Psychosocial characteristics of chronic pain in cancer survivors referred to an Australian multidisciplinary pain clinic.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical and psychosocial characteristics of chronic pain in cancer survivors referred to one Australian hospital's ambulatory pain clinic over a 7-year period (2013-19), and to compare cancer treatment-related pain with comorbid non-malignant pain. METHOD: Retrospective chart review including responses to standardized self-report questionnaires (Brief Pain Inventory, Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, Pain Catastrophizing Scale), routinely collected in all patients referred to pain clinics at Australian and New Zealand hospitals. RESULTS: Of 3510 new referrals during the study period, 267 (7.5%) had a history of cancer and 176 (5.0%) met the study's eligibility criteria. Their average age was 63 ± 13 years, with 55% female. Breast cancer survivors were commonest, followed by hematological, prostate, melanoma, and colorectal, a median of 3 years post-diagnosis. Pain was attributed to cancer treatment in 87 (49%), surgery being the commonest modality. Multimodal treatment (n = 89, 58%) was significantly commoner in the treatment-related pain group (p < 0.001). Average pain severity was moderate, as was pain-related disability and distress. Pain cognitions were often maladaptive (low pain self-efficacy, high pain catastrophizing), predicted by pre-existing anxiety and depression. Associations between pain cognitions and outcomes were medium-to-large. Differences between treatment pain and comorbid pain were small-to-medium. Their scores were similar to Australian pain clinic norms. CONCLUSION: Cancer treatment causes tissue damage, but pain-related distress and disability in survivors is associated with maladaptive pain cognitions. Survivors with poor pain outcomes should be evaluated for unhelpful thoughts and beliefs especially when they have pre-existing depression or anxiety.

A qualitative trajectory analysis of patients' experiences tapering opioids for chronic pain.

ABSTRACT: Tapering opioids for chronic pain can be challenging for both patients and prescribers, both of whom may be unsure of what to expect in terms of pain, distress, activity interference, and withdrawal symptoms over the first few weeks and months of the taper. To better prepare clinicians to provide patient-centred tapering support, the current research used prospective longitudinal qualitative methods to capture individual-level variation in patients' experience over the first few months of a voluntary physician-guided taper. The research aimed to identify patterns in individuals' experience of tapering and explore whether patient characteristics, readiness to taper, opioid tapering self-efficacy, or psychosocial context were related to tapering trajectory. Twenty-one patients with chronic noncancer pain commencing tapering of long-term opioid therapy were recruited from a metropolitan tertiary pain clinic (n = 13) and a regional primary care practice (n = 8). Semistructured phone interviews were conducted a mean of 8 times per participant over a mean duration of 12 weeks (N = 173). Four opioid-tapering trajectories were identified, which we characterised as thriving, resilient, surviving, and distressed. High and low readiness to taper was a defining characteristic of thriving and distressed trajectories, respectively. Life adversity was a prominent theme of resilient and distressed trajectories, with supportive relationships buffering the effects of adversity for those who followed a resilient trajectory. Discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for the preparation and support of patients with chronic pain who are commencing opioid tapering.

Prognostic value of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Prognostic Score in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The Memorial Sloan Kettering Prognostic Score (MPS), a composite of the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and albumin, is an objective prognostic tool created as a more readily available alternative to the Glasgow Prognostic Score. A prior analysis of patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) suggested that the MPS may predict survival, although it did not control for clinically relevant factors. METHODS: MPS scores were calculated for patients with mPDAC treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2014. An MPS scale of 0 to 2 was used: 0 for an albumin level ≥ 4 g/dL and an NLR ≤ 4 g/dL, 1 for either an albumin level < 4 g/dL or an NLR > 4 g/dL, and 2 for an albumin level < 4 g/dL and an NLR > 4 g/dL. Performance status, antineoplastic therapy, presence of thromboembolism (TE), radiation therapy, and metastatic sites were also analyzed. The associations with overall survival were examined with time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. RESULTS: A multivariate model revealed that higher MPS scores at diagnosis (hazard ratio for MPS of 2 vs MPS of 0, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.76), liver metastases, radiation therapy, hospital admissions, TE, and performance status were associated with worse overall survival. The median overall survival for patients with MPS scores of 0, 1, and 2 were 12.9, 9.0, and 5.4 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The MPS, an easily calculated composite of the NLR and albumin, is an objective tool that may predict survival in mPDAC independently of performance status, disease characteristics, and cancer therapy. LAY SUMMARY: The Memorial Sloan Kettering Prognostic Score (MPS) is a new scoring system that incorporates markers of inflammation found in individuals' blood at the diagnosis of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Data suggest that the MPS may help to determine prognosis.

Screening Patients With Cancer Admitted to Hanoi Medical University Hospital for Palliative Care Needs.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a screening tool for identifying which patients admitted to the oncology ward of a Vietnamese hospital should be referred to specialist palliative care (PC). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey of consecutive patients hospitalized in the Department of Oncology and Palliative Care at Hanoi Medical University Hospital between June 2019 and September 2019. We translated a validated 11-item screening tool into Vietnamese and used a total score of ≥ 5 as a positive screen. RESULTS: One hundred participants were recruited. Forty-four patients (44%) screened positive. Of these, 37 (84%) had locally advanced or metastatic disease, 31 (70%) had uncontrolled symptoms, and 43 (98%) requested a PC consultation. A score ≥ 5 was significantly more common in patients with stage IV disease versus earlier stage, performance status of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 2 versus ECOG 0, and when life-limiting complications of cancer were present. Screening identified four patients overlooked by oncologists as needing referral, and 34% of patients requesting a referral had scores < 5. CONCLUSION: This screening tool provided oncologists with easy-to-use criteria for referring patients for PC. At the same time, it relieved the work load for under-resourced PC physicians by screening out requests with low-level need. This tool should be part of routine assessment on admission in all oncology units in Vietnam.

Information Framing Reduces Initial Negative Attitudes in Cancer Patients' Decisions About Hospice Care.

BACKGROUND: Negative attitudes toward hospice care might prevent patients with cancer from discussing and choosing hospice as they approach end of life. When making a decision, people often naturally focus on either expected benefits or the avoidance of harm. Behavioral research has demonstrated that framing information in an incongruent manner with patients' underlying motivational focus reduces their negative attitudes toward a disliked option. OBJECTIVE: Our study tests this communication technique with cancer patients, aiming to reduce negative attitudes toward a potentially beneficial but often-disliked option, that is, hospice care. METHODS: Patients (n = 42) with active cancer of different types and/or stages completed a paper survey. Participants read a vignette about a patient with advanced cancer and a limited prognosis. In the vignette, the physician's advice to enroll in a hospice program was randomized, creating a congruent message or an incongruent message with patients' underlying motivational focus (e.g., a congruent message for someone most interested in benefits focuses on the benefits of hospice, whereas an incongruent message for this patient focuses on avoiding harm). Patients' attitudes toward hospice were measured before and after receiving the physician's advice. RESULTS: Regression analyses indicated that information framing significantly influenced patients with strong initial negative attitudes. Patients were more likely to reduce intensity of their initial negative attitude about hospice when receiving an incongruent message (b = -0.23; P < 0.01) than a congruent one (b = -0.13; P = 0.08). CONCLUSION: This finding suggests a new theory-driven approach to conversations with cancer patients who may harbor negative reactions toward hospice care.

Work Experiences of Patients Receiving Palliative Care at a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Exploratory Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Employment-related issues have been largely overlooked in cancer patients needing palliative care. These issues may become more relevant as cancer evolves into more of a chronic illness and palliative care is provided independent of stage or prognosis. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the employment situations of working-age palliative care patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey setting/subjects: Consecutive sample of 112 patients followed in palliative care outpatient clinics at a comprehensive cancer center. MEASUREMENTS: Thirty-seven-item self-report questionnaire covering demographics, clinical status, and work experiences since diagnosis. RESULTS: The commonest cancer diagnoses were breast, colorectal, gynecological, and lung. Eighty-one percent had active disease. Seventy-four percent were on treatment. Eighty percent recalled being employed at the time of diagnosis, with 65% working full time. At the time of the survey, 44% were employed and 26% were working full time. Most participants said work was important, made them feel normal, and helped them feel they were "beating the cancer". Factors associated with being employed included male gender, self-employed, and taking less than three months off work. Respondents with pain and/or other symptoms were significantly less likely to be working. On multivariate analysis, only pain (odds ratio [OR] 8.16, p < 0.001) and other physical symptoms (OR 5.90, p = 0.012) predicted work status; gender (OR 2.07), self-employed (OR 3.07), and current chemotherapy (OR 1.81) were included in the model, but were not statistically significant in this small sample. CONCLUSION: Work may be an important issue for some palliative care patients. Additional research is needed to facilitate ongoing employment for those who wish or need to continue working.

Using a Non-Fit Message Helps to De-Intensify Negative Reactions to Tough Advice.

Sometimes physicians need to provide patients with potentially upsetting advice. For example, physicians may recommend hospice for a terminally ill patient because it best meets their needs, but the patient and their family dislike this advised option. We explore whether regulatory non-fit could be used to improve these types of situations. Across five studies in which participants imagined receiving upsetting advice from a physician, we demonstrate that regulatory non-fit between the form of the physician's advice (emphasizing gains vs. avoiding losses) and the participants' motivational orientation (promotion vs. prevention) improves participants' evaluation of an initially disliked option. Regulatory non-fit de-intensifies participants' initial attitudes by making them less confident in their initial judgments and motivating them to think more thoroughly about the arguments presented. Furthermore, consistent with previous research on regulatory fit, we showed that the mechanism of regulatory non-fit differs as a function of participants' cognitive involvement in the evaluation of the option.

Validation of a Simple Screening Tool for Identifying Unmet Palliative Care Needs in Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) palliative care (PC) guideline recommends PC screening for all patients and provides criteria for identifying those in need of referral to a PC specialist. This two-step process has not yet been validated as accurately identifying patients in need. The aim of this study was to validate a simplified method for screening and referral based on the existing guideline criteria. METHODS: An 11-item screening tool was created, with scores from 0 to 14. Content validity was assessed by a panel of local PC experts. Construct and criterion validities were evaluated using data obtained from a previous study of guideline-based screening and referral. RESULTS: Content validity of the tool was high, with eight items rated as essential. Patients who were closer to death had significantly higher scores, indicating its construct validity. Scores were also higher in patients who were identified as needing a consult and in those who had worse pain and other symptoms, indicating its criterion validity. Using a score of ≥ 5 as the trigger, approximately one third of hospitalized patients in the previous study would have been referred to a PC specialist, twice as many as occurred when the attending oncologist relied on his or her clinical judgment. CONCLUSION: The tool seems to be a valid method for identifying patients with cancer with complex PC needs who would benefit from a PC consult. Reliability testing, external validation, and demonstration of the utility of the tool as a decision aid all await confirmation.

Pain in cancer survivors.

Pain is a common problem in cancer survivors, especially in the first few years after treatment. In the longer term, approximately 5% to 10% of survivors have chronic severe pain that interferes with functioning. The prevalence is much higher in certain subpopulations, such as breast cancer survivors. All cancer treatment modalities have the potential to cause pain. Currently, the approach to managing pain in cancer survivors is similar to that for chronic cancer-related pain, pharmacotherapy being the principal treatment modality. Although it may be appropriate to continue strong opioids in survivors with moderate to severe pain, most pain problems in cancer survivors will not require them. Moreover, because more than 40% of cancer survivors now live longer than 10 years, there is growing concern about the long-term adverse effects of opioids and the risks of misuse, abuse, and overdose in the nonpatient population. As with chronic nonmalignant pain, multimodal interventions that incorporate nonpharmacologic therapies should be part of the treatment strategy for pain in cancer survivors, prescribed with the aim of restoring functionality, not just providing comfort. For patients with complex pain issues, multidisciplinary programs should be used, if available. New or worsening pain in a cancer survivor must be evaluated to determine whether the cause is recurrent disease or a second malignancy. This article focuses on patients with a history of cancer who are beyond the acute diagnosis and treatment phase and on common treatment-related pain etiologies. The benefits and harms of the various pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic options for pain management in this setting are reviewed.

Effects of denosumab on pain and analgesic use in giant cell tumor of bone: interim results from a phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) is an aggressive primary osteolytic tumor. GCTB often involves the epiphysis, usually causing substantial pain and functional disability. Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against receptor activator of nuclear factor κΒ ligand (RANKL), is an effective treatment option for patients with advanced GCTB. This analysis of data from an ongoing, open-label study describes denosumab's effects on pain and analgesic use in patients with GCTB. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with unresectable disease (e.g. sacral or spinal GCTB, or multiple lesions including pulmonary metastases) were enrolled into Cohort 1 (N = 170), and patients with resectable disease whose planned surgery was associated with severe morbidity (e.g. joint resection, limb amputation, or hemipelvectomy) were enrolled into Cohort 2 (N = 101). Patients received denosumab (120 mg) subcutaneously every four weeks, with additional doses on study days 8 and 15. Patients assessed worst pain severity with the Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form (BPI-SF) at baseline, at each visit for the first six months, and every three months thereafter. RESULTS: Clinically relevant pain improvement was reported by 29% of patients in Cohort 1 and 35% in Cohort 2 during week 1 and by ≥ 50% of patients in each cohort at each study visit from months 2-30. Median time to clinically relevant improvement was 30 (95% CI 16, 57) days in Cohort 1 and 15 (95% CI 15, 29) days in Cohort 2. Results in patients with moderate/severe pain at baseline were similar. Fewer than 30% of patients in Cohort 1 and 10% in Cohort 2 experienced clinically relevant pain worsening at any visit through 27 months. Most patients had no/low analgesic use during the study. CONCLUSION: Most patients treated with denosumab experienced clinically relevant decreases in pain within two months.

The median informs the message: accuracy of individualized scenarios for survival time based on oncologists' estimates.

PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy and usefulness of oncologists' estimates of survival time in individual patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-one oncologists estimated the "median survival of a group of identical patients" for each of 114 patients with advanced cancer. Accuracy was defined by the proportions of patients with an observed survival time bounded by prespecified multiples of their estimated survival time. We expected 50% to live longer (or shorter) than their oncologist's estimate (calibration), 50% to live from half to double their estimate (typical scenario), 5% to 10% to live ≤ one quarter of their estimate (worst-case scenario), and 5% to 10% to live three or more times their estimate (best-case scenario). Estimates within 0.67 to 1.33 times observed survival were deemed precise. Discriminative value was assessed with Harrell's C-statistic and prognostic significance with proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Median survival time was 11 months. Oncologists' estimates were relatively well-calibrated (61% shorter than observed), imprecise (29% from 0.67 to 1.33 times observed), and moderately discriminative (Harrell C-statistic 0.63; P = .001). The proportion of patients with an observed survival half to double their oncologist's estimate was 63%, ≤ one quarter of their oncologist's estimate was 6%, and three or more times their oncologist's estimate was 14%. Independent predictors of observed survival were oncologist's estimate (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.92; P = .004), dry mouth (HR = 5.1; P < .0001), alkaline phosphatase more than 101 U/L (HR = 2.8; P = .0002), Karnofsky performance status ≤ 70 (HR = 2.3; P = .007), prostate primary (HR = 0.23; P = .002), and steroid use (HR = 2.4; P = .02). CONCLUSION: Oncologists' estimates of survival time were relatively well-calibrated, moderately discriminative, independently associated with observed survival, and a reasonable basis for estimating worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival.

Early implementation of palliative care can improve patient outcomes.

Patients with cancer experience many complex issues throughout the trajectory of the disease. These range from the physical consequences of cancer and treatment to the psychological, social, and spiritual issues associated with living with the disease. An individualized, comprehensive, and interdisciplinary approach is needed to reduce patient suffering and ensure appropriate symptom management and support from the time of first diagnosis to end of life. Data from randomized clinical trials prove that patients provided with early palliative care can experience relief of symptoms and improvements in quality of life, mood, satisfaction, resource use, and advanced care planning. Professional organizations such as ASCO have begun to develop recommendations that integrate palliative care into standard oncologic care from the time a person is diagnosed with metastatic or advanced cancer. NCCN has a palliative care guideline that recommends early and ongoing assessment of palliative care needs and referral to specialist palliative care services in more complex cases. In turn, oncologists need to consider how best to screen patients and integrate early palliative care with routine oncologic care, within the context of their busy clinics, to ensure that patients, families, and caregivers receive timely support.

Palliative care in the outpatient oncology setting: evaluation of a practical set of referral criteria.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network's (NCCN) palliative care (PC) guidelines recommend screening all patients for PC issues at the first visit with their oncologist and at subsequent, clinically relevant times. Criteria for referral to a PC specialist are also part of the guideline. We evaluated the feasibility of screening for PC needs in outpatients attending one GI oncology practice specializing in colorectal cancer and neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS: All patients attending clinic during a 3-week period were screened by the office practice nurse (OPN). A one-page screening tool based on the NCCN guidelines was developed, giving a score from 0 to 13. The OPN also evaluated the NCCN referral criteria. RESULTS: There were 152 clinic visits by 125 patients during the surveillance period; 119 were screened. Median age was 61 years; half were male. Eighty percent had colorectal cancer, and two thirds had advanced disease. Screening took approximately 3 to 5 minutes per patient. Depending on the PC definition used, between 7% and 17% of patients screened positive; all met the NCCN referral criteria. Psychosocial distress was commoner than physical symptoms. The maximum screening score was 8. A cut point of 5 had the best predictive value for specialist referral, and would result in 13% patients having PC consultations. CONCLUSION: Screening identified 7% to 17% of patients in this busy clinic as having PC issues and 13% who might benefit from specialist referral. But even this simple method adds considerably to the clinic workload, so the benefits of implementing routine screening need to be carefully evaluated.

A framework for generalizability in palliative care.

Palliative medicine has only recently joined the ranks of evidence-based medical subspecialties. Palliative medicine is a rapidly evolving field, which is quickly moving to redress its historical paucity of high-quality research evidence. This burgeoning evidence base can help support the application of evidence-based principles in palliative and hospice clinical care and service delivery. New knowledge is generally taken into practice relatively slowly by established practitioners. At present, the translation of evidence into palliative and hospice care clinical practice lags behind emerging research evidence in palliative care at even greater rates for three critical reasons: 1) the application of research results to specific clinical subpopulations is complicated by the heterogeneity of palliative care study subpopulations and by the lack of a recognized schema for describing populations or services; 2) definitional issues in service provision are, at best, confusing; and 3) fundamental research concepts (e.g., external validity, effect size, generalizability, applicability) are difficult to apply meaningfully in palliative care. This article provides a suggested framework for classifying palliative care research subpopulations and the clinical subpopulations to which the research findings are being applied to improve the ability of clinicians, health planners, and funders to interpret and apply palliative care research in real-world settings. The framework has five domains: patients and caregivers; health professionals; service issues; health and social policy; and research.

Treatment of nausea and vomiting in terminally ill cancer patients.

Nausea and vomiting is a common and distressing symptom complex in patients with far-advanced cancer, affecting up to 60% of individuals at some stage of their illness. The current approach to the palliative care of patients with nausea and vomiting is based on identifying the cause, understanding its pathophysiology and knowing the pharmacology of the drugs available for its amelioration. The following six main syndromes are identified: gastric stasis, biochemical, raised intracranial pressure, vestibular, mechanical bowel obstruction and ileus. A careful history, focused physical examination and appropriate investigations are needed to elucidate the syndrome and its cause, so that therapy is rational. Drugs are the mainstay of treatment in terminal cancer, and the main classes of antiemetic agents are prokinetics, dopamine antagonists, antihistamines, anticholinergics and serotonin antagonists. Dexamethasone and octreotide are also used, especially in bowel obstruction. Non-drug measures are important in relieving the associated distress. Patients should be able to die comfortably, without tubes. Despite decades of practice affirming this approach, the evidence base is weak and well designed studies are urgently needed.

Palliative medicine review: prognostication.

Prognostication, along with diagnosis and treatment, is a traditional core clinical skill of the physician. Many patients and families receiving palliative care want information about life expectancy to help plan realistically for their futures. Although underappreciated, prognosis is, or at least should be, part of every clinical decision. Despite this crucial role, expertise in the art and science of prognostication diminished during the twentieth century, due largely to the ascendancy of accurate diagnostic tests and effective therapies. Consequently, "Doctor, how long do I have?" is a question most physicians find unprepared to answer effectively. As we focus on palliative care in the twenty-first century, prognostication will need to be restored as a core clinical proficiency. The discipline of palliative medicine can provide leadership in this direction. This paper begins by discussing a framework for understanding prognosis and how its different domains might be applied to all patients with life limiting illness, although the main focus of the paper is predicting survival in patients with cancer. Examples of prognostic tools are provided, although the subjective assessment of prognosis remains important in the terminally ill. Other issues addressed include: the importance of prognostication in terms of clinical decision-making, discharge planning, and care planning; the impact of prognosis on hospice referrals and patient/family satisfaction; and physicians' willingness to prognosticate.