Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain: Comparison of Pain Classification Features and Pain Intensity across Diverse Palliative Care Settings in Canada.

Background: The goal of the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain (ECS-CP) is to create an international classification system for cancer pain. Previous studies reinforce the need for standardized training to ensure consistency across assessors. There is no universally accepted classification for neuropathic pain. Objectives: Our primary objective was to describe the prevalence of ECS-CP features in a diverse sample of advanced cancer patients, using assessors with standardized training. The secondary objectives were to: (1) determine the prevalence of neuropathic pain using the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG) criteria and (2) examine the relationship between specific predictors: ECS-CP features, age, Palliative Performance Scale, Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (MEDD), setting, and pain intensity; and neuropathic pain. Methods: A total of 1050 adult patients with advanced cancer were recruited from 11 Canadian sites. A clinician completed the ECS-CP and NeuPSIG criteria, and collected additional information including demographics and pain intensity (now). All assessors received standardized training. Results: Of 1050 evaluable patients, 910 (87%) had cancer pain: nociceptive (n = 626; 68.8%); neuropathic (n = 227; 24.9%); incident (n = 329; 36.2%); psychological distress (n = 209; 23%); addictive behavior (n = 51; 5.6%); and normal cognition (n = 639; 70.2%). The frequencies of ECS-CP features and pain intensity scores varied across sites and settings, with more acute settings having higher frequencies of complex pain features. The overall frequency of neuropathic pain was 24.9%, ranging from 11% (hospices) to 34.2% (palliative outpatient clinic) across settings. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that age <60 years, MEDD ≥19 mg, pain intensity ≥7/10, and incident pain were significant independent predictors of neuropathic pain (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The ECS-CP was able to detect salient pain features across settings. Furthermore, the frequencies of neuropathic pain utilizing the NeuPSIG criteria fits within the lower-end of literature estimates (13%-40%). Further research is warranted to validate the NeuPSIG criteria in cancer pain.

What is stable pain control? A prospective longitudinal study to assess the clinical value of a personalized pain goal.

BACKGROUND: A universal consensus regarding standardized pain outcomes does not exist. The personalized pain goal has been suggested as a clinically relevant outcome measure. AIM: To assess the feasibility of obtaining a personalized pain goal and to compare a clinically based personalized pain goal definition versus a research-based study definition for stable pain. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal descriptive study. MEASURES: The attending physician completed routine assessments, including a personalized pain goal and the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain, and followed patients daily until stable pain control, death, or discharge. Stable pain for cognitively intact patients was defined as pain intensity less than or equal to desired pain intensity goal (personalized pain goal definition) or pain intensity ⩽3 (Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain study definition) for three consecutive days with <3 breakthroughs per day. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 300 consecutive advanced cancer patients were recruited from two acute care hospitals and a tertiary palliative care unit. RESULTS: In all, 231/300 patients (77%) had a pain syndrome; 169/231 (73%) provided a personalized pain goal, with 113/169 (67%) reporting a personalized pain goal ⩽3 (median = 3, range = 0-10). Using the personalized pain goal definition as the gold standard, sensitivity and specificity of the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain definition were 71.3% and 98.5%, respectively. For mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), and severe (7-10) pain, the highest sensitivity was for moderate pain (90.5%), with high specificity across all three categories (95%-100%). CONCLUSION: The personalized pain goal is a feasible outcome measure for cognitively intact patients. The Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain definition closely resembles patient-reported personalized pain goals for stable pain and would be appropriate for research purposes. For clinical pain management, it would be important to include the personalized pain goal as standard practice.