Exploring Analgesic Use Patterns Among Cancer Survivors With Chronic Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy.

OBJECTIVES: To explore cancer survivors' historical and current use of analgesics for chronic chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). SAMPLE & SETTING: 142 post-treatment cancer survivors who received neurotoxic chemotherapy and were experiencing moderate to severe CIPN. METHODS & VARIABLES: Participants completed the Treatment-Induced Neuropathy Assessment Scale at baseline and reported all analgesics used to manage CIPN. Frequency of historical or current prescription analgesic use for chronic CIPN was described and stratified by CIPN pain severity. RESULTS: At baseline, 31% of participants reported historical use of analgesics for CIPN and 46% of participants were currently using analgesics for CIPN. Gabapentin was the most frequently used analgesic, historically (20%) and currently (34%), and duloxetine was used less frequently (6% historical use, 10% current use). Many participants with severe pain (59%) reported using analgesics for CIPN. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Duloxetine, the first-line treatment for chronic CIPN pain, was used less frequently than gabapentin, a common prescription analgesic for neuropathic pain. Further research is needed to determine strategies to promote the implementation of evidence-based CIPN treatments in clinical practice.

SWOG S1820: A pilot randomized trial of the Altering Intake, Managing Bowel Symptoms Intervention in Survivors of Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of rectal cancer experience persistent bowel dysfunction after treatments. Dietary interventions may be an effective approach for symptom management and posttreatment diet quality. SWOG S1820 was a pilot randomized trial of the Altering Intake, Managing Symptoms in Rectal Cancer (AIMS-RC) intervention for bowel dysfunction in survivors of rectal cancer. METHODS: Ninety-three posttreatment survivors were randomized to the AIMS-RC group (N = 47) or the Healthy Living Education attention control group (N = 46) after informed consent and completion of a prerandomization run-in. Outcome measures were completed at baseline and at 18 and 26 weeks postrandomization. The primary end point was total bowel function score, and exploratory end points included low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) score, quality of life, dietary quality, motivation, self-efficacy, and positive/negative affect. RESULTS: Most participants were White and college educated, with a mean age of 55.2 years and median time since surgery of 13.1 months. There were no statistically significant differences in total bowel function score by group, with the AIMS-RC group demonstrating statistically significant improvements in the exploratory end points of LARS (p = .01) and the frequency subscale of the bowel function index (p = .03). The AIMS-RC group reported significantly higher acceptability of the study. CONCLUSIONS: SWOG S1820 did not provide evidence of benefit from the AIMS-RC intervention relative to the attention control. Select secondary end points did demonstrate improvements. The study was highly feasible and acceptable for participants in the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. Findings provide strong support for further refinement and effectiveness testing of the AIMS-RC intervention.