Incidence of severe pain in newly diagnosed ambulatory patients with stage IV cancer

Severity, interference, qualities, and correlates of severe pain: Descriptive cross-sectional study on pain experience of cancer patients in Sri Lanka

OBJECTIVE

Pain is the most debilitating and subjective experience of cancer patients. This study examines the severity, interference, characteristics, and associations of severe pain in Sri Lankan cancer patients.

METHODS

A descriptive study was conducted in Sri Lanka on 384 patients at age 18 or older who had cancer pain for 3 months or more due to the initial lesion, secondaries, radiation, or chemotherapy. Patients with non-cancerous pain or brain metastases were excluded. Data was collected using a validated Sinhala version of the Short-Form Brief Pain Inventory and the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2. Logistic regression was used to identify severe pain correlations.

RESULTS

The mean of the "worst pain" experience was 7.97, and 73.2% reported their "worst pain" as severe. The "normal works" (62.5%) and "sleep" (58.3%) were severely influenced by pain. "Aching pain," was the most reported pain quality. A statistically significant association was shown between severe pain and male gender (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.723), being in marriage (AOR = 1.947), absence of family commitments (AOR = 1.8), and pain of 3 months or more duration (AOR = 1.76).

CONCLUSION

The experiences of cancer pain vary, with the majority suffering from severe pain.

Intranasal fentanyl spray versus intravenous opioids for the treatment of severe pain in patients with cancer in the emergency department setting: A randomized controlled trial

Objective

Intranasal fentanyl (INF) quickly and noninvasively relieves severe pain, whereas intravenous hydromorphone (IVH) reliably treats severe cancer pain but requires vascular access. The trial evaluated the efficacy of INF relative to IVH for treating cancer patients with severe pain in an emergency department (ED) setting.

Methods

We randomized 82 patients from a comprehensive cancer center ED to receive INF (n = 42) or IVH (n = 40). Eligible patients reported severe pain at randomization (≥7, scale: 0 “none” to 10 “worst pain”). We conducted non-inferiority comparisons (non-inferiority margin = 0.9) of pain change from treatment initiation (T0) to one hour later (T60). T0 pain ratings were unavailable; therefore, we estimated T0 pain by comparing 1) T60 ratings, assuming similar group T0 ratings; 2) pain change, estimating T0 pain = randomization ratings, and 3) pain change, with T0 pain = 10 (IVH group) or T0 pain = randomization rating (INF group).

Results

At T60, the upper 90% confidence limit (CL) of the mean log-transformed pain ratings for the INF group exceeded the mean IVH group rating by 0.16 points (>pain). Substituting randomization ratings for T0 pain, the lower 90% CL of mean pain change in the INF group extended 0.32 points below (<pain relief) mean change in the IVH group. Finally, assuming all subjects in the IVH group had maximum pain at T0 and that T0 pain for the INF group remained unchanged from randomization, the lower bound of the 90% CL for mean pain decrease in the INF group extended 1.37 points below (<pain relief) mean decrease in the IVH group. Time (minutes) from randomization until T0 was longer for the IVH (Median 23, IQR 12) versus INF (Median 15, IQR 11) group (P<0.001).

Conclusions

Two of three analyses supported non-inferiority of INF versus IVH, while one analysis was inconclusive. Compared to IVH, INF had the advantage of shorter time to administration.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02459964

Algorithm-based decision support for symptom self-management among adults with Cancer: results of usability testing

BACKGROUND

It is essential that cancer patients understand anticipated symptoms, how to self-manage these symptoms, and when to call their clinicians. However, patients are often ill-prepared to manage symptoms at home. Clinical decision support (CDS) is a potentially innovative way to provide information to patients where and when they need it. The purpose of this project was to design and evaluate a simulated model of an algorithm-based CDS program for self-management of cancer symptoms.

METHODS

This study consisted of three phases; development of computable algorithms for self-management of cancer symptoms using a modified ADAPTE process, evaluation of a simulated model of the CDS program, and identification of design objectives and lessons learned from the evaluation of patient-centered CDS. In phase 1, algorithms for pain, constipation and nausea/vomiting were developed by an expert panel. In phase 2, we conducted usability testing of a simulated symptom assessment and management intervention for self-care (SAMI-Self-Care) CDS program involving focus groups, interviews and surveys with cancer patients, their caregivers and clinicians. The Acceptability E-scale measured acceptability of the program. In phase 3, we developed design objectives and identified barriers to uptake of patient-centered CDS based on the data gathered from stakeholders.

RESULTS

In phase 1, algorithms were reviewed and approved through a consensus meeting and majority vote. In phase 2, 24 patients & caregivers and 13 clinicians participated in the formative evaluation. Iterative changes were made in a simulated SAMI-Self-Care CDS program. Acceptability scores were high among patients, caregivers and clinicians. In phase 3, we formulated CDS design objectives, which included: 1) ensure patient safety, 2) communicate clinical concepts effectively, 3) promote communication with clinicians, 4) support patient activation, and 5) facilitate navigation and use. We identified patient barriers and clinician concerns to using CDS for symptom self-management, which were consistent with the chronic care model, a theoretical framework used to enhance patient-clinician communication and patient self-management.

CONCLUSION

Patient safety and tool navigation were critical features of CDS for patient self-management. Insights gleaned from this study may be used to inform the development of CDS resources for symptom self-management in patients with other chronic conditions.

Effectiveness of the World Health Organization cancer pain relief guidelines: an integrative review

Inadequate cancer pain relief has been documented extensively across historical records. In response, in 1986, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed guidelines for cancer pain treatment. The purpose of this paper is to disseminate the results of a comprehensive, integrative review of studies that evaluate the effectiveness of the WHO guidelines. Studies were included if they: 1) identified patients treated with the guidelines, 2) evaluated self-reported pain, 3) identified instruments used, 4) provided data documenting pain relief, and 5) were written in English. Studies were coded for duration of treatment, definition of pain relief, instruments used, findings related to pain intensity or relief, and whether measures were used other than the WHO analgesic ladder. Twenty-five studies published since 1987 met the inclusion criteria. Evidence indicates 20%-100% of patients with cancer pain can be provided pain relief with the use of the WHO guidelines - while considering their status of treatment or end-of-life care. Due to multiple limitations in included studies, analysis was limited to descriptions. Future research to examine the effectiveness of the WHO guidelines needs to consider recommendations to facilitate study comparisons by standardizing outcome measures. Recent studies have reported that patients with cancer experience pain at moderate or greater levels. The WHO guidelines reflect the knowledge and effectual methods to relieve most cancer pain, but the guidelines are not being adequately employed. Part of the explanation for the lack of adoption of the WHO guidelines is that they may be considered outdated by many because they are not specific to the pharmacological and interventional options used in contemporary pain management practices. The conundrum of updating the WHO guidelines is to encompass the latest pharmacological and interventional innovations while maintaining its original simplicity.

Screening for Pain in the Ambulatory Cancer Setting: Is 0-10 Enough?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to explore concordance between patient self-reports of pain on validated questionnaires and discussions of pain in the ambulatory oncology setting.

METHODS

Adult, ambulatory patients (N = 452) with all stages of cancer were included. Three pain measures were evaluated: two items from the Symptom Distress Scale (frequency [SDSF] and intensity [SDSI]) and the Pain Intensity Numeric Scale (PINS). Relevant pain was defined as: (1) scores 3 of 5 on SDSF or SDSI or 5 of 10 on the (PINS); or (2) discussion of existing pain in an audio-recorded clinic visit. For each scale, McNemar's test assessed concordance of patient self-reports of relevant pain with discussions of relevant pain in the audio-recorded clinic visit. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated and a receiver operating characteristic analysis evaluated thresholds on self-report pain questionnaires to best identify relevant pain discussed in clinic.

RESULTS

Identification of relevant pain by self-report was discordant (P < .001) with discussed pain coded in audio-recorded visits for all three measures. Specificity was higher for intensity (SDSI, 0.94; PINS, 0.97) than frequency (SDSF, 0.87); sensitivity was higher for frequency (SDSF, 0.35) than intensity (SDSI, 0.24; PINS, 0.12). Accuracy was higher for the SDS pain items (SDSF, 0.57; SDSI, 0.54) than for PINS (0.48). Receiver operating characteristic analysis curves suggest that lower threshold scores may improve the identification of relevant pain.

CONCLUSION

Self-report pain screening measures favored specificity over sensitivity. Asking about pain frequency (in addition to intensity) and reconsidering threshold scores on pain intensity scales may be practical strategies to more accurately identify patients with cancer who have relevant pain.

Influence of pain severity on the quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer before antineoplastic therapy

Background

The aim of this study was to assess the severity of pain and its impact on the quality of life (QoL) in untreated patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

Methods

A study group of 127 patients with HNSCC were interviewed before antineoplastic treatment. The severity of pain was measured using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) questionnaire, and the QoL was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the head and neck module (QLQ-H&N35).

Results

The mean age of the patients was 57.9 years, and there was a predominance of men (87.4%). The most frequent site of the primary tumor was the oral cavity (70.6%), and the majority of the patients had advanced cancers (stages III and IV). QoL in early stage of cancer obtained better scores. Conversely, the patients with advanced stage cancer scored significantly higher on the symptom scales regarding fatigue, pain, appetite loss and financial difficulties, indicating greater difficulties. Regard to the severity of pain, patients with moderate-severe pain revealed a significantly worse score than patients without pain.

Conclusions

The severity of pain is statistically related to the advanced stages of cancer and directly affects the QoL. An assessment of the quality of life and symptoms before therapy can direct attention to the most important symptoms, and appropriate interventions can then be directed toward improving QoL outcomes and the response to treatment.