of interest in the assessment of the quality of life of patients with cancer and their families. Current evidence implicates financial toxicity in psychosocial, economic and other harms, leading to suboptimal cancer outcomes along the entire trajectory of diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, survivorship and palliation. This paper presents the results of a virtual consensus, based on the evidence base to date, on the screening and management of financial toxicity in patients with and beyond cancer organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) in 2022. METHODS: A Delphi panel of 19 experts from 11 countries was convened taking into account multidisciplinarity, diversity in health system contexts and research relevance. The international panel of experts was divided into four working groups (WGs) to address questions relating to distinct thematic areas: patients with cancer at risk of financial toxicity; management of financial toxicity during the initial phase of treatment at the hospital/ambulatory settings; financial toxicity during the continuing phase and at end of life; and financial risk protection for survivors of cancer, and in cancer recurrence. After comprehensively reviewing the literature, statements were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment, and voting. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 25 evidence-informed consensus statements were developed, which answer 13 questions on financial toxicity. They cover evidence summaries, practice recommendations/guiding statements and policy recommendations relevant across health systems. These consensus statements aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of financial toxicity and guide clinicians globally in mitigating its impact, emphasizing the importance of further research, best practices and guidelines.

Linguistic and content validation of the translated and culturally adapted patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA).

The Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) is an instrument to screen, assess and monitor malnutrition and risk factors, and to triage for interventions. After having translated and culturally adapted the original PG-SGA for the Italian setting, according to International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Principles, we tested linguistic validity, i.e., perceived comprehensibility and difficulty, and content validity (relevance) of the Italian version of the PG-SGA in patients with cancer and a multidisciplinary sample of healthcare professionals (HCPs). METHODS: After the translation and cultural adaptation of the original PG-SGA for the Italian setting, the patient component (i.e., PG-SGA Short Form (SF) was tested for linguistic validity (i.e., comprehensibility ad difficulty) in 120 Italian patients with cancer and 81 Italian HCPs. The full PG-SGA, i.e., patient and professional component of the PG-SGA, was tested for content validity, i.e., relevance, in 81 Italian HCPs. The data were collected by a questionnaire and evaluations were operationalized by a 4-point scale. Through item and scale indices we evaluated the comprehensibility (I-CI, S-CI), difficulty (I-DI, S-DI) and content validity (I-CVI, S-CVI). Scale indices 0.80-0.89 were considered acceptable, and scale indices ≥0.90 were considered excellent. RESULTS: Patients perceived comprehensibility and difficulty of the PG-SGA SF (Boxes) as excellent (S-CI = 0.98, S-DI = 0.96). Professionals perceived comprehensibility of the professional component (Worksheets) as excellent (S-CI = 0.92), difficulty as acceptable (S-DI = 0.85), and content validity of the full PG-SGA as excellent (S-CVI = 0.92). Dietitians gave higher scores (indicating better scores) on comprehensibility, difficulty, and content validity of Worksheet 4 (physical exam) than the other professions. In Worksheet 4, four items were considered most difficult to complete and were considered below acceptable range. Relevance was perceived as excellent by professionals for both the patient component (S-CVI = 0.93) and the professional component (S-CVI = 0.90), resulting in S-CVI = 0.92 for the full PG-SGA. Slight textual modifications were implemented resulting in the final version of the Italian PG-SGA. CONCLUSIONS: Translation and cultural adaptation of the original PG-SGA resulted in the Italian version of the PG-SGA that maintained its original purpose and meaning and can be completed adequately and easily by patients and professionals. The Italian PG-SGA is considered relevant for screening, assessing and monitoring malnutrition and risk factors, as well as triaging for interventions by Italian HCPs.

European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) position paper on supportive and palliative care.

Oncology has come a long way in addressing patients' quality of life, together with developing surgical, radio-oncological and medical anticancer therapies. However, the multiple and varying needs of patients are still not being met adequately as part of routine cancer care. Supportive and palliative care interventions should be integrated, dynamic, personalised and based on best evidence. They should start at the time of diagnosis and continue through to end-of-life or survivorship. ESMO is committed to excellence in all aspects of oncological care during the continuum of the cancer experience. Following the 2003 ESMO stand on supportive and palliative care (Cherny N, Catane R, Kosmidis P. ESMO takes a stand on supportive and palliative care. Ann Oncol 2003; 14(9): 1335-1337), this position paper highlights the evolving and growing gap between the needs of cancer patients and the actual provision of care. The concept of patient-centred cancer care is presented along with key requisites and areas for further work.

Is it possible to encourage hope in non-advanced cancer patients? We must try.

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on the relationship between hope and other variables in non-advanced cancer patients. The study explored the relationship between hope, symptoms, needs, and spirituality/religiosity in patients treated in a supportive care unit (SCU). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From September 2013 to March 2014, the consecutive patients who accepted to complete: (i) Needs Evaluation Questionnaire (NEQ), (ii) the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), (iii) Hope Herth Index (HHI), and (iv) the System of Belief Inventory (SBI) were enrolled. Moreover, clinical/demographic data were collected and the findings were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 276 patients who completed the HHI questionnaire (participation rate 276/300 = 92%) were included; 131 reported HHI total score >37 (median value). The majority of patients had a Karnofsky performance status >80; 71% were on cancer therapies, and only 29 patients had metastases or relapse. Patients with higher HHI scores were less educated (P = 0.012), reported lower ESAS total score (15.4 versus 22.6, P < 0.001), and had less often been referred to a psychologist previously to the study (P = 0.002); patients with a higher HHI score also reported higher spirituality (P < 0.001). Some NEQ items resulted significantly associated with HHI score after adjustment for other variables: the need to have sincere clinicians (ß = -2.7), better dialogue (ß = -2.1), and more reassurance from the clinicians (ß = -2.5); better attention (ß = -4.4) and respect for intimacy (ß = -3.3) from nurses; to speak with people who have the same illness experience (ß = -2.5), to be more reassured by relatives (ß = -3.3) and to feel less abandoned (ß = -4.3). Higher SBI scores were independently associated with higher HHI scores (ß = 1.7 for 10 points increase). CONCLUSIONS: In cancer patients, hope can be encouraged by clinicians through dialogue, sincerity, and reassurance, as well as assessing and considering the patients' needs (above all the psycho-emotional), symptoms, psychological frailty, and their spiritual/religious resources.

Pain related to cancer treatments and diagnostic procedures: a no man's land?

BACKGROUND: While guidelines are available for the management of cancer-related pain, little attention is given to the assessment and treatment of pain caused by treatments and diagnostic procedures in cancer patients. METHODS: We evaluated the literature on pain related to cancer treatment and diagnostic procedures within a critical analysis. RESULTS: The data available are sparse, suggesting that little attention has been directed at this important aspect of oncology. This points to potentially suboptimal patient management. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate studies are necessary in order to understand the incidence and appropriate management of pain, both during and/or after oncological treatments and diagnostic procedures. At the same time, Health Care Professionals should have heightened awareness of the causes and treatment of pain with the aim of anticipating and managing pain most appropriately for each individual patient. This is clearly an important component of holistic patient care before, during, and after oncological treatment.