Routine screening for pain combined with a pain treatment protocol in head and neck cancer: a randomised controlled trial

Head-and-neck Cancer in the Emergency Department: A Contemporary Review of Common Presentations and Management

Head-and-neck cancer (HNC) can present with life.threatening symptoms in the emergency department. Patients can sometimes be misdiagnosed with pulmonary disease due to similar signs and symptoms, ultimately leading to delayed diagnosis and potentially devastating consequences. Reasons for this include lack of awareness of patient risk factors and knowledge of the myriad of presenting complaints in the disease process among physicians working in primary care and in the emergency department. This article explores the contemporary risk factors and common presenting symptoms and discusses initial management for a patient with potential head-and-neck malignancy. Emergency presentations of HNC are wide ranging and can overlap with common respiratory pathologies. Clinician awareness of this can assist the team in deciding what appropriate examination and investigations are required to reduce the risk of delaying diagnosis and further treatment.

Randomized controlled study of pain education in patients receiving radiotherapy for painful bone metastases

BACKGROUND

Although short-course radiotherapy is an effective treatment for patients with painful bone metastases, pain is not always sufficiently controlled. We therefore investigated the additional effect of a nurse-led pain education program on pain control and quality of life (QoL).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this multicenter study, patients with solid tumor bone metastases and a worst pain intensity of ≥5 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) were randomized between care as usual (control-group) and care as usual plus the Pain Education Program (PEP-group). PEP consisted of a structured interview and personalized education with follow-up phone calls. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory, EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and BM22 at week 0, 1, 4, 8 and 12. The primary outcome was pain control, defined as the number of patients whose worst pain intensity was <5 on a 0-10 NRS after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were time to reach control of pain (NRS < 5), mean worst pain and average pain, and QoL at weeks 1, 4, 8 and 12.

RESULTS

Of 308 included patients, 182 (92 PEP-group) completed 12 weeks follow-up. At 12 weeks, more patients in the PEP-group (71%) compared to the control-group (52%) reported pain control (P =.008). In the PEP-group, pain control was reached earlier than in the control-group (median 29 days versus 56 days; P =.003). Mean worst and average pain decreased in both groups but decreased more in the PEP-group. QoL did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The addition of PEP to care as usual for patients treated with radiotherapy for painful bone metastases resulted in less pain and faster pain control.

Effect of Cancer Pain Guideline Implementation on Pain Outcomes Among Adult Outpatients With Cancer-Related Pain: A Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial

IMPORTANCE

An evidence-practice gap exists for cancer pain management, and cancer pain remains prevalent and disabling.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the capacity of 3 cancer pain guideline implementation strategies to improve pain-related outcomes for patients attending oncology and palliative care outpatient services.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A pragmatic, stepped wedge, cluster-randomized, nonblinded, clinical trial was conducted between 2014 and 2019. The clusters were cancer centers in Australia providing oncology and palliative care outpatient clinics. Participants included a consecutive cohort of adult outpatients with advanced cancer and a worst pain severity score of 2 or more out of 10 on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Data were collected between August 2015 and May 2019. Data were analyzed July to October 2019 and reanalyzed November to December 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Guideline implementation strategies at the cluster, health professional, and patient levels introduced with the support of a clinical champion.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary measure of effect was the percentage of participants initially screened as having moderate to severe worst pain (NRS ≥ 5) who experienced a clinically important improvement of 30% or more 1 week later. Secondary outcomes included mean average pain, patient empowerment, fidelity to the intervention, and quality of life and were measured in all participants with a pain score of 2 or more 10 at weeks 1, 2, and 4.

RESULTS

Of 8099 patients screened at 6 clusters, 1564 were eligible, and 359 were recruited during the control phase (mean [SD] age, 64.2 [12.1] years; 196 men [55%]) and 329 during the intervention phase (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [12.7] years; 155 men [47%]), with no significant differences between phases on baseline measures. The mean (SD) baseline worst pain scores were 5.0 (2.6) and 4.9 (2.6) for control and intervention phases, respectively. The mean (SD) baseline average pain scores were 3.5 (2.1) for both groups. For the primary outcome, the proportions of participants with a 30% or greater reduction in a pain score of 5 or more of 10 at baseline were similar in the control and intervention phases (31 of 280 participants [11.9%] vs 30 of 264 participants [11.8%]; OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79-1.60; P = .51). No significant differences were found in secondary outcomes between phases. Fidelity to the intervention was low.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

A suite of implementation strategies was insufficient to improve pain-related outcomes for outpatients with cancer-related pain. Further evaluation is needed to determine the required clinical resources needed to enable wide-scale uptake of the fundamental elements of cancer pain care. Ongoing quality improvement activities should be supported to improve sustainability.

A living systematic review to assess the analgesic undertreatment in cancer patients

This living, systematic review aims to provide an updated summary of the available evidence on pain undertreatment prevalence in patients with cancer; correlations with some potential determinants and confounders were also carried out. We updated a systematic review published in 2014, including observational and experimental studies reporting the use of the pain management index (PMI) in adults with cancer and pain, from 2014 to 2020. We conducted searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar. We performed univariate and multivariable regression analyses to describe the relationship between PMI and a list of potential explanatory variables. Twenty new papers were identified, yielding a total sample size of 66 studies. The proportion of patients classified as undertreated according to the year of study publication shows a higher decrease from 1994 to 2013 (-13% as relative change) than the most recent years 2014-2020 (-11%). The quality of the included studies has increased over the years (from 80% to 93%). At the multivariable analysis, a statistically significant relationship was confirmed between undertreatment and the year of the publication of the study and with a low-medium economic level of the countries where the studies were conducted. Despite the improvement when compared to the period 1994-2000,-still about 40% of the cases identified received an analgesic treatment inadequate to the intensity of pain, according to the PMI. Despite its intrinsic limitations, PMI continues to be widely used and it could allow a continuous monitoring of pain management across a different mix of studies and patients.

A Pilot Study of a Collaborative Palliative and Oncology Care Intervention for Patients with Head and Neck Cancer

Background: Palliative care improves symptoms and coping in patients with advanced cancers, but has not been evaluated for patients with curable solid malignancies. Because of the tremendous symptom burden and high rates of psychological distress in head and neck cancer (HNC), we evaluated feasibility and acceptability of a palliative care intervention in patients with HNC receiving curative-intent chemoradiation therapy (CRT). Methods: This was a prospective single-arm study in HNC patients receiving CRT at a single center in the United States. The intervention entailed weekly palliative care visits integrated with oncology care with a focus on symptoms and coping. The primary outcome was feasibility, defined as a >50% enrollment rate with >70% of patients attending at least half of the visits. To assess acceptability, we collected satisfaction ratings post-intervention. We also explored symptom burden, mood, and quality of life (QOL). Results: We enrolled 91% (20/22) of eligible patients. Patients attended 133 of 138 palliative care visits (96%); all 20 attended >85% of visits. Eighteen of 19 (95%) found the intervention "very helpful" and would "definitely recommend" it. QOL and symptom burden worsened from baseline to week 5, but subsequently improved at one-month post-CRT. Overall, patients valued the one-on-one format of the intervention and receipt of additional care. Conclusions: Our palliative care intervention during highly morbid CRT was feasible and acceptable with high enrollment, excellent intervention compliance, and high patient satisfaction. Future randomized studies will further explore the impact on patient-reported outcomes and health care utilization.

Effects of oncological care pathways in primary and secondary care on patient, professional and health systems outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pathways are frequently used to improve care for cancer patients. However, there is little evidence about the effects of pathways used in oncological care. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to identify and synthesize existing literature on the effects of pathways in oncological care.

METHODS

All patients diagnosed with cancer in primary and secondary/tertiary care whose treatment can be characterized as the strategy "care pathways" are included in this review. A systematic search in seven databases was conducted to gather evidence. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers. Study outcomes regarding patients, professionals, and system level were extracted from each study.

RESULTS

Out of 13,847 search results, we selected 158 articles eligible for full text assessment. One hundred fifty studies were excluded and the remaining eight studies represented 4786 patients. Most studies were conducted in secondary/tertiary care. Length of stay (LOS) was the most common used indicator, and was reported in five studies. Meta-analysis based on subgroups showed an overall shorter LOS regarding gastric cancer (weighted mean difference (WMD)): - 2.75, CI: - 4.67 to - 0.83) and gynecological cancer (WMD: - 1.58, CI: - 2.10 to - 1.05). Costs were reported in six studies and most studies reported lower costs for pathway groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the differences between the included studies, we were able to present an evidence base for cancer care pathways performed in secondary/tertiary care regarding the positive effects of LOS in favor of cancer care pathways.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017057592.

Standards for the management of cancer-related pain across Europe-A position paper from the EFIC Task Force on Cancer Pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Pain is a common symptom in patients who survive cancer and in those who live with progressive advanced disease. Evidence from meta-analyses suggests that pain remains poorly controlled for a large proportion of patients; barriers to good management include poor assessment of pain, inadequate support for patient self-management and late or inadequate access to strong opioid analgesia in those with advanced disease.

METHODS

The European Pain Federation (EFIC) established a Task Force in 2017 which convened a European group of experts, drawn from a diverse range of relevant clinical disciplines, to prepare a position paper on appropriate standards for the management of cancer-related pain. The expert panel reviewed the available literature and made recommendations using the GRADE system to combine quality of evidence with strength of recommendation. The panel took into account the desirable and undesirable effects of the management recommendation, including the cost and inconvenience of each when deciding the recommendation.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The 10 standards presented are aimed to improve cancer pain management and reduce variation in practice across Europe. The Task Force believes that adoption of these standards by all 37 countries will promote the quality of care of patients with cancer-related pain and reduce unnecessary suffering.

SIGNIFICANCE

Pain affects up to 40% of cancer survivors and affects at least 66% of patients with advanced progressive disease, many of whom experience poor pain control. These 10 standards are aimed to improve cancer pain management, promote the quality of care of patients and reduce variation across Europe.

Age-related sarcoma patient experience: results from a national survey in England

Background

Sarcomas are rare, heterogeneous tumours affecting patients of any age. Previous surveys describe that sarcoma patients report a significantly worse experience than those with common cancers. Consequently, Sarcoma UK conducted a national survey and these data were examined for age- and tumour-related differences in patients’ experiences.

Methods

Patients were randomly selected from respondents to National Cancer Patient Experience Surveys (n = 900). Differences between patient groups according to age (Adolescents and Young Adults [AYA] 18–39 years, middle-aged 40–64 years, elderly 65 + years) and tumour type (soft-tissue [STS] vs. bone]) were analysed with t-tests or chi-square tests.

Results

Survey response rate was 62% (n = 558; STS 75%, bone sarcoma 25%). Delay in diagnosis was reported; 27% patients (n = 150) waited > 3 months and initial symptoms were incorrectly interpreted; AYA STS patients were significantly more likely to be treated for another condition, or advised that their symptoms were not serious, than older STS patients. Clinical trial participation was low (6%, n = 35). Symptom burden was high, most commonly daytime fatigue (48%, n = 277) and pain (44%, n = 248). AYAs were significantly more likely to report most side-effects and post-treatment concerns than older patients. Elderly patients were more satisfied with the information and emotional support provided than younger patients, however were significantly less likely to be referred to rehabilitation services.

Conclusions

This study identifies significant age-related differences in the sarcoma patient journey, which are not only related to variation in tumour-types. These results provide rationale for adopting an age-specific approach to the management of sarcoma patients in order to improve overall patient experience.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4866-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Desmoid fibromatosis through the patients' eyes: time to change the focus and organisation of care?

Purpose

Desmoid fibromatosis (DF) is a rare, unpredictable disease with no established, evidence-based treatments. Individual management is based on consensus algorithms. This study aimed to examine the specific health-related quality of life challenges faced by DF patients, current experiences and expectations of care.

Methods

Twenty-seven DF patients were purposively sampled from The Royal Marsden Hospital. Two focus groups and 13 interviews (males 12, females 15; mean age at study 39.5 years) explored health-related quality of life issues and experiences of healthcare. Thematic content was analysed.

Results

Discussions revealed four key themes (diagnostic pathway; treatment pathway; living with DF; supportive care). Diagnostic delay resulted from lack of recognition by patients and healthcare professionals. Some patients received an initial diagnosis of cancer, causing significant distress. Treatment decisions were challenging, and patients experienced uncertainty among clinicians about optimal therapies. Side-effects of treatment were severe, including fatigue, nausea, anorexia, low libido and depression. Pain was the most debilitating symptom and dependency on painkillers was a significant concern. Functional limitation and restricted mobility frequently affected daily activities. Patients experienced difficulty accomplishing their role in society; relationship problems, caring for children, employment and financial difficulties. Social isolation and lack of understanding were common. The psychological impact of this “life-changing and life-long” condition was profound. All patients requested knowledgeable healthcare professionals, more information, continuity of care and peer support.

Conclusions

DF patients face complex physical, psychological and practical challenges. Comprehensive care services are needed. Increasing awareness may help to improve diagnostic pathways and overall patient experience.

Patients with head and neck cancer may need more intensive pain management to maintain daily functioning: a multi-center study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to investigate the prevalence of pain, pain management, and impact of recent pain on daily functioning in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) and patients with other cancers.

METHODS

This multi-center survey was conducted by using Brief Pain Inventory questionnaire to evaluate pain status and its impact on daily functioning.

RESULTS

A total of 3289 patients were analyzed including 708 HNC patients and 2581 patients with other cancers. The overall pain prevalence was 69.17%. A higher percentage of HNC patients had recent pain (60.59 vs. 44.01%, P < 0.001), required pain management (86.29 vs. 72.03%, P < 0.001), and used any analgesics (53.81 vs. 34.52%, P < 0.001). HNC patients with pain management had a higher prevalence of recent pain (85.83 vs. 81.14%, P = 0.044) and a slightly lower satisfaction rate (74.00 vs. 79.70%, P = 0.070). Regarding the impact of pain on daily functioning, HNC patients had a lower mean interference score for general activity such as walking, normal work, sleep, and life enjoyment.

CONCLUSIONS

The HNC patients may need more intensive pain management to achieve optimal pain control and maintain daily functioning.

Pain Management in Cancer Center Inpatients: A Cluster Randomized Trial to Evaluate a Systematic Integrated Approach-The Edinburgh Pain Assessment and Management Tool

Purpose Pain is suboptimally managed in patients with cancer. We aimed to compare the effect of a policy of adding a clinician-delivered bedside pain assessment and management tool (Edinburgh Pain Assessment and management Tool [EPAT]) to usual care (UC) versus UC alone on pain outcomes. Patients and Methods In a two-arm, parallel group, cluster randomized (1:1) trial, we observed pain outcomes in 19 cancer centers in the United Kingdom and then randomly assigned the centers to either implement EPAT or to continue UC. The primary outcome was change in the percentage of study participants in each center with a clinically significant (≥ 2 point) improvement in worst pain (using the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form) from admission to 3 to 5 days after admission. Secondary outcomes included quality of analgesic prescribing and opioid-related adverse effects. Results Ten centers were randomly assigned to EPAT, and nine were assigned to UC. We enrolled 1,921 patients and obtained outcome data from 93% (n = 1,795). Participants (mean age, 60 years; 49% women) had a variety of cancer types. For centers randomly assigned to EPAT, the percentage of participants with a clinically significant improvement in worst pain increased from 47.7% to 54.1%, and for those randomly assigned to continue UC, this percentage decreased from 50.6% to 46.4%. The absolute difference was 10.7% (95% CI, 0.2% to 21.1%; P = .046) and it increased to 15.4% (95% CI, 5.8% to 25.0%; P = .004) when two centers that failed to implement EPAT were excluded. EPAT centers had greater improvements in prescribing practice and in the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form pain subscale score. Other pain and distress outcomes and opioid adverse effects did not differ between EPAT and UC. Conclusion A systematic integrated approach improves pain outcomes for inpatients in cancer centers without increasing opioid adverse effects.

Nonpharmacologic Pain Interventions: A Review of Evidence-Based Practices for Reducing Chronic Cancer Pain

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common issue for patients with cancer and can be challenging to manage effectively. Healthcare professionals need to be knowledgeable about evidence-based nonpharmacologic interventions.
.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review critically appraises the strength and quality of the empirical evidence for nonpharmacologic interventions in reducing chronic cancer pain.
.

METHODS

Intervention studies were critically appraised and summarized by an Oncology Nursing Society Putting Evidence Into Practice team of RNs, advanced practice nurses, and nurse scientists. A level of evidence and a practice recommendation was assigned to each intervention.
.

FINDINGS

Based on evidence, recommended interventions to reduce chronic cancer pain are celiac plexus block for pain related to pancreatic and abdominal cancers and radiation therapy for bone pain. Although psychoeducational interventions are considered likely to be effective, the effective components of these interventions and their dose and duration need to be determined through additional research.

Data in longitudinal randomised controlled trials in cancer pain: is there any loss of the information available in the data? Results of a systematic literature review and guideline for reporting

Background

Given the prevalence of untreated pain among cancer patients, there have been calls for more and better research in the domain. Increasingly, calls for less waste and more optimal use of trial data collected are being made. Waste of data includes non-optimal statistical analysis and non-presentation of interpretable effect size as a measure of effectiveness of an intervention which also enable comparisons across studies.

Methods

We reviewed the recent literature on randomised trials on longitudinal cancer pain to identify sources of loss of data information by collecting material on the nature of outcomes collected, analysed, the method of analysis and what was presented as a result of the trial. Illustrated with real data, we propose some guidelines on how to adequately analyse longitudinal data and report the results using mixed models.

Results

We identified some major source of data information loss, one of which is the transformation of a continuous pain outcome. Not adjusting for the collected outcome baseline value is moreover a source of bias. Multiple testing by analysing the data cross-sectionnally at each time-point leads to loss of information and power. Finally, effect sizes reflecting the effectiveness of the intervention were never reported.

Conclusions

We identified several sources of information loss in the way longitudinal trials on pain were analysed and reported. However these problems could be easily solved by using regression methods like mixed models and presenting regression parameters to provide a concrete quantitative effect of the intervention.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-016-2818-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Towards a pain free hospital: an in-depth qualitative analysis of the pain experiences of head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Treatment for head and neck cancer can frequently be a painful experience with implications for patients in terms of quality of life, nutrition and ultimately treatment outcomes. Pain may arise for a number of reasons in this patient group including the influence of localised tissue damage from radiotherapy, the effects of chemotherapeutic agents as well as the disease process itself. Early identification of cancer pain, through screening and early analgesic and pain management are thought to be the most appropriate approaches to the problem.

AIM

To explore in-depth, patients' views of the experience of pain related to radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, within the context of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of pain screening and intervention.

SAMPLE

A purposive sample of head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy who were participating in a separate RCT of a proactive pain screening intervention.

METHODS

A qualitative design using one-off, face-to-face, in-depth interviews. Data were inductively analysed for themes using thematic analysis. Data were collected from September 2012 to January 2013.

FINDINGS

Eight participants were interviewed. Several issues around pain management arose and the influence of various factors became apparent. Four dominant themes emerged: facets of radiotherapy pain in head and neck cancer, facilitators and barriers to pain management, pain services and finally interdisciplinary working.

CONCLUSION

The specific issues faced by head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy highlight the need for pain relieving interventions delivered by pain specialists, in tandem with the development of robust self-management strategies. An integrated approach to care is optimal, comprising pain screening at each outpatient encounter, and review by specialists as necessary.