Cancer pain assessment and management: does an institutional approach individualise and reduce cost of care?

OBJECTIVES: To understand individual prescribing and associated costs in patients managed with the Edinburgh Pain Assessment and management Tool (EPAT). METHODS: The EPAT study was a two-arm parallel group cluster randomised (1:1) trial, including 19 UK cancer centres. Study outcome assessments, including pain levels, analgesia and non-pharmacological and anaesthetic interventions, collected at baseline, 3-5 days and, if applicable, 7-10 days after admission. Costs calculated for inpatient length of stay (LoS), medications and complex pain interventions. Analysis accounted for the clustered nature of the trial design. In this post-hoc analysis, healthcare utilisation and costs are presented descriptively. PARTICIPANTS: 10 centres randomised to EPAT (487 patients) and 9 (449 patients) to usual care (UC). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pharmacological and non-pharmacological management, complex pain interventions, length of hospital stay and costs related to these outcomes. RESULTS: The mean per patient hospital cost was £3866 with EPAT and £4194 with UC, reflecting a mean LoS of 2.9 days and 3.1 days, respectively. Costs were lower for non-opioids, Non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) and opioids but slightly higher for adjuvants with EPAT than with UC. The mean per-patient opioid costs were £17.90 (EPAT) and £25.80 (UC). Mean per patient costs of all medication were £36 (EPAT) and £40 (UC).Complex pain intervention costs were £117 with EPAT per patient and £90 with UC. Overall mean cost per patient was £4018.3 (95% CI 3698.9 to 4337.8) with EPAT and £4323.8 (95% CI 4060.0 to 4587.7) with UC. CONCLUSIONS: EPAT facilitated personalised medicine and may result in less opioids, more specific treatments, improved pain outcomes and cost savings.

Cancer pain: Results of a prospective study on prognostic indicators of pain intensity including pain syndromes assessment.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a prevalent symptom in patients with advanced cancer. Recognition of prognostic factors associated with pain intensity, could help provide better assessment, leading to better pain management. AIM: identifying prognostic factors which could guide improvements on cancer pain classification. DESIGN: a prospective observational study on chronic cancer pain, exploring the association between average mean pain intensity during a 28 days study follow-up and patients' clinical and pain-related characteristics, including pain syndromes. To evaluate these associations, a mixed model was built. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients attending a Palliative Care and Pain Outpatient Clinic from May 2015 to June 2019 were screened. Patients with moderate to severe cancer pain who were already receiving or needed treatment with third step WHO ladder opioids were enrolled in the study. Data from 342 patients with at least one follow-up visit were analyzed. RESULTS: Pain intensity decreased significantly for all patients during time (p < 0.001). Age, sex, emotional distress, pain duration and neuropathic pain presence evaluated by the Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) questionnaire were not significantly associated to pain intensity. Breakthrough/episodic pain was associated with higher pain intensity during follow-up (p < 0.001). The diagnosis of pain syndrome was overall significantly associated with mean pain intensity during follow-up (p = 0.016). Particularly, the concurrent presence of visceral and soft (p = 0.026) or soft and nervous tissue pain (p = 0.043) were significantly related to worse outcome, whereas pain due to only soft tissue damage with better outcome (p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: The recognition of specific pain syndromes may help to better classify cancer pain.

Neuropathic pain: clinical classification and assessment in patients with pain due to cancer.

ABSTRACT: Neuropathic cancer pain (NcP) is associated with worse treatment responses and specific therapy indications, but a standardized clinical diagnosis of NcP is still lacking. This is a prospective observational study on outpatients with cancer, comparing different clinical approaches with NcP evaluation. A three-step assessment of NcP was performed using DN4 (cutoff of 4), palliative care physician Clinical Impression, including etiology and pain syndrome identification, and Retrospective Clinical Classification by a board of specialists with the IASP Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group criteria. Neuropathic cancer pain classification was specifically referred to pain directly due to cancer. Three hundred fifty patients were assessed, and NcP prevalence was 20% (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.9%-24.6%), 36.9%, (95% CI 31.6%-42.1%), and 28.6% (95% CI 23.8%-33.9%) according to DN4, Clinical Impression, and Retrospective Clinical Classification, respectively. Cohen's kappa concordance coefficient between DN4 and Retrospective Clinical Classification was 0.57 (95% CI 0.47-0.67), indicating moderate concordance. Higher percentages of discordance were found for specific pain syndromes such as pain due to deep soft tissue infiltration and pain associated with tenesmus. Disagreement among clinicians accounted also for different NcP diagnoses and highlighted lack of homogeneous clinical criteria. Rigorous application of etiological and syndrome diagnosis to explain pain cause, associated with standardized diagnostic criteria and assessment of pain characteristics, that is also specific for the cancer pain condition could improve clinical classification of NcP.

PATIENT VOICES, a project for the integration of the systematic assessment of patient reported outcomes and experiences within a comprehensive cancer center: a protocol for a mixed method feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Listening to "patient voices" in terms of symptoms, emotional status and experiences with care, is crucial for patient empowerment in clinical practice. Despite convincing evidence that routine patient reported outcomes and experience measurements (PRMs) with rapid feed-back to oncologists can improve symptom control, patient well-being and cost effectiveness, PRMs are not commonly used in cancer care, due to barriers at various level. Part of these barriers may be overcome through electronic PRMs collection (ePRMs) integrated with the electronic medical record (EMR). The PATIENT VOICES initiative is aimed at achieving a stepwise integration of ePRMs assessment into routine cancer care. The feasibility project presented here is aimed at assessing the knowledge, use and attitudes toward PRMs in a comprehensive cancer centre; developing and assessing feasibility of a flexible system for ePRM assessment; identifying barriers to and developing strategies for implementation and integration of ePRMs clinical practice. METHODS: The project has been organized into four phases: a) pre-development; b) software development and piloting; c) feasibility assessment; d) post-development. A convergent mixed method design, based on concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection will be applied. A web-survey on health care providers (HCPs), qualitative studies on patients and HCPs (semi-structured interviews and focus groups) as well as longitudinal and cross-sectional quantitative studies will be carried out. The quantitative studies will enroll 600 patients: 200 attending out-patient clinics (physical symptom assessement), 200 attending inpatient wards (psychological distress assessment) and 200 patients followed by multidisciplinary teams (patient experience with care assessment). The Edmonton symptom assessment scale, the Distress Thermometer, and a tool adapted from existing patient reported experience with cancer care questionnaires, will be used in quantitative studies. A multi-disciplinary stakeholder team including researchers, clinicians, health informatics professionals, health system administrators and patients will be involved in the development of potentially effective implementation strategies in the post development phase. DISCUSSION: The documentation of potential advantages and implementation barriers achieved within this feasibility project, will serve as a starting point for future and more focused interventions aimed at achieving effective ePRMs routine assessment in cancer care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03968718 ) May 30th, 2019.

The EORTC CAT Core-The computer adaptive version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: To optimise measurement precision, relevance to patients and flexibility, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should ideally be adapted to the individual patient/study while retaining direct comparability of scores across patients/studies. This is achievable using item banks and computerised adaptive tests (CATs). The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) is one of the most widely used PROMs in cancer research and clinical practice. Here we provide an overview of the research program to develop CAT versions of the QLQ-C30's 14 functional and symptom domains. METHODS: The EORTC Quality of Life Group's strategy for developing CAT item banks consists of: literature search to identify potential candidate items; formulation of new items compatible with the QLQ-C30 item style; expert evaluations and patient interviews; field-testing and psychometric analyses, including factor analysis, item response theory calibration and simulation of measurement properties. In addition, software for setting up, running and scoring CAT has been developed. RESULTS: Across eight rounds of data collections, 9782 patients were recruited from 12 countries for the field-testing. The four phases of development resulted in a total of 260 unique items across the 14 domains. Each item bank consists of 7-34 items. Psychometric evaluations indicated higher measurement precision and increased statistical power of the CAT measures compared to the QLQ-C30 scales. Using CAT, sample size requirements may be reduced by approximately 20-35% on average without loss of power. CONCLUSIONS: The EORTC CAT Core represents a more precise, powerful and flexible measurement system than the QLQ-C30. It is currently being validated in a large independent, international sample of cancer patients.

A cross-sectional study examining the prevalence of cachexia and areas of unmet need in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: The semantics of defining cancer cachexia over the last decade has resulted in uncertainty as to the prevalence. This has further hindered the recognition and subsequent treatment of this condition. Following the consensus definition for cancer cachexia in 2011, there is now a need to establish estimates of prevalence. Therefore, the primary aim of the present study was to assess the prevalence of cachexia in an unselected cancer population. A secondary aim was to assess patient-perceived need of attention to cachexia. METHODS: A cross-sectional study in hospital patients was undertaken. Key inclusion criteria were the following: age > 18 years, cancer diagnosis, and no surgery the preceding 24 h. Data on demographics, disease, performance status, symptoms, cachexia, and patients' perceived need of attention to weight loss and nutrition were registered. RESULTS: Data were available on 386 of 426 eligible patients. Median age (IQR) was 65 years (56-72), 214 (55%) were male and 302 (78%) had a performance status of 0-1 (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group). Prevalence of cachexia (inpatients/outpatients) was 51/22%. Prevalence was highest in patients with gastrointestinal cancer (62/42%) and lung cancer (83/36%). There was no major difference in prevalence between patients with metastatic (55/24%) and localized disease (47/19%). Twenty percent of inpatients and 15% of outpatients wanted more attention to weight loss and nutrition. Cachexia (p < 0.001), symptoms of mood disorder (p < 0.001), and male gender (p < 0.01) were independently associated with increased need of attention. CONCLUSION: Cachexia is a prevalent condition, affecting both patients with localized and metastatic cancer. Clinical attention to the condition is a sizeable unmet need.

Automatic referral to standardize palliative care access: an international Delphi survey.

PURPOSE: Palliative care referral is primarily based on clinician judgment, contributing to highly variable access. Standardized criteria to trigger automatic referral have been proposed, but it remains unclear how best to apply them in practice. We conducted a Delphi study of international experts to identify a consensus for the use of standardized criteria to trigger automatic referral. METHODS: Sixty international experts stated their level of agreement for 14 statements regarding the use of clinician-based referral and automatic referral over two Delphi rounds. A consensus was defined as an agreement of ≥70% a priori. RESULTS: The response rate was 59/60 (98%) for the first round and 56/60 (93%) for the second round. Twenty-six (43%), 19 (32%), and 11 (18%) respondents were from North America, Asia/Australia, and Europe, respectively. The panel reached consensus that outpatient palliative care referral should be based on both automatic referral and clinician-based referral (agreement = 86%). Only 18% felt that referral should be clinician-based alone, and only 7% agreed that referral should be based on automatic referral only. There was consensus that automatic referral criteria may increase the number of referrals (agreement = 98%), facilitate earlier palliative care access, and help administrators to set benchmarks for quality improvement (agreement = 86%). CONCLUSIONS: Our panelists favored the combination of automatic referral to augment clinician-based referral. This integrated referral framework may inform policy and program development.

Depression-A Major Contributor to Poor Quality of Life in Patients With Advanced Cancer.

CONTEXT: Quality of life (QoL) and depression are important patient-reported outcomes in cancer care. However, the relative importance of depression severity in predicting QoL remains unclear because of few methodologically sound studies. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether depression contributes to impairment of QoL irrespective of prognostic factors and symptom burden. METHODS: A total of 563 patients were included from the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative-Computerized Symptom Assessment Study, an international, multi-center, cross-sectional study. The relative importance of prognostic factors (systemic inflammation [modified Glasgow Prognostic Score-mGPS]), co-morbidities and physical performance (Karnofsky Performance Status), symptom burden (loss of appetite, breathlessness, nausea [Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale], and pain [Brief Pain Inventory]), and depression severity (Patient Health Questionnaire 9) in predicting Global Health/QoL (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire [EORTC-QLQ-C30]) were assessed using hierarchical multiple regression models. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent were women, median age was 64 years, 87% had metastatic disease, median Karnofsky Performance Status was 70, and mean global QoL was 50.5 (SD = 23.3). Worse QoL was associated with increased systemic inflammation (mGPS = 1 ß = -0.12, P = 0.003; mGPS = 2 ß = -0.09, P = 0.023), lower physical performance (ß = 0.17, P < 0.001), reduced appetite (ß = -0.15, P < 0.001), breathlessness (ß = -0.11, P = 0.004), pain (ß = -0.14, P = 0.002), and higher depression severity (ß = -0.27, P < 0.001). The full model accounted for 29% of the observed variance in QoL scores. The strongest predictor was depression severity, accounting for 5.8% of the variance. CONCLUSION: Depression severity was the strongest single predictor of poorer QoL in this sample of patients with advanced cancer, after accounting for a wide range of clinically relevant variables. Future studies should investigate the contribution of psychosocial variables on QoL. Our findings emphasize the importance of managing depression to achieve the best possible QoL for these patients.

COMBAT study - Computer based assessment and treatment - A clinical trial evaluating impact of a computerized clinical decision support tool on pain in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The prevalence of pain in cancer patients are relatively high and indicate inadequate pain management strategies. Therefore, it is necessary to develop new methods and to improve implementation of guidelines to assess and treat pain. The vast improvement in information technology facilitated development of a computerized symptom assessment and decision support system (CCDS) - the Combat system - which was implemented in an outpatient cancer clinic to evaluate improvement in pain management. METHODS: We conducted a controlled before-and-after study between patient cohorts in two consecutive study periods: before (n=80) and after (n=134) implementation of the Combat system. Patients in the first cohort completed questionnaires with the paper-and-pencil method and this data was not shown to physicians. Patients in the latter cohort completed an electronic questionnaire by using an iPad and the data were automatically transferred and presented to physicians at point of care. Additionally, the system provided computerized decision support at point of care for the physician based on the electronic questionnaires completed by the patients, an electronic CRF completed by physicians and clinical guidelines. RESULTS: The Combat system did not improve pain intensity and there were no significant alterations in the prescribed dose of opiates compared to the cohort of patients managed without the Combat system. CONCLUSION: The Combat system did not improve pain management. This may be explained by several factors, however, we consider lack of proper implementation of the CCDS in the clinic to be the most important factor. As a result, we did not manage to change the behaviour of the physicians in the clinic. IMPLICATIONS: There is a need to conduct larger prospective studies to evaluate the efficacy of modern information technology to improve pain management in cancer patients. Before introducing new information technology in the clinics, it is important to have a well thought out implementation strategy. The trial is registered at Clinialtrials.gov, number NCT01795157.

Barriers to and facilitators for implementing quality improvements in palliative care - results from a qualitative interview study in Norway.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of quality improvements in palliative care (PC) is challenging, and detailed knowledge about factors that may facilitate or hinder implementation is essential for success. One part of the EU-funded IMPACT project (IMplementation of quality indicators in PAlliative Care sTudy) aiming to increase the knowledge base, was to conduct national studies in PC services. This study aims to identify factors perceived as barriers or facilitators for improving PC in cancer and dementia settings in Norway. METHODS: Individual, dual-participant and focus group interviews were conducted with 20 employees working in different health care services in Norway: two hospitals, one nursing home, and two local medical centers. Thematic analysis with a combined inductive and theoretical approach was applied. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators were connected to (1) the innovation (e.g. credibility, advantage, accessibility, attractiveness); (2) the individual professional (e.g. motivation, PC expertise, confidence); (3) the patient (e.g. compliance); (4) the social context (e.g. leadership, culture of change, face-to-face contact); (5) the organizational context (e.g. resources, structures/facilities, expertise); (6) the political and economic context (e.g. policy, legislation, financial arrangements) and (7) the implementation strategy (e.g. educational, meetings, reminders). Four barriers that were particular to PC were identified: the poor general condition of patients in need of PC, symptom assessment tools that were not validated in all patient groups, lack of PC expertise and changes perceived to be at odds with staff's philosophy of care. CONCLUSION: When planning an improvement project in PC, services should pay particular attention to factors associated with their chosen implementation strategy. Leaders should also involve staff early in the improvement process, ensure that they have the necessary training in PC and that the change is consistent with the staff's philosophy of care. An important consideration when implementing a symptom assessment tool is whether or not the tool has been validated for the relevant patient group, and to what degree patients need to be involved when using the tool.

Comparison of Site of Death, Health Care Utilization, and Hospital Expenditures for Patients Dying With Cancer in 7 Developed Countries.

IMPORTANCE: Differences in utilization and costs of end-of-life care among developed countries are of considerable policy interest. OBJECTIVE: To compare site of death, health care utilization, and hospital expenditures in 7 countries: Belgium, Canada, England, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study using administrative and registry data from 2010. Participants were decedents older than 65 years who died with cancer. Secondary analyses included decedents of any age, decedents older than 65 years with lung cancer, and decedents older than 65 years in the United States and Germany from 2012. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Deaths in acute care hospitals, 3 inpatient measures (hospitalizations in acute care hospitals, admissions to intensive care units, and emergency department visits), 1 outpatient measure (chemotherapy episodes), and hospital expenditures paid by insurers (commercial or governmental) during the 180-day and 30-day periods before death. Expenditures were derived from country-specific methods for costing inpatient services. RESULTS: The United States (cohort of decedents aged >65 years, N = 211,816) and the Netherlands (N = 7216) had the lowest proportion of decedents die in acute care hospitals (22.2.% and 29.4%, respectively). A higher proportion of decedents died in acute care hospitals in Belgium (N = 21,054; 51.2%), Canada (N = 20,818; 52.1%), England (N = 97,099; 41.7%), Germany (N = 24,434; 38.3%), and Norway (N = 6636; 44.7%). In the last 180 days of life, 40.3% of US decedents had an intensive care unit admission compared with less than 18% in other reporting nations. In the last 180 days of life, mean per capita hospital expenditures were higher in Canada (US $21,840), Norway (US $19,783), and the United States (US $18,500), intermediate in Germany (US $16,221) and Belgium (US $15,699), and lower in the Netherlands (US $10,936) and England (US $9342). Secondary analyses showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients older than 65 years who died with cancer in 7 developed countries in 2010, end-of-life care was more hospital-centric in Belgium, Canada, England, Germany, and Norway than in the Netherlands or the United States. Hospital expenditures near the end of life were higher in the United States, Norway, and Canada, intermediate in Germany and Belgium, and lower in the Netherlands and England. However, intensive care unit admissions were more than twice as common in the United States as in other countries.

The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System: Poor performance as screener for major depression in patients with incurable cancer.

BACKGROUND: Depressive symptoms are prevalent in patients with advanced cancer, sometimes of a severity that fulfil the criteria for a major depressive episode. AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate how the item on depression in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System with a 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale performed as a screener for major depressive episode. A possible improved performance by adding the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Anxiety item was also examined. DESIGN: An international cross-sectional study including patients with incurable cancer was conducted. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System score was compared against major depressive episode as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Screening performance was examined by sensitivity, specificity and the kappa coefficient. SETTING: Patients with incurable cancer (n = 969), median age 63 years and from eight nationalities provided report. Median Karnofsky Performance Status was 70. Median survival was 229 days (205-255 days). RESULTS: Patient Health Questionnaire-9 major depressive episode was present in 133 of 969 patients (13.7%). Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Depression screening ability for Patient Health Questionnaire-9 major depressive episode was limited. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.71 (0.66-0.76). Valid detection or exclusion of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 major depressive episode could not be concluded at any Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Depression cut-off; by the cut-off Numerical Rating Scale ⩾ 2, sensitivity was 0.69 and specificity was 0.60. By the cut-off Numerical Rating Scale ⩾ 4, sensitivity was 0.51 and specificity was 0.82. Combined mean ratings by Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Depression and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Anxiety revealed similar limited screening ability. CONCLUSION: The depression and anxiety items of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, a frequently used assessment tool in palliative care settings, seem to measure a construct other than major depressive episode as assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 instrument.

Self-report measurement of pain & symptoms in palliative care patients: a comparison of verbal, visual and hand scoring methods in Sub-Saharan Africa.

BACKGROUND: Despite a high incidence of life-limiting disease, there is a deficit of palliative care outcome evidence in sub-Saharan Africa. Providers of end of life care call for appropriate measurement tools. The objective is to compare four approaches to self-report pain and symptom measurement among African palliative care patients completing the African Palliative Care Association African Palliative Outcome Scale (APCA African POS). METHODS: Patients were recruited from five services (4 in South Africa and 1 in Uganda). Research nurses cross-sectionally administered POS pain and symptom items in local languages. Both questions were scored from 0 to 5 using 4 methods: verbal rating, demonstrating the score using the hand (H), selecting a face on a visual scale (F), and indicating a point on the Jerrycan visual scale (J). H, F and J scores were correlated with verbal scores as reference using Spearman's rank and weighted Kappa. A Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. RESULTS: 315 patients participated (mean age 43.5 years, 69.8% female), 71.1% were HIV positive and 35.6% had cancer, 49.2% lived in rural areas. Spearman's rank correlations for pain scores were: H: 0.879, F: 0.823, J: 0.728 (all p < 0.001); for symptoms H: 0.876, F: 0.808, J: 0.721 (all p < 0.001). Weighted Kappa for pain was H: 0.798, F: 0.719 J: 0.548 and for symptoms: H: 0.818, F: 0.718, J: 0.571. There was lower agreement between verbal and both hand and face scoring methods in the Ugandan sample. Compared to the verbal scale the accuracy of predicting high pain/symptoms was H > F > J (0.96-0.89) in ROC analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Hands and faces scoring methods correlate highly with verbal scoring. The Jerrycan method had only moderate weighted Kappa. POS scores can be reliably measured using hand or face score.

The use of antidepressants in patients with advanced cancer--results from an international multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: Depression is common in patients with advanced cancer; however, it is not often recognized and therefore not treated. The aims of this study were to examine the prevalence of the use of antidepressants (ADs) in an international cross-sectional study sample and to identify sociodemographic and medical variables associated with their use. METHODS: The study was conducted in patients with advanced cancer from 17 centres across eight countries. Healthcare professionals registered patient and disease-related characteristics. A dichotomous score (no/yes) was used to assess the use of ADs other than as adjuvant for pain. Self-report questionnaires from patients were used for the assessment of functioning and symptom intensity. RESULTS: Of 1051 patient records with complete data on ADs, 1048 were included (M:540/F:508, mean age 62 years, standard deviation [SD] 12). The majority were inpatients, and 85% had metastatic disease. The prevalence of AD use was 14%. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that younger age (odds ratio [OR] 2.46; confidence interval [CI] 1.32-4.55), female gender (OR 1.59; CI 1.09-2.33), current medication for pain (OR 2.68; CI 1.65-4.33) and presence of three or more co-morbidities (OR 4.74; CI 2.27-9.91) were associated with AD use for reasons other than pain. Disease-related variables (diagnoses, stage, Karnofsky Performance Status and survival) were not associated with the use of ADs. CONCLUSIONS: Female gender, younger age, analgesic use and multiple co-morbidities were associated with the use of ADs. However, information is still limited on which variables guide physicians in prescribing AD medication. Further longitudinal studies including details on psychiatric and medication history are needed to improve the identification of patients in need of ADs.

Comparisons of patient and physician assessment of pain-related domains in cancer pain classification: results from a large international multicenter study.

UNLABELLED: The aim of the present study is to compare physician clinical assessment with patient-rated evaluations in the classification of cancer pain patients into groups with different pain levels, according to the presence of incident/breakthrough pain, neuropathic pain, and psychological distress. Average pain in the previous 24 hours was used as the dependent variable in multivariate linear regression models, and incident/breakthrough pain, neuropathic pain, and psychological distress were tested as regressors; in the assessment of regressors, physicians used the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain, whereas patients used structured self-assessment questionnaires. The amount of variability in pain intensity scores explained by the 2 sets of regressors, physician and patient rated, was compared using R(2) values. When tested in 2 separate models, patient ratings explained 20.3% of variability (95% confidence interval [CI] = 15.2-25.3%), whereas physician ratings explained 6.1% (95% CI = 2.2-9.8%). The higher discriminative capability of patient ratings was still maintained when both regressor sets were introduced in the same model, with R(2) indices of 17.6% (95% CI = 13.0-22.2%) for patient ratings vs 3.4% (95% CI = .9-5.9%) for physician ratings. Patients' self-assessment of subjective symptoms should be integrated in future cancer pain classification systems. PERSPECTIVE: Our results indicate that patient-structured assessment of incident/breakthrough pain, neuropathic pain, and psychological distress significantly contributes to the discrimination of cancer patients with different pain levels. The integration of patient self-assessment tools with more objective clinician assessments can improve the classification of cancer pain.

Late radiation effects to the rectum and anus after treatment for prostate cancer; validity of the LENT/SOMA score.

BACKGROUND: The Late Effects Normal Tissue/Subjective Objective Management Analytic (LENT/SOMA) system for grading of side effects after radiotherapy was proposed several years ago. Only a few studies have previously been performed on the validity of the LENT/SOMA. The aim of the present study was to validate the LENT/SOMA scoring system for recto-anal side effects after treatment for prostate cancer in a randomized trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 875 patients with locally advanced prostate cancer were randomized to either hormonal treatment alone or hormonal treatment plus radiotherapy in the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 7 (SPCG-7) study. At least three years after treatment was started, the 178 patients that were randomized at St. Olavs Hospital were approached. One hundred and three patients of these accepted inclusion. The side effects according to LENT/SOMA were graded by oncologist and nurse. In addition, side effects were graded according to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (EORTC/RTOG) toxicity scale and patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires. Content/face validity, sensitivity and inter-rater reliability of the LENT/SOMA tables for rectum were analyzed. RESULTS: Content/face analysis of LENT/SOMA revealed serious problems. Significant correlations (Spearman's rho > 0.4) were found between three of 15 LENT/SOMA items and similar HRQOL items. LENT/SOMA score made it possible to detect significant differences between the two groups of patients (p < 0.001), EORTC/RTOG toxicity score did not (p = 0.138). Inter-rater reliability was acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: LENT/SOMA scoring system for recto-anal side effects after radiotherapy for prostate cancer displays serious difficulties in the present study. Replacement of LENT/SOMA tables for rectum by a combination of patient-reported HRQOL questionnaires, clinical examination and objective physiological measurements might be called for.

Neuropathic cancer pain: prevalence, severity, analgesics and impact from the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative-Computerised Symptom Assessment study.

BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain causes greater pain intensity and worse quality of life than nociceptive pain. There are no published data that confirm this in the cancer population. AIM: We hypothesised that patients with neuropathic cancer pain had more intense pain, experienced greater suffering and were treated with more analgesics than those with nociceptive cancer pain, and a neuropathic pain screening tool, painDETECT, would perform as well in those with cancer pain as is reported in those with non-cancer pain. DESIGN: The data were obtained from an international cross-sectional observational study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1051 patients from inpatients and outpatients, with incurable cancer completed a computerised assessment on symptoms, function and quality of life. In all, 17 centres within eight countries participated. Medical data were recorded by physicians. Pain type was a clinical diagnosis recorded on the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain. RESULTS: Of the patients, 670 had pain: 534 with nociceptive pain, 113 with neuropathic pain and 23 were unclassified. Patients with neuropathic cancer pain were significantly more likely to be receiving oncological treatment, strong opioids and adjuvant analgesia and have a reduced performance status. They reported worse physical, cognitive and social function. Sensitivity and specificity of painDETECT for identifying neuropathic cancer pain was less accurate than when used in non-cancer populations. CONCLUSIONS: Neuropathic cancer pain is associated with a negative impact on daily living and greater analgesic requirements than nociceptive cancer pain. Validated assessment methods are needed to enable early identification of neuropathic cancer pain, leading to more appropriate treatment and reduced burden on patients.

Computer-based symptom assessment is feasible in patients with advanced cancer: results from an international multicenter study, the EPCRC-CSA.

CONTEXT: Symptom assessment by computers is only effective if it provides valid results and is perceived as useful for clinical use by the end users: patients and health care providers. OBJECTIVES: To identify factors associated with discontinuation, time expenditure, and patient preferences of the computerized symptom assessment used in an international multicenter data collection project: the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative-Computerized Symptom Assessment. METHODS: Cancer patients with incurable metastatic or locally advanced disease were recruited from 17 centers in eight countries, providing 1017 records for analyses. Observer-based registrations and patient-reported measures on pain, depression, and physical function were entered on touch screen laptop computers. RESULTS: The entire assessment was completed by 94.9% (n = 965), with median age 63 years (range 18-91 years) and median Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score of 70 (range 20-100). Predictive factors for noncompletion were higher age, lower KPS, and more pain (P ≤ 0.012). Time expenditure among completers increased with higher age, male gender, Norwegian nationality, number of comorbidities, and lower physical functioning (P ≤ 0.007) but was inversely related to pain levels and tiredness (P ≤ 0.03). Need for assistance was predicted by higher age, nationality other than Norwegian, lower KPS, and lower educational level (P < 0.001). More than 50% of patients preferred computerized assessment to a paper and pencil version. CONCLUSION: The high completion rate shows that symptom assessment by computers is feasible in patients with advanced cancer. However, reduced performance status reduces compliance and increases the need for assistance. Future work should aim at identifying the minimum set of valid screening questions and refine the software to optimize symptom assessment and reduce respondent burden in frail patients.