Exploration of pain assessment and management processes in oncology outpatient services with healthcare professionals: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: This study explored cancer pain management practices and clinical care pathways used by healthcare professionals (HCPs) to understand the barriers and facilitators for standardised pain management in oncology outpatient services (OS). DESIGN: Data were collected using semistructured interviews that were audio-recorded and transcribed. The data were analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING: Three NHS trusts with oncology OS in Northern England. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty HCPs with varied roles (eg, oncologist and nurse) and experiences (eg, registrar and consultant) from different cancer site clinics (eg, breast and lung). Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: HCPs discussed cancer pain management practices during consultation and supporting continuity of care beyond consultation. Key findings included : (1) HCPs' level of clinical experience influenced pain assessments; (2) remote consulting impeded experienced HCPs to do detailed pain assessments; (3) diffusion of HCP responsibility to manage cancer pain; (4) nurses facilitated pain management support with patients and (5) continuity of care for pain management was constrained by the integration of multidisciplinary teams. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate HCP cancer pain management practices varied and were unstructured. Recommendations are made for a standardised cancer pain management intervention: (1) detailed evaluation of pain with a tailored self-management strategy; (2) implementation of a structured pain assessment that supports remote consultations, (3) pain assessment tool that can support both experienced and less experienced clinicians. These findings will inform the development of a cancer pain management tool to integrate within routine oncology OS.

Identifying ways to improve diabetes management during cancer treatments (INDICATE): protocol for a qualitative interview study with patients and clinicians.

INTRODUCTION: A large and growing number of patients with cancer have comorbid diabetes. Cancer and its treatment can adversely impact glycaemic management and control, and there is accumulating evidence that suboptimal glycaemic control during cancer treatment is a contributory driver of worse cancer-related outcomes in patients with comorbid diabetes. Little research has sought to understand, from the perspective of patients and clinicians, how and why different aspects of cancer care and diabetes care can complicate or facilitate each other, which is key to informing interventions to improve diabetes management during cancer treatments. This study aims to identify and elucidate barriers and enablers to effective diabetes management and control during cancer treatments, and potential intervention targets and strategies to address and harness these, respectively. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Qualitative interviews will be conducted with people with diabetes and comorbid cancer (n=30-40) and a range of clinicians (n=30-40) involved in caring for this patient group (eg, oncologists, diabetologists, specialist nurses, general practitioners). Semistructured interviews will examine participants' experiences of and perspectives on diabetes management and control during cancer treatments. Data will be analysed using framework analysis. Data collection and analysis will be informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, and related Theory and Techniques Tool and Behaviour Change Wheel, to facilitate examination of a comprehensive range of barriers and enablers and support identification of pertinent and feasible intervention approaches. Study dates: January 2021-January 2023. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has approval from National Health Service (NHS) West Midlands-Edgbaston Research Ethics Committee. Findings will be presented to lay, clinical, academic and NHS and charity service-provider audiences via dissemination of written summaries and presentations, and published in peer-reviewed journals. Findings will be used to inform development and implementation of clinical, health services and patient-management intervention strategies to optimise diabetes management and control during cancer treatments.

Aspirin as an adjuvant treatment for cancer: feasibility results from the Add-Aspirin randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical, epidemiological, and randomised data indicate that aspirin might prevent tumour development and metastasis, leading to reduced cancer mortality, particularly for gastro-oesophageal and colorectal cancer. Randomised trials evaluating aspirin use after primary radical therapy are ongoing. We present the pre-planned feasibility analysis of the run-in phase of the Add-Aspirin trial to address concerns about toxicity, particularly bleeding after radical treatment for gastro-oesophageal cancer. METHODS: The Add-Aspirin protocol includes four phase 3 randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of daily aspirin on recurrence and survival after radical cancer therapy in four tumour cohorts: gastro-oesophageal, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer. An open-label run-in phase (aspirin 100 mg daily for 8 weeks) precedes double-blind randomisation (for participants aged under 75 years, aspirin 300 mg, aspirin 100 mg, or matched placebo in a 1:1:1 ratio; for patients aged 75 years or older, aspirin 100 mg or matched placebo in a 2:1 ratio). A preplanned analysis of feasibility, including recruitment rate, adherence, and toxicity was performed. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry (ISRCTN74358648) and remains open to recruitment. FINDINGS: After 2 years of recruitment (October, 2015, to October, 2017), 3494 participants were registered (115 in the gastro-oesophageal cancer cohort, 950 in the colorectal cancer cohort, 1675 in the breast cancer cohort, and 754 in the prostate cancer cohort); 2719 (85%) of 3194 participants who had finished the run-in period proceeded to randomisation, with rates consistent across tumour cohorts. End of run-in data were available for 2253 patients; 2148 (95%) of the participants took six or seven tablets per week. 11 (0·5%) of the 2253 participants reported grade 3 toxicity during the run-in period, with no upper gastrointestinal bleeding (any grade) in the gastro-oesophageal cancer cohort. The most frequent grade 1-2 toxicity overall was dyspepsia (246 [11%] of 2253 participants). INTERPRETATION: Aspirin is well-tolerated after radical cancer therapy. Toxicity has been low and there is no evidence of a difference in adherence, acceptance of randomisation, or toxicity between the different cancer cohorts. Trial recruitment continues to determine whether aspirin could offer a potential low cost and well tolerated therapy to improve cancer outcomes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme, The MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL.