Factors influencing the decision to take or reject opioids for cancer pain: are we on target?

Is early integration of palliative care feasible and acceptable for advanced respiratory and gastrointestinal cancer patients? A phase 2 mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that early integration of palliative care improves quality of life, lowers spending and helps clarify preferences and goals for advanced cancer patients. Little is known about the feasibility and acceptability of early integration.

AIM

Assessing feasibility of early integration of palliative care, and exploring concerns perceived and problems encountered by patients, relatives and oncologists.

DESIGN

A phase 2 mixed-methods study ( ClinicalTrials.Gov :NCT02078700).

METHODS

Oncologists of two outpatient clinics offered a specialised palliative care intervention integrated with standard oncological care to all consecutive newly diagnosed metastatic respiratory/gastrointestinal cancer patients. We interviewed samples of patients, relatives and oncologists to explore strengths and weaknesses of the intervention.

RESULTS

The intervention was proposed to 44/54 eligible patients (81.5%), 40 (90.1%) accepted, 38 (95.0%) attended the first palliative care visit. The intervention was completed for 32 patients (80.0%). It did not start for three (7.5%) and was interrupted for three patients who refused (7.5%). The Palliative Care Unit performed 274 visits in 38 patients (median per patient 4.5), and 24 family meetings with relatives of 16 patients. All patients and most relatives referred to the usefulness of the intervention, specifically for symptoms management, information and support to strategies for coping. Oncologists highlighted their difficulties in informing patients on palliative intervention, sharing information and coordinating patient's care with the palliative care team.

CONCLUSION

Early integration of palliative care in oncological setting seems feasible and well accepted by patients, relatives and, to a lesser extent, oncologists. Some difficulties emerged concerning patient information and inter-professional communication.

A new informed consent form model for cancer patients: preliminary results of a prospective study by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM)

OBJECTIVES

To document the preliminary validity of a new informed consent form (ICF) model in terms of face/content validity and feasibility, to collect patients' and oncologists' opinions on it, and to explore physicians' and patients' "knowledge", "opinions" about "the information exchanged".

METHODS

The working group for informed consent promoted by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology developed a new ICF model which was tested in ten Italian cancer centers. Patients and physicians received questionnaires on the new ICF model. Twenty-six independent oncologists were interviewed to collect their opinions.

RESULTS

Seventy eight cancer patients were enrolled: about 90% reported having received information about diagnosis and therapy and 80% about prognosis. About 63% of oncologists had no difficulty in administering the ICF. Oncologists used "correct terms" about diagnosis in 92% of patients with localized disease and in 90% with metastasis and about therapy in respectively 75.7% and 80%. About prognosis, oncologists used "vague" and "no information-no pertinent terms" in 79% of patients with localized disease and 92.5% of patients with metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICF seemed to have sufficient validity and feasibility.

PRACTICE IMPLICATION

This ICF model could mean that patients require oncologists to spend more time explaining the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment, increasing patient's opportunities to participate actively in the care process.

Illness awareness in terminal cancer patients: an Italian study

The amount and quality of information and awareness in cancer patients' is a topic frequently debated, but few studies have focussed on terminal patients. This is the objective of the present study that involved two different palliative home-care units in Italy, which recruited 550 terminal cancer patients. Data from patients and their caregivers was prospectively collected with special attention to information patients were provided with when their cancer was diagnosed and patients' awareness of their current health condition. In the case of the information, 67.0% of patients reported they were previously informed about their diagnosis, but only 58.0% seemed to be aware of their terminal condition. The comparison between the caregivers opinions about the level of information provided to the patients and their present awareness and what the patients really know about their own disease shows a high degree of correspondence. Some variables such as age and education level of patients were associated with patient's awareness.

Pattern and quality of care of cancer pain management. Results from the Cancer Pain Outcome Research Study Group

Most patients with advanced or metastatic cancer experience pain and despite several guidelines, undertreatment is well documented. A multicenter, open-label, prospective, non-randomised study was launched in Italy in 2006 to evaluate the epidemiology, patterns and quality of pain care of cancer patients. To assess the adequacy of analgesic care, we used a standardised measure, the pain management index (PMI), that compares the most potent analgesic prescribed for a patient with the reported level of the worst pain of that patient together with a selected list of clinical indicators. A total of 110 centres recruited 1801 valid cases. 61% of cases were received a WHO-level III opioid; 25.3% were classified as potentially undertreated, with wide variation (9.8–55.3%) according to the variables describing patients, centres and pattern of care. After adjustment with a multivariable logistic regression model, type of recruiting centre, receiving adjuvant therapy or not and type of patient recruited (new or already on follow-up) had a significant association with undertreatment. Non-compliance with the predefined set of clinical indicators was generally high, ranging from 41 to 76%. Despite intrinsic limitations of the PMI that may be considered as an indicator of the poor quality of cancer pain care, results suggest that the recourse to WHO third-level drugs still seems delayed in a substantial percentage of patients. This delay is probably related to several factors affecting practice in participating centres and suggests that the quality of cancer pain management in Italy deserves specific attention and interventions aimed at improving patients’ outcomes.

Opinions concerning euthanasia, life-sustaining treatment and acceleration of death: results of an Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) survey

BACKGROUND

Advance directives, acceleration of death, euthanasia and 'life-sustaining treatment' have sparked much heated debate among the media, the public, doctors and political leaders. We evaluate the personal opinions of Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) members.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A 30-item questionnaire was developed and delivered to all 1,832 AIOM members.

RESULTS

Six-hundred and eighty-five (37%) oncologists completed and returned the questionnaires. Sixty-three per cent felt culturally and psychologically prepared to face these issues. Fifty-four per cent believed that what had been decided while the patient enjoyed good health is no longer applicable in an advanced state of terminal illness. Thirty-nine per cent believed that doctors should abide by these directives, while 49% believed that this should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Fourteen per cent of oncologists were favourable towards euthanasia and 42% only in particular circumstances. Fifty-six per cent had received at least one request for accelerating death: 15% consented, 50% discussed it with the patient and 31% refused.

CONCLUSION

Advance directives, euthanasia, accelerated death and life-sustaining treatment represent considerable challenges for Italian oncologists. Although prepared to face these issues, AIOM members ask for a debate within the medical world and for a shared judicial regulation.