Assessment of cognitive function in patients with metastatic cancer: Are we using the right tools?

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at analyzing the validity and reliability of the continuous reaction time (CRT) test, the finger-tapping test (FTT), the Digit Span Test (DST), the Trail Making Test - part B (TMTB), and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in patients with metastatic cancer. METHOD: Eighty adult patients and 81 healthy controls were assessed between July of 2010 and November of 2015. The neuropsychological tests were analyzed regarding construct/discriminant/criterion validity and reliability. RESULTS: In terms of construct validity, it was not possible to estimate a model for the MMSE because of a skewed response distribution. For discriminant validity, patients were slower on two measures of the CRT (p = 0.00483, p = 0.00030) and FTT dominant hand (p = 0.00306). Regarding sensitivity and specificity, only the DST and TMTB seemed to predict cognitive deficit; however, the ROC curve areas were ≤ 0.73. In terms of criterion validity, there were few significant correlations between the tests and the sociodemographic and clinical variables, and for the most part were very weak. Reliability was deemed to be adequate for the TMTB, DST, and FTT. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The findings of the full validation analyses were not clear-cut. However, CRT test, DST, FTT, and TMTB demonstrated partial positive results, indicating that these tests have good potential for use in clinical settings and require further study.

A randomised, multicentre clinical trial of specialised palliative care plus standard treatment versus standard treatment alone for cancer patients with palliative care needs: the Danish palliative care trial (DanPaCT) protocol.

BACKGROUND: Advanced cancer patients experience considerable symptoms, problems, and needs. Early referral of these patients to specialised palliative care (SPC) could improve their symptoms and problems.The Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT) investigates whether patients with metastatic cancer, who report palliative needs in a screening, will benefit from being referred to 'early SPC'. METHODS/DESIGN: DanPaCT is a clinical, multicentre, parallel-group superiority trial with balanced randomisation (1:1). The planned sample size is 300 patients. Patients are randomised to specialised palliative care (SPC) plus standard treatment versus standard treatment. Consecutive patients from oncology departments are screened for palliative needs with a questionnaire if they: a) have metastatic cancer; b) are 18 years or above; and c) have no prior contact with SPC. Patients with palliative needs (i.e. symptoms/problems exceeding a certain threshold) according to the questionnaire are eligible. The primary outcome is the change in the patients' primary need (the most severe symptom/problem measured with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30)). Secondary outcomes are other symptoms/problems (EORTC QLQ-C30), satisfaction with health care (FAMCARE P-16), anxiety and depression (the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale), survival, and health care costs. DISCUSSION: Only few trials have investigated the effects of SPC. To our knowledge DanPaCT is the first trial to investigate screening based 'early SPC' for patients with a broad spectrum of cancer diagnosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled Trials NCT01348048.

Switching from high doses of pure µ-opioid agonists to transdermal buprenorphine in patients with cancer: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Several myths on buprenorphine's pharmacology exist: possible analgesic ceiling effect, feasibility of combination with other opioid agonists, and the reversibility of side effects. Aim to evaluate: 1) if cancer patients receiving high doses of pure agonists could obtain adequate pain relief after switching to transdermal (TD) buprenorphine and 2) whether the numbers of breakthrough pain episodes after switching increased and whether they could be treated with the same doses of pure agonist as before switching. DESIGN: The prospective open multicenter study included outpatients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain satisfactorily controlled. SETTING: Patients were switched from the usual pure agonist to TD buprenorphine and were titrated to a stable dose. The assessments were: 1) daily self-assessment of pain intensity, numbers of rescue medications, and pain interference with sleep; 2) brief pain inventory; 3) pain relief and pain intensity; 4) quality of life; and 5) adverse events and symptoms. RESULTS: Eighteen patients receiving 150-516 mg of morphine/day were included. The buprenorphine dose at the end of the study varied between 52.5 and 140 µg/h. No difference in pain before and after switching was shown. The level of rescue doses was maintained. The patches were well tolerated. A significant decrease in fatigue and an increase in global health status were seen after the switch. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to switch cancer patients from high doses of pure µ-opioid agonists to TD buprenorphine without eliciting any antagonist effects, but the dose conversion factor is individual and the switching process should be tailored for the individual patient.

Non-analgesic effects of opioids: the cognitive effects of opioids in chronic pain of malignant and non-malignant origin. An update.

Opioids constitute the basis for pharmacological treatment of moderate to severe pain in cancer pain and non-cancer pain patients. Their action is mediated by the activation of opioid receptors, which integrates the pain modulation system with other effects in the central nervous system including cognition resulting in complex interactions between pain, opioids and cognition. The literature on this complexity is sparse and information regarding the cognitive effects of opioids in chronic pain patients is substantially lacking. Two previous systematic reviews on cancer pain and non-cancer pain patients only using controlled studies were updated. Fourteen controlled studies on the cognitive effects of opioids in chronic non-cancer pain patients and eleven controlled studies in cancer pain patients were included and analyzed. Opioid treatment involved slightly opposite outcomes in the two patient groups: no effects or worsening of cognitive function in cancer pain patients and no effect or improvements in the chronic non-cancer pain patients, however, due to methodological limitations and a huge variety of designs definite conclusions are difficult to draw from the studies. In studies of higher quality of evidence opioid induced deficits in cognitive functioning were associated with dose increase and the use of supplemental doses of opioids in cancer patients. Future perspectives should comprise the conduction of high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving relevant control groups and validated neuropsychological assessments tools before and after opioid treatment in order to further explore the complex interaction between pain, opioids and cognition.

The cognitive effects of opioids in cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: In order to better understand the effects of opioids on the cognitive function in cancer pain patients, a literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Lilacs databases. Ten controlled trials were selected and classified according to the study design, the level of evidence, and opioid regimen. RESULT: Six studies reported association between poor cognitive performance (reaction time, attention, balance, and memory) and opioid use. CONCLUSION: These cognitive deficits were captured with neuropsychological tests; however, their clinical relevance is still uncertain.

A randomized, open, parallel group, multicenter trial to investigate analgesic efficacy and safety of a new transdermal fentanyl patch compared to standard opioid treatment in cancer pain.

A new 72-hour transdermal fentanyl matrix patch has been designed, which has a 35%-50% reduction of the absolute fentanyl content compared with other currently available transdermal fentanyl patches that are using the matrix technology. The new patch has previously been shown to be pharmacokinetically bioequivalent to the marketed fentanyl patch. To determine noninferiority in efficacy in cancer patients and to compare safety, a clinical trial comparing the new fentanyl patch with standard oral or transdermal opioid treatment was planned. The design was an open, parallel group, multicenter trial, in which 220 patients were randomized to receive either the fentanyl patch or standard opioid treatment for 30 days. The primary efficacy variable, pain intensity (PI) on a 0-10-point numerical rating scale, was recorded once daily. The primary endpoint was the relative area under the curve of PI expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible PI area under the curve. Any adverse events were recorded; four tolerability endpoints, constipation, nausea, daytime drowsiness, and sleeping disturbances, were assessed daily. Noninferiority was shown; the upper 95% confidence interval limits of the mean difference in relative PI area under the curve between the fentanyl patch and standard opioid treatment were less than 10% for both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Scores for the tolerability endpoints were similar in the treatment groups. The new fentanyl matrix patch with a lower drug load was found noninferior and as safe as established standard oral and transdermal opioid treatment.

[Pain relief]. / Symptomlindring--smerter.

Pain in palliative patients demonstrates impact from many dimensions. This article focuses on pain and typical treatment problems in this respect. A pain analysis is mandatory before initiating pharmacological treatment. However, there are often problems with neuropathic and breakthrough pain. A special issue is the possible toxicity of opioids with acute tolerance and central nervous system sensitisation resulting in increased pain intensity. A key word in the treatment of opioid induced problems is opioid rotation. As pain is very dynamic, close monitoring is recommended.

[Cancer-related pain]. / Kraeftrelaterede smerter.

Pain is not the most frequent symptom in cancer patients, but it is considered the most serious and threatening symptom. Opioid analgesics are the mainstay for analgesic treatment of cancer patients. Methadone is increasingly being considered as an alternative to morphine and seems to become relatively more potent with increasing exposure to other opioids. "Newer" side effects of opioids have been demonstrated, including cognitive impairment, generalized allodynia/hyperalgesia, myoclonus and hallucinations. When the pain relief effects of oral opioids have been exhausted, other pain management approaches, including spinal delivery of analgesics, may be effective alternatives.