Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: A white paper from the European Association for Palliative Care.

BACKGROUND: In recognition of the ongoing discussion on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, the Board of Directors of the European Association for Palliative Care commissioned this white paper from the palliative care perspective. AIM: This white paper aims to provide an ethical framework for palliative care professionals on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. It also aims to provide an overview on the available evidence as well as a discourse of ethical principles related to these issues. DESIGN: Starting from a 2003 European Association for Palliative Care position paper, 21 statements were drafted and submitted to a five-round Delphi process PARTICIPANTS: A panel with 17 experts commented on the paper in round 1. Board members of national palliative care or hospice associations that are collective members of European Association for Palliative Care were invited to an online survey in rounds 2 and 3. The expert panel and the European Association for Palliative Care board members participated in rounds 4 and 5. This final version was adopted as an official position paper of the European Association for Palliative Care in April 2015. RESULTS: Main topics of the white paper are concepts and definitions of palliative care, its values and philosophy, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, key issues on the patient and the organizational level. The consensus process confirmed the 2003 European Association for Palliative Care white paper and its position on the relationship between palliative care and euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. CONCLUSION: The European Association for Palliative Care feels that it is important to contribute to informed public debates on these issues. Complete consensus seems to be unachievable due to incompatible normative frameworks that clash.

Use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of cancer pain: evidence-based recommendations from the EAPC.

Here we provide the updated version of the guidelines of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) on the use of opioids for the treatment of cancer pain. The update was undertaken by the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative. Previous EAPC guidelines were reviewed and compared with other currently available guidelines, and consensus recommendations were created by formal international expert panel. The content of the guidelines was defined according to several topics, each of which was assigned to collaborators who developed systematic literature reviews with a common methodology. The recommendations were developed by a writing committee that combined the evidence derived from the systematic reviews with the panellists' evaluations in a co-authored process, and were endorsed by the EAPC Board of Directors. The guidelines are presented as a list of 16 evidence-based recommendations developed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.

Palliative sedation at the end of life at a tertiary cancer center.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe the use of palliative sedation (PS) its indications and outcomes in patients followed up till death by an inpatient palliative care consult team (PCCT) at a tertiary cancer center. METHODS: All patients referred for 5 years to the PCCT and followed up till death were eligible for the study. Both PCCT recordings and hospital charts were reviewed and a codified assessment was performed. RESULTS: Over a total of 2,033 consecutive consults, 129 patients died during admission and were eligible. Eighty-three had the indication to PS, 4% of all consults (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3% to 5%) and 64% of eligible patients (95%CI, 56% to 73%). PS was more frequently indicated in males and in patients with recurrent dyspnea and recurrent agitation, while it was less frequently indicated in older people and in patients with cerebral metastases and recurrent drowsiness. The most frequent indications to PS were dyspnea (37%) and delirium (31%) alone or combined with other symptoms. PS was successfully achieved in 69 patients; the drugs most frequently used for PS were midazolam (46%), haloperidol (35%), and chlorpromazine (32%) and opioid dose escalation was higher in sedated patients (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: PS is an important intervention in the management of terminal disease by a consulting palliative care team. Improved collaboration and communication between the hospital staff and the PCCT should be offered to meet patients' needs when PS is required.

Cancer Pain Management: An Italian Delphi Survey from the Rational Use of Analgesics (RUA) Group.

BACKGROUND: In patients with cancer, the prevalence of pain is high, and pain management is often challenging despite the wide availability of drugs and guidelines. METHODS: This Delphi survey was organized within the Rational Use of Analgesics (RUA) Group projects to reach a consensus among Italian palliative care specialists on pain assessment and management. Items were identified from recent publications on cancer pain and guidelines. RESULTS: This survey included input from 190 palliative care specialists representing all Italian territory. A consensus was reached on 17 statements. Items concerning pain assessment achieved over 70% agreement amongst the participants. Items on principles of pain management and management according to type of pain, including breakthrough cancer-related pain and neuropathic pain also achieved high levels of agreement. CONCLUSION: Results from the RUA project showed that Italian palliative care specialists had a particular interest in items related to pain challenges, in addition to the evaluation and control of pain associated with cancer. However, some discrepancies between current guidelines and clinical practice were observed.

Prognostic factors in advanced cancer patients: evidence-based clinical recommendations--a study by the Steering Committee of the European Association for Palliative Care.

PURPOSE: To offer evidence-based clinical recommendations concerning prognosis in advanced cancer patients. METHODS: A Working Group of the Research Network of the European Association for Palliative Care identified clinically significant topics, reviewed the studies, and assigned the level of evidence. A formal meta-analysis was not feasible because of the heterogeneity of published studies and the lack of minimal standards in reporting results. A systematic electronic literature search within the main available medical literature databases was performed for each of the following four areas identified: clinical prediction of survival (CPS), biologic factors, clinical signs and symptoms and psychosocial variables, and prognostic scores. Only studies on patients with advanced cancer and survival < or = 90 days were included. RESULTS: A total of 38 studies were evaluated. Level A evidence-based recommendations of prognostic correlation could be formulated for CPS (albeit with a series of limitations of which clinicians must be aware) and prognostic scores. Recommendations on the use of other prognostic factors, such as performance status, symptoms associated with cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome (weight loss, anorexia, dysphagia, and xerostomia), dyspnea, delirium, and some biologic factors (leukocytosis, lymphocytopenia, and C-reactive protein), reached level B. CONCLUSION: Prognostication of life expectancy is a significant clinical commitment for clinicians involved in oncology and palliative care. More accurate prognostication is feasible and can be achieved by combining clinical experience and evidence from the literature. Using and communicating prognostic information should be part of a multidisciplinary palliative care approach.

Pain assessment tools: is the content appropriate for use in palliative care?

Inadequate pain assessment prevents optimal treatment in palliative care. The content of pain assessment tools might limit their usefulness for proper pain assessment, but data on the content validity of the tools are scarce. The objective of this study was to examine the content of the existing pain assessment tools, and to evaluate the appropriateness of different dimensions and items for pain assessment in palliative care. A systematic search was performed to find pain assessment tools for patients with advanced cancer who were receiving palliative care. An ad hoc search with broader search criteria supplemented the systematic search. The items of the identified tools were allocated to appropriate dimensions. This was reviewed by an international panel of experts, who also evaluated the relevance of the different dimensions for pain assessment in palliative care. The systematic literature search generated 16 assessment tools while the ad hoc search generated 64. Ten pain dimensions containing 1,011 pain items were identified by the experts. The experts ranked intensity, temporal pattern, treatment and exacerbating/relieving factors, location, and interference with health-related quality of life as the most important dimensions. None of the assessment tools covered these dimensions satisfactorily. Most items were related to interference (231) and intensity (138). Temporal pattern (which includes breakthrough pain), ranked as the second most important dimension, was covered by 29 items only. Many tools include dimensions and items of limited relevance for patients with advanced cancer. This might reduce compliance and threaten the validity of the assessment. New tools should reflect the clinical relevance of different dimensions and be user-friendly.

Pain in cancer. An outcome research project to evaluate the epidemiology, the quality and the effects of pain treatment in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Management of pain related to advanced or metastatic cancer, although the availability of several pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions and the existence of well-known guidelines and protocols, is often difficult and inadequate. Evidence of the relative effectiveness of current options for treating cancer pain from comparative randomized studies is scanty. METHODS: In the context of a wider project, a multicenter, open label, prospective Outcome Research study will be launched in Italy in 2006 to investigate the epidemiology of cancer pain and of its treatments, the quality of analgesic-drug therapy and the effectiveness of alternative analgesic strategies in a large, prospective, unselected cohort of cancer patients using the state-of-the art of patient-reported-outcomes. About 100 Italian centers will recruit 2500 patients with advanced/progressive/metastatic cancer with pain (related to the cancer disease) requiring analgesic treatments. Each center is expected to recruit 25 consecutive and eligible patients during the study inception period. Approximately two months will be allowed for subject recruitment and enrollment. Subject evaluation and follow-up will be for 3 months. The effect on outcomes of various therapeutic analgesic options administered by physicians, given the observational approach where patients are not assigned at random to different treatments, will be compared using the propensity score approach, allowing the adjustment for treatment selection bias. Later, after the launch of the observational study and on the basis of results, in specific subsamples of patients and in select centers of the network, a Randomized Controlled Trial will be carried out to formally compare the efficacy of alternative analgesic strategies, with particular emphasis on oral morphine (as comparator) and buprenorphine patch (as experimental arm). Results from the outcome (cohort) and experimental (Randomized Controlled Trial) studies will ensure both the external and internal validity.

Gabapentin for neuropathic cancer pain: a randomized controlled trial from the Gabapentin Cancer Pain Study Group.

PURPOSE: To determine the analgesic effect of the addition of gabapentin to opioids in the management of neuropathic cancer pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-one consecutive patients with neuropathic pain due to cancer, partially controlled with systemic opioids, participated in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-design, 10-day trial from August 1999 to May 2002. Gabapentin was titrated from 600 mg/d to 1,800 mg/d in addition to stable opioid dose. Extra opioid doses were available as needed. Zero to 10 numerical scale was used to rate average daily pain. The average pain score over the whole follow-up period was used as main outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures were: intensity of burning pain, shooting/lancinating pain, dysesthesias (also scored on 0 to 10 numerical scale), number of daily episodes of lancinating pain, presence of allodynia, and daily extra doses of opioid analgesics. RESULTS: Overall, 79 patients received gabapentin and 58 (73%) completed the study; 41 patients received placebo and 31 (76%) completed the study. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on the intent-to-treat population showed a significant difference of average pain intensity between gabapentin (pain score, 4.6) and placebo group (pain score, 5.4; P =.0250). Among secondary outcome measures, dysesthesia score showed a statistically significant difference (P =.0077; ANCOVA on modified intent-to-treat population = 115 patients with at least 3 days of pain assessments). Reasons for withdrawing patients from the trial were adverse events in six patients (7.6%) receiving gabapentin and in three patients receiving placebo (7.3%). CONCLUSION: Gabapentin is effective in improving analgesia in patients with neuropathic cancer pain already treated with opioids.

Cancer pain assessment in clinical trials. A review of the literature (1999-2002).

The aim of this review was to evaluate the methods of pain measurement in controlled clinical trials in oncology published between 1999 and 2002. An electronic literature search strategy was used according to established criteria applied to the Medline database and PubMed search engine. Articles were selected to include only studies that had chronic cancer pain as the primary or secondary objective of a controlled clinical trial. A specific evaluation scheme was used to examine how pain measurement methods were chosen and implemented in the study procedures. The search strategy identified 613 articles, and 68 were selected for evaluation. Most articles (69%) chose unidimensional pain measurement tools, such as visual analogue scales, numerical rating scales and verbal rating scales, whereas others used questionnaires. The implementation of the pain assessment method was problematic in many studies, especially as far as time frame of pain assessment (70%), administration modalities (46%), and use of non-validated measurement methods (10%). Design of study and data analysis were often unclear about the definition of pain outcome measure (40%), patient compliance with pain assessment (98%), and impact of missing data (56%). Statistical techniques were seldom appropriate to the type of data collected and often inadequate to describe the pain variable under study. It is clear from this review that most authors were aware of the need of valid pain measurement tools to be used in clinical trials. However, too often these tools were not appropriately used in the trial, or at least their use was not described with sufficient accuracy in the trial methods.

Semantic descriptors of pain.

Eighty-five patients suffering from advanced cancer pain were asked to attribute a 'definite value' to 5 key words describing pain by rating them on a visual analogue scale (VAS). The score which the patient attributed to each key word was then correlated with 9 variables obtained through patient monitoring files (sex, age, educational background, financial situation, integrated pain score, number of concomitant symptoms, hours of sleep and standing, performance status). The visual analogue rating of pain description was not related to the variables examined. However, important correlations were found: the higher the degree of pain, the higher the concomitant symptoms, and the greater reduction in hours of sleep and standing.

Hyperalgesia and myoclonus with intrathecal infusion of high-dose morphine.

We report the case of a patient who developed myoclonus and hyperalgesia following administration of high-dose subarachnoid morphine. This complication occurred with 40-80 mg/day continuous infusion. The pathophysiology of these side effects is discussed.

Paraplegia following coeliac plexus block.

Coeliac plexus block (CPB) is one of the few neurolytic procedures that is still considered very useful in managing chronic cancer pain. We describe what we believe to be the fifth case in the literature of paraplegia following coeliac plexus block with ethyl alcohol. Clinical and neurophysiological examination confirmed the hypothesis of an acute myelopathy probably caused by ischemia due to involvement of Adamkievicz's artery. The seriousness of this neurological complication led us to review the different pain-relieving strategies in pancreatic cancer. Several medical and surgical procedures are available for advanced pancreatic cancer, yet none of them alone can be considered the therapy of choice for all cases. Hence, only a multidisciplinary approach to pancreatic cancer pain can help in making the most appropriate choice for each patient.

Diclofenac does not modify morphine bioavailability in cancer patients.

We determined morphine plasma concentrations in 6 cancer patients before and with administration of diclofenac for 5 days. The non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug does not modify morphine bioavailability. This observation suggests that diclofenac can be used in association with morphine during cancer pain treatment, without increasing the risk of overdosage or side effects of the opiate.

Studies on the effects of antidepressant drugs on the antinociceptive action of morphine and on plasma morphine in rat and man.

In the rat we studied the effect of 3 tricyclic antidepressants: chlorimipramine, amitriptyline and nortriptyline, and the atypical antidepressant trazodone on pain thresholds when administered alone or together with morphine. Moreover, we evaluated the effect of the antidepressants on free morphine plasma concentrations both in the rat and in man. We observed that chlorimipramine and amitriptyline, two tricyclic antidepressants active on the serotoninergic system, induce analgesia and potentiate morphine analgesia in a dose-related fashion. The noradrenergic tricyclic nortriptyline and trazodone did not elicit analgesia and inconsistently affected morphine analgesia. In the rat, all drugs tested increased plasma concentrations of morphine with the exception of amitriptyline. In man, only chlorimipramine and amitriptyline increased the plasma concentration of the free opiate.

A validation study of an Italian version of the Brief Pain Inventory (Breve Questionario per la Valutazione del Dolore).

Aim of this study was to validate the Italian version of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Breve Questionario per la Valutazione del Dolore (BQVD), which is a multidimensional instrument to assess pain intensity and pain interference with daily functions. A group of 110 patients with cancer pain were enrolled in the study and were administered the BQVD and the Therapy Impact Questionnaire (TIQ) which is a valid instrument for quality of life assessment in cancer patients. Cronbach's alphas were computed for the interference and severity scales in assessing reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis was utilized to ascertain construct validity of the BQVD. Measures of interference and of intensity were calculated a priori from the TIQ result and were used in correlated correlations. Alpha coefficients for the pain severity and the pain interference scale were above 0.75. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that a 2-factor solution for the BQVD structure was interpretable and provided adequate fit for the data. The correlation with the TIQ items showed a stronger association between factor 1 (interference) and the interference with affect and activity measure from the TIQ, while factor 2 (severity) was more strongly associated with the TIQ pain severity measure. In comparison with other non-italian samples our results show a lower reliability estimate. Overall the analysis of these data shows that the BQVD is a useful and valid tool in assessing pain and its impact on patients' quality of life which could also help in developing international and cross-cultural studies in cancer pain.

Pain measurement in cancer patients: a comparison of six methods.

A consecutive sample of 53 chronic cancer pain patients were administered 5 different pain intensity scales: a visual analogue scale (VAS), a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10 (NRS), a verbal rating scale (VRS), the Italian Pain Questionnaire (Italian version of the McGill Pain Questionnaire) (PRI), and the Integrated Pain Score (IPS) which is an instrument designed at the Pain Therapy and Palliative Care Division of the National Cancer Institute of Milan to integrate pain intensity and duration in a single measure. These scales were administered before and after a definite therapy change. At the time of the second evaluation the patients were also administered a pain relief scale (IRS). A factor analysis of the scoring properties of these instruments revealed a high degree of association between the variables. A single factor clearly emerged explaining most of the different scales variability. A logistic regression analysis showed that VAS, NRS, VRS were more strongly associated with IRS than PRI and IPS.

Palliative care in a national cancer center: results in 1987 vs. 1993 vs. 2000.

In the last few years, palliative care for advanced and terminal cancer patients has undergone considerable evolution. We determined the characteristics of patients admitted to the 4-bed Palliative Care Unit (PCU) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of Milan in 1987, 1993 and 2000 to evaluate how our diagnostic and therapeutic approaches have changed over the years. We reviewed the charts of every patient admitted to the PCU in 1987, 1993, and the first ten months of 2000. We recorded demographic data; the primary tumor sites; the main reason for admission; the types of therapies administered (oncologic, analgesic, surgical, neurosurgical analgesic procedures, and supportive therapy); the type and number of cardiological, radiological and endoscopic examinations, as well as specialist consultations; the duration of stay and eventual death on the Unit. There were no significant differences regarding gender, age, primary tumor site and death in hospital of the patients admitted during these years. The time spent in hospital increased over time (P = 0.006). A significant increase was observed in the percentage of patients admitted for supportive therapy (P < 0.001) and investigation concerning the stage of the disease (P < 0.001). There was a significant decrease in admission for invasive analgesic procedures (P < 0.001), as well as for pain diagnosis and/or uncontrolled pain. Uncontrolled pain remained the most frequent reason for admission. Over the years, during hospitalization, 7% to 12% of the patients underwent radiotherapy,1% to 9% had computerized tomography, and 4% to 8% had palliative surgery. More than 50% of the patients received intravenous hydration; a few patients received hypodermoclysis in 1987. Over time, there was a significant increase in "as needed" administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and a significant reduction in their regular administration (from 24% in 1987 and 1993 to 3% in 2000) (P < 0.001). The use of codeine, tramadol and methadone increased (P < 0.001), whereas the use of oral morphine, buprenorphine and oxycodone decreased in 2000 (P < 0.001). There was a reduction in the use of antidepressants (no significant constant trend) and a significant increase in the use of anticonvulsants, laxatives and pamidronate (P < 0.001). Regularly administered hypnotics decreased in 1993 and increased in 2000 (P < 0.001). Over these years, no significant differences were found in the routes of opioid administration, in route switching and in the mean maximum oral opioid dose (ranging from 108 to 126 mg/day). The percentage of patients undergoing percutaneous cordotomy significantly decreased in 1993 and 2000 (P < 0.001). Over time, there was an increase in requests for specialist consultations, which was significant for neurological, cardiological and oncological consults (P < 0.001). Although the characteristics of the patients admitted to the PCU did not change over these years, there have been significant modifications in our therapeutic approaches, above all in the use of supportive therapy, adjuvant drugs, opioids and neurosurgical invasive procedures. Moreover, a major collaborative interaction with other specialists of the NCI took place with the aim to tailor treatment for each single patient.

Cancer patient compliance in the self-administration of a pain assessment tool.

Accurate pain assessment is considered essential for effective management of cancer pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the compliance of hospitalized patients with chronic cancer pain, referred to an inpatient palliative care consultation service, with self-assessment of pain intensity by means of a daily pain form. The form was distributed daily by the pain consult nurse and required three daily pain intensity measurements on 0 to 10 numerical scales, separately for pain at rest and pain on movement. Of 174 consecutive patients, 106 (61%) participated in the study and were followed up for a median of 10.6 days (range 1-32 days). Compliance was defined as the number of assessment forms completed over the number of evaluation days available for each patient. Mean compliance was 58%. The main reasons for not completing the form were related to subjective psychological variables (44%), physical distress (26%), and absence of pain (16%). Lack of understanding of the method was reported as the main reason for non-compliance by only 1% of patients.

Pain measurement tools and methods in clinical research in palliative care: recommendations of an Expert Working Group of the European Association of Palliative Care.

An Expert Working Group was convened under the auspices of the Steering Committee of the Research Network of the European Association of Palliative Care to review the status of the use of pain measurement tools (PMTs) in palliative care research conducted in a multilingual-multicenter setting. Based on a literature review and on the experts' opinion, the present work recommends that standardized methods should be applied for the use of PMTs in research in palliative care. Visual analogue scales, numerical rating scales, and verbal rating scales are considered valid to assess pain intensity in clinical trials and in other types of studies. Among the multidimensional questionnaires designed to assess pain, the McGill Pain Questionnaire and Brief Pain Inventory are valid in many multilingual versions. Specific recommendations for PMT use and administration, depending on the study type and aim, are reviewed. Special population requirements specific of clinical situations encountered in palliative care (elderly, terminal, cognitively impaired patients, pediatric patients) are also considered.