RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Assessment of the psychometric characteristics of the Greek version of the brief World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument (WHOQOL-BREF) in patients with advanced cancer and pain, and exploration of the association between psychological distress and quality of life (QoL). METHOD: The sample consisted of 145 patients with advanced cancer and pain who completed the WHOQOL-BREF, the Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90), and the Pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). In analysis, the following methods were used: Cronbach's alpha, Item Response Theory (IRT), polychoric, Pearson and polyserial correlation, t-test, and Linear regression. RESULTS: The internal consistency was high for all domains of the WHOQOL-BREF (Cronbach's α ≥ 0.731). Similarly, with the exception of three items, the WHOQOL-BREF items has large discrimination parameters suggesting that they have a high ability in differentiating subjects. On SCL-90, the three dimensions with the highest scores were Depression, Somatization, and Anxiety. The overall score for psychological distress, the Global Severity Index (GSI), showed significant negative association with all the WHOQOL-BREF factor scores (Physical Health: B = -1.488, p < 0.001, Psychological Health: B = -1.688, p < 0.001, Social Relationships: B = -0.910, p < 0.001, Environment: B = -1.064, p < 0.001). Male gender was associated with lower scores for Social Relationships (B = -0.358, p = 0.007) and Environment (B = -0.293, p = 0.026). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The Greek version of the WHOQOL-BREF showed good psychometric properties in patients with advanced cancer and can be used as a reliable instrument in clinical practice. The level of psychological distress can be considered a determinant of QoL in patients with advanced cancer and pain, independently of pain intensity or other clinical characteristics. In cancer, the disease process can activate multiple physiological and psychological mechanisms that lead to a wide range of symptoms of psychological distress. To improve their QoL, psychological intervention focused on the identification and alleviation of psychological distress in patients with advanced cancer, and help in finding meaning in their experience, should be provided.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Neuropathic pain is a frequent consequence of cancer pain. Quite often, in the end stage, it is difficult to discern its presence and delineate its characteristics in the context of painful cancer complications. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4) and painDETECT questionnaires, which were translated to the patient's native language, for the diagnosis of peripheral neuropathic pain in oncology patients. METHODS: End-stage cancer patients who presented to the outpatient pain clinic were prospectively followed. At presentation, all patients completed the DN4 and painDETECT questionnaires, which had been translated to their native language, and the output was compared to the pain specialist's diagnosis of the neuropathic or non-neuropathic nature of the pain, which was considered as the gold standard. The diagnostic accuracy of both questionnaires was tested with receiver operating characteristic curves plotted from the data collected. RESULTS: Ninety patients (48.5% of 185 in total) presented with severe pain. Seventy-six had neuropathic pain (41.1%) and 109 had non-neuropathic pain. Of those with neuropathic pain, most had a mixed pain (bone or visceral in addition to neuropathic pain). The DN4 questionnaire had a sensitivity of 71.1% and a specificity of 88.7% in detecting neuropathic pain, with a cutoff value of ≥ 4, while the painDETECT questionnaire had a sensitivity of 26.3% and a specificity of 100%, with a cutoff value of ≥ 19. CONCLUSION: At standard cutoff values, the DN4 and painDETECT questionnaires, despite having been translated to the patient's native language, failed to adequately discriminate between neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain in our end-stage cancer patients.