Oral morphine versus transmucosal diamorphine for breakthrough pain in children: methods and outcomes: UK (DIPPER study) consensus

OBJECTIVES

No randomised controlled trials have been conducted for breakthrough pain in paediatric palliative care and there are currently no standardised outcome measures. The DIPPER study aims to establish the feasibility of conducting a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing oral and transmucosal administration of opioids for breakthrough pain. The aim of the current study was to achieve consensus on design aspects for a small-scale prospective study to inform a future randomised controlled trial of oral morphine, the current first-line treatment, versus transmucosal diamorphine.

METHODS

The nominal group technique was used to achieve consensus on best practice for mode of administration, dose regimen and a range of suitable pain intensity outcome measures for transmucosal diamorphine in children and young people with breakthrough pain. An expert panel of ten clinicians in paediatric palliative care and three parent representatives participated. Consensus was achieved when agreement was reached and no further comments from participants were forthcoming.

RESULTS

The panel favoured the buccal route of administration, with dosing according to the recommendations in the Association for Paediatric Palliative Medicine formulary (fifth Edition, 2020). The verbal Numerical Rating Scale was selected to measure pain in children 8 years old and older, the Faces Pain Scale-Revised for children between 4 and 8 years old, and Face, Legs, Activity, Cry and Consolability (FLACC)/FLACC-Revised as the observational tools.

CONCLUSIONS

The nominal group technique allowed consensus to be reached for a small-scale, prospective, cohort study and provided information to inform the design of a randomised controlled trial.

A Systematic Review of Measures of Breakthrough Pain and Their Psychometric Properties

CONTEXT

Breakthrough pain (BTP) is common in cancer and other conditions yet there is a lack of validated BTP measurement tools.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to identify all tools assessing or characterising BTP in patients of any age with any condition, and to critically appraise their psychometric properties.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, Embase, CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Google Scholar, ProQuest, Evidence Search and OpenGrey were searched to identify all available tools used to assess BTP. A second search identified studies that had evaluated psychometric properties of tools identified in Search 1. Databases were searched from inception to November 2020. Studies were assessed using COSMIN criteria and GRADE guidelines.

RESULTS

Search 1 found 51 tools used to assess BTP. Search 2 found six tools that had a development study and/or a study evaluating a tool psychometric property. No tool had more than one study evaluating psychometric properties so a meta-analysis could not be conducted. Studies were of inadequate to very good quality. Only the Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool (BAT) had sufficient content validity and at least low-quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency.

CONCLUSION

The BAT is recommended to characterise BTP in adults with cancer; its applicability to other conditions is unknown. The remaining tools need further evaluation. Only the Breakthrough Pain Questionnaire for Children was designed for children with cancer, but no psychometric properties were evaluated. There is a need for a tool to assess and characterise BTP in children with non-cancer diagnoses and those who cannot self-report.

COVID-19: how prepared are front-line healthcare workers in England?

National efforts are underway to prepare the UK National Health Service (NHS) for the COVID-19 pandemic; however, the efficacy of these interventions is unknown. In view of this, a cross-sectional survey of front-line healthcare workers (HCWs) at two large acute NHS hospital trusts in England was undertaken to assess their confidence and perceived level of preparedness for the virus. The survey found that there has been moderate success in readying HCWs to manage COVID-19, but that more still needs to be done, particularly in relation to educating HCWs about laboratory diagnostics.

A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify measures of breakthrough pain and evaluate their psychometric properties

INTRODUCTION

Breakthrough pain is common in children and adults with cancer and other conditions, including those approaching end-of-life, although it is often poorly managed, possibly partly due to a lack of validated assessment tools. This review aims to (1) identify all available instruments measuring breakthrough pain in infants, children, adolescents or adults and (2) critically appraise, compare and summarise the quality of the psychometric properties of the identified instruments using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Two searches will be carried out between October 2019 and January 2020, one for each aim of the review. The Cochrane Library, International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar, the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database, Evidence Search and OpenGrey databases will be searched from database inception until the date the search is conducted. Reference lists of eligible articles will be screened and authors in the field contacted. For search 1, articles will be screened by two reviewers by abstract, and full-text where necessary, to identify if a breakthrough pain assessment was used. Search 2 will then be conducted to identify studies evaluating measurement properties of these assessments. Two reviewers will screen articles from search 2 by title and abstract. All potentially relevant studies will be screened by full text by both reviewers. For search 2, data will be extracted in parallel with the quality assessment process, as recommended by COSMIN. Two reviewers will assess methodological quality using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist and the COSMIN updated criteria for good measurement properties. Findings will be summarised and, if possible, data will be pooled using meta-analysis. The quality of the evidence will be graded and summarised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Results of this review will be submitted for publication in a peer review journal and presented at conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019155583.

Barriers and facilitators experienced by patients, carers and healthcare professionals when managing symptoms in infants, children and young people at end-of-life: a mixed methods systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

This protocol describes the objective and methods of a systematic review of barriers and facilitators experienced by patients, carers and healthcare professionals when managing symptoms in infants, children and young people (ICYP) at end-of-life.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database, Evidence Search and OpenGrey will be electronically searched. Reference screening of relevant articles and inquiries to researchers in the field will be undertaken. Studies will be selected if they apply qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods designs to explore barriers and facilitators experienced by patients, carers and healthcare professionals when managing symptoms in ICYP at end-of-life.Articles will be screened by title and abstract by one reviewer with a second reviewer assessing 10% of the articles. Both reviewers will read and screen all remaining potentially relevant articles. For included articles, one reviewer will extract study characteristics and one will check this.Both reviewers will undertake independent quality assessments of included studies using established and appropriate checklists including The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist; The evaluative criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability; The Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, and The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data synthesis methods will be decided after data extraction and assessment.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review will inform our understanding of symptom management in ICYP at end-of-life. The findings will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. The study raises no ethical issues.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019124797.

Abstract P2-11-16: The safety and pathological impact of neoadjuvant radiotherapy for local advanced breast cancer undergoing mastectomy and autologous reconstruction

Introduction

Delayed breast reconstructions are preferred if post mastectomy radiotherapy is indicated due to lower complication rates compared to immediate permanent implant or autologous reconstructions (AR) but cosmetic outcomes are inferior. Radiotherapy has a deleterious effect on implants and autologous tissue and often an interim tissue expander is place which has inherent pain and complications.

However, neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NART) prior to surgery allows for definitive oncological surgery to be performed with an immediate AR in a single operation and the avoidance of a temporary expander. The aim of this study is to assess the safety and downstaging impact of NART.

Methods

This is a prospective review of patients who underwent NART at GenesisCare Victoria, the Austin and the Alfred hospital. 59 LABC patients (median age 49.2 years) were divided into two groups; clinically staged and pathologically staged for reporting. There were 15 pathologically staged patients (pStage 2A-3C) and 43 clinically staged patients (cStage 2A-3B). All patients initially underwent NACT, followed by NART (median dose 50.4Gy in 28 fractions) to the breast, supraclavicular fossa and level 3 axilla with or without coverage of their Level 1 and 2 axilla, and/or internal mammary nodes. Approximately 6 weeks after completing NART, patients underwent definitive surgery and AR.

Results

All patients completed their NART with minimal toxicity and no break in treatment. 55 patients had a skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) and 3 patients had a modified radical mastectomy. All clinically staged patients underwent an AD. ARs with a DIEP flap were performed in the majority of patients (51). The average length of hospitalisation was 6.2 days.

The Miller Payne (MP) scoring index was used to record pathological responses in clinically staged patients. Overall 36 patients achieved significant downstaging of their disease, with MP scores of 5/5 for 20 and 4/5 for 16. Only 1 patient failed to achieve any downstaging with a MP score of 1/5. All 12 Her2 positive patients, 3/5 Triple negative patients and 5/26 Luminal A/B patients achieved a MP score of 5/5. All patients achieved R0 resection margins. This included 6 patients who had initial cT4 disease (cT4a X2, cT4b X1 and cT4d X3). 15 patients had initial cN2/3 disease and all successfully underwent their axillary dissections with R0 resections achieved. 10/15 had no involved axillary nodes with significant scarring seen in 6. 5/15 had residual involved nodes with significant scarring seen in 3 patients.

Post surgical toxicities were graded using Clavien-Dindo classification. 8 significant grade 3 toxicities were seen in 6 patients, with no grade 4 or 5 toxicities. No patients developed DVT or PE. No flap losses were seen.

Median follow up is 23 months. Cosmesis was rated as good to excellent in all cases. 1 patient developed simultaneous loco-regional and distant recurrence with another 3 patients developing distant metastases only.

Conclusion

This review demonstrated that NART is a safe technique, which has not lead to an increase in surgical complication rates or resulted in a detriment in cosmetic outcome. NART can achieve a shorter, simpler reconstructive journey for patients.

Citation Format: Baker C, Chao MW, Jassal S, Neoh D, Bevington E, Hyett A, Grinsell D, Loh SW, Zantuck N, Stoney D, Foley C, Law M, Chew G, Yu V, Cheng M, Guerrieri M, Taylor K, Chipman M, Cokelek M, Lim Joon D, Foroudi F. The safety and pathological impact of neoadjuvant radiotherapy for local advanced breast cancer undergoing mastectomy and autologous reconstruction [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-11-16.