Worst Pain Severity Profiles of Oncology Patients Are Associated With Significant Stress and Multiple Co-Occurring Symptoms

Little is known about the associations between pain, stress, and co-occurring symptoms in oncology patients. Purpose was to identify subgroups of patients with distinct worst pain profiles and evaluate for differences among the subgroups in demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as stress and symptom scores. Oncology outpatients (n = 1305) completed questionnaires prior to their second or third chemotherapy cycle. Worst pain intensity was assessed 6 times over 2 chemotherapy cycles using a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale. The 371 patients (28.4%) who had ≤1 occurrence of pain over the 6 assessments were classified as the None class. For the remaining 934 patients whose data were entered into the latent profile analysis, 3 distinct worst pain profiles were identified (ie Mild [12.5%], Moderate [28.6%], Severe [30.5%]). Compared to None class, Severe class had fewer years of education and a lower annual income; were less likely to be employed and married; less likely to exercise on a regular basis, had a higher comorbidity burden, and a worse functional status. Compared to None class, Severe class reported higher levels of general, disease-specific, and cumulative life stress and lower levels of resilience, as well as higher levels of depressive symptoms, anxiety, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and cognitive dysfunction. This study is the first to identify distinct worst pain profiles in a large sample of oncology patients receiving chemotherapy and associated risk factors. PERSPECTIVE: Unrelieved pain remains a significant problem for oncology patients receiving chemotherapy. High levels of stress and co-occurring symptoms contribute to a more severe pain profile in these patients.

Gender Difference in Cancer Patients' Adherence to Analgesics and Related Outcomes of Pain Management

BACKGROUND

Males and females have significant differences in certain medical outcomes. However, little research has explored the gender differences in cancer patient perceptions of analgesics, the relationship between gender and analgesic adherence, or the effectiveness of pain management.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were to compare gender differences associated with hesitancy to use analgesics, analgesic adherence, or pain management effectiveness and to examine whether gender can precisely predict analgesic adherence.

METHODS

The study was conducted in the outpatient oncology department of a medical center in Taiwan. A descriptive and cross-sectional design was used. The study samples were collected from 362 cancer patients. The participants completed the short version of the Barriers Questionnaire-Taiwan, the Morisky Analgesics Adherence Measure-Taiwan version, the Brief Pain Inventory-Chinese version, the Pain Management Index, and a demographic and disease questionnaire.

RESULTS

The pain intensity and hesitancy to use analgesics scores were significantly higher among females than among males. The Pain Management Index results indicated that a larger percentage of males had adequate pain management. In addition, being male was a significant predictor of higher analgesic adherence (odds ratio, 1.93; P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Gender could precisely predict cancer patients' medication adherence. Women experienced significantly greater pain than did men but also had more hesitancy to use analgesics, lower adherence, and inadequate pain management.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Healthcare professionals should consider women as a high-risk group for inadequate pain control. It is crucial for health providers to consider the gender discrepancy when attempting to improve cancer pain management.

Differences in demographic, clinical, and symptom characteristics and quality of life outcomes among oncology patients with different types of pain

The purposes of this study, in oncology outpatients receiving chemotherapy (n = 926), were to: describe the occurrence of different types of pain (ie, no pain, only noncancer pain [NCP], only cancer pain [CP], or both CP and NCP) and evaluate for differences in demographic, clinical, and symptom characteristics, and quality of life (QOL) among the 4 groups. Patients completed self-report questionnaires on demographic and symptom characteristics and QOL. Patients who had pain were asked to indicate if it was or was not related to their cancer or its treatment. Medical records were reviewed for information on cancer and its treatments. In this study, 72.5% of the patients reported pain. Of the 671 who reported pain, 21.5% reported only NCP, 37.0% only CP, and 41.5% both CP and NCP. Across the 3 pain groups, worst pain scores were in the moderate to severe range. Compared with the no pain group, patients with both CP and NCP were significantly younger, more likely to be female, have a higher level of comorbidity, and a poorer functional status. In addition, these patients reported: higher levels of depression, anxiety, fatigue, and sleep disturbance; lower levels of energy and attentional function; and poorer QOL. Patients with only NCP were significantly older than the other 3 groups. The most common comorbidities in the NCP group were back pain, hypertension, osteoarthritis, and depression. Unrelieved CP and NCP continue to be significant problems. Oncology outpatients need to be assessed for both CP and NCP conditions.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2014

This paper is the thirty-seventh consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2014 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior (endogenous opioids and receptors), and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia (pain and analgesia); stress and social status (human studies); tolerance and dependence (opioid mediation of other analgesic responses); learning and memory (stress and social status); eating and drinking (stress-induced analgesia); alcohol and drugs of abuse (emotional responses in opioid-mediated behaviors); sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (opioid involvement in stress response regulation); mental illness and mood (tolerance and dependence); seizures and neurologic disorders (learning and memory); electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (opiates and conditioned place preferences (CPP)); general activity and locomotion (eating and drinking); gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (alcohol and drugs of abuse); cardiovascular responses (opiates and ethanol); respiration and thermoregulation (opiates and THC); and immunological responses (opiates and stimulants). This paper is the thirty-seventh consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2014 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior (endogenous opioids and receptors), and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia (pain and analgesia); stress and social status (human studies); tolerance and dependence (opioid mediation of other analgesic responses); learning and memory (stress and social status); eating and drinking (stress-induced analgesia); alcohol and drugs of abuse (emotional responses in opioid-mediated behaviors); sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (opioid involvement in stress response regulation); mental illness and mood (tolerance and dependence); seizures and neurologic disorders (learning and memory); electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (opiates and conditioned place preferences (CPP)); general activity and locomotion (eating and drinking); gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (alcohol and drugs of abuse); cardiovascular responses (opiates and ethanol); respiration and thermoregulation (opiates and THC); and immunological responses (opiates and stimulants).

Determinants of opioid efficiency in cancer pain: a comprehensive multivariate analysis from a tertiary cancer centre

BACKGROUND

Pain is one of the most terrifying symptoms for cancer patients. Although most patients with cancer pain need opioids, complete relief of pain is hard to achieve. This study investigated the factors influencing persistent pain-free survival (PPFS) and opioid efficiency.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective study was conducted on 100 patients with cancer pain, hospitalized at the medical oncology clinic of Akdeniz University. Patient records were collected including patient demographics, the disease, treatment characteristics, and details of opioid usage. Pain intensity was measured using a patient self-reported visual analogue scale (VAS). The area under the curve (AUC) reflecting the pain load was calculated from daily VAS tables. PPFS, the primary measure of opioid efficacy, was described as the duration for which a patient reported a greater than or equal to two-point decline in their VAS for pain. Predictors of opioid efficacy were analysed using a multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

In the multivariate analysis, PPFS was associated with the AUC for pain (Exp (B)=0.39 (0.23-0.67), P=0.001), the cumulative opioid dosage used during hospitalisation (Exp (B)=1.00(0.99-1.00), P=0.003) and changes in the opioid dosage (Exp (B)=1.01 (1.00-1.01), P=0.016). The change in VAS score over the standard dosage of opioids was strongly associated with current cancer treatment (chemotherapy vs. others) (β=-0.31, T=-2.81, P=0.007) and the VAS for pain at the time of hospitalisation (β=-0.34, T=-3.07, P= 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

The pain load, opioid dosage, concurrent usage of chemotherapy and initial pain intensity correlate with the benefit received from opioids in cancer patients.