Search

Current liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) applications for circulating androgen measurements are technically diverse. Previously, variable results have been reported for testosterone. Data are scarce for androstenedione and absent for dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS). We assessed the agreement of androstenedione, DHEAS and testosterone LC-MS/MS measurements among nine European centers and explored benefits of calibration system unification. Androgens were measured twice by laboratory-specific procedures in 78 patient samples and in EQA materials. Results were obtained by in-house and external calibration. Intra- and inter-laboratory performances were valued. Intra-laboratory CVs ranged between 4.2–13.2 % for androstenedione, 1.6–10.8 % for DHEAS, and 4.3–8.7 % and 2.6–7.1 % for female and male testosterone, respectively. Bias and trueness in EQA materials were within ±20 %. Median inter-laboratory CV with in-house vs. external calibration were 12.0 vs. 9.6 % for androstenedione (p<0.001), 7.2 vs. 4.9 % for DHEAS (p<0.001), 6.4 vs. 7.6 % for female testosterone (p<0.001) and 6.8 and 7.4 % for male testosterone (p=0.111). Median bias vs. all laboratory median with in-house and external calibration were −13.3 to 20.5 % and −4.9 to 18.7 % for androstenedione, −10.9 to 4.8 % and −3.4 to 3.5 % for DHEAS, −2.7 to 6.5 % and −11.3 to 6.6 % for testosterone in females, and −7.0 to 8.5 % and −7.5 to 11.8 % for testosterone in males, respectively. Methods showed high intra-laboratory precision but variable bias and trueness. Inter-laboratory agreement was remarkably good. Calibration system unification improved agreement in androstenedione and DHEAS, but not in testosterone measurements. Multiple components, such as commutability of calibrators and EQA materials and internal standard choices, likely contribute to inter-laboratory variability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Cancer patients frequently experience pain, impacting their quality of life. Unfortunately, pain management in those referred for radiotherapy (RT) is often insufficient, with limited research in this area. This study aimed to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of pain management and identify factors affecting them in cancer patients referred for RT. We observed 1042 cancer outpatients and found that 42.9% did not receive adequate pain management. Specifically, 72% of patients referred for palliative RT and 75% of those referred for curative RT experienced inadequate or ineffective analgesic therapy. Patients undergoing palliative RT, those with poorer general health, those with cancer-related pain, and those treated in Northern Italy had higher odds of receiving adequate pain management. Our findings highlight the need for educational and organizational strategies to address this issue and suggest that early palliative RT referral can improve pain management and treatment outcomes for cancer patients. Background: Pain is a prevalent symptom among cancer patients, and its management is crucial for improving their quality of life. However, pain management in cancer patients referred to radiotherapy (RT) departments is often inadequate, and limited research has been conducted on this specific population. This study aimed to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of pain management when patients are referred for RT. Moreover, we explored potential predictors of adequate pain management. Methods: This observational, prospective, multicenter cohort study included cancer patients aged 18 years or older who were referred to RT departments. A pain management assessment was conducted using the Pain Management Index (PMI), calculated by subtracting the pain score from the analgesic score (PMI < 0 indicated inadequate pain management). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of adequate pain management. Results: A total of 1042 cancer outpatients were included in the study. The analysis revealed that 42.9% of patients with pain did not receive adequate pain management based on PMI values. Among patients with pain or taking analgesics and referred to palliative or curative RT, 72% and 75% had inadequate or ineffective analgesic therapy, respectively. The odds of receiving adequate pain management (PMI ≥ 0) were higher in patients undergoing palliative RT (OR 2.52; p < 0.001), with worse ECOG-PS scores of 2, 3 and 4 (OR 1.63, 2.23, 5.31, respectively; p: 0.017, 0.002, 0.009, respectively) compared to a score of 1 for those with cancer-related pain (OR 0.38; p < 0.001), and treated in northern Italy compared to central and southern of Italy (OR 0.25, 0.42, respectively; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this study, a substantial proportion of cancer patients referred to RT departments did not receive adequate pain management. Educational and organizational strategies are necessary to address the inadequate pain management observed in this population. Moreover, increasing the attention paid to non-cancer pain and an earlier referral of patients for palliative RT in the course of the disease may improve pain response and treatment outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]