Search

Context: Longitudinal symptom monitoring is important in the setting of patients with advanced cancer. Scores over time may naturally fluctuate, although a patient may feel the same., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the minimal levels of change required to be clinically relevant (minimal clinically important difference [MCID]) using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS)., Methods: Between 1999 and 2009, patients completed the ESAS before palliative radiotherapy and at follow-up. MCIDs were calculated using both the anchor- and distribution-based methods for improvement and deterioration; 95% confidence intervals for the differences in mean change scores between adjacent categories also were calculated., Results: A total of 276 patients completed the ESAS at baseline and during at least one follow-up visit. At the four-week follow-up, decrease of 1.2 and 1.1 units in pain and depression scales, respectively, constituted clinically relevant improvement, whereas increase of at least 1.4, 1.8, 1.1, 1.1, and 1.4 units, respectively, in pain, tiredness, depression, anxiety, and appetite loss items were required for deterioration. At the subsequent follow-ups, these values were similar. Overall, the MCID for improvement tended to be smaller than that for deterioration. The distribution-based method estimates tended to be larger than the 0.3 SD estimates, but closer to the 0.5 SD estimates., Conclusion: MCIDs allow health care professionals to determine the success of treatment in improving the patient's quality of life. MCIDs may prompt health care professionals to intervene with new treatment. Future studies should confirm our findings with a variety of anchors., (Copyright © 2013 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: The clinical relevance of symptom cluster research remains questionable if inconsistencies, partially attributable to the varying statistical analyses used, exist., Objectives: To investigate whether symptom clusters identified were consistent using three different statistical methods and to observe the temporal pattern of clusters. A secondary objective was to compare symptom clustering in responders and nonresponders to radiotherapy over time., Methods: Reanalysis of an existing data set compiled from 1296 patients with advanced cancer was performed using hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to extract symptom clusters at baseline, 1-, 2-, 4-, 8-, and 12-week follow-up time points. Findings were compared with results obtained using principal component analysis (PCA) in our previously published study. The original sample was further divided into two subgroups: responders and nonresponders. The symptom clusters present in each subgroup were examined using PCA, HCA, and EFA at the same time points as mentioned above., Results: The symptom cluster findings of HCA and PCA correlated more frequently with each other than either did with the results of EFA. Complete consensus in all three statistical methods was never reached at any assessment time point in the present study. Increasingly diverging patterns of symptom cluster development over time were observed in the responder vs. nonresponder subgroups. Symptom pairs comprising anxiety and depression or fatigue and drowsiness consistently presented in the same cluster despite the shifting of other symptoms in the cluster over time., Conclusion: The presence and composition of symptom clusters identified varied depending on which statistical analysis method was used. A key step in achieving consistency in symptom cluster research involves the utilization of a common analytical method., (Copyright © 2012 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: The Pain Management Index (PMI) is a simple index linking the usual severity of cancer pain with the category of medication prescribed to treat it. Medication categories are derived from the World Health Organization's "analgesic ladder" approach to cancer pain, and the PMI is an indicator of the extent to which the medication prescribed corresponds to the recommended categories for mild, moderate, and severe pain., Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess prevalence of inadequate pain management in an outpatient palliative radiotherapy clinic using the PMI., Methods: All patients with bone metastases referred for palliative radiotherapy from 1999 to 2006 were retrospectively analyzed for patient-rated pain scores (0-10 scale) and analgesic consumption. Pain scores were assigned 0, 1, 2, and 3 when patients reported no pain (0), mild (1-4), moderate (5-6), or severe pain (7-10), respectively. Analgesic scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 were assigned when patients were prescribed no pain medication, nonopioids, "weak" opioids, and "strong" opioids, respectively. The PMI score was calculated by subtracting the pain score from the analgesic score. A negative PMI score was considered an indicator of potentially inadequate pain management by the prescriber. Descriptive statistics, Pearson's r correlation, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to determine the relationship of PMI over time, and the relationship with predictive factors., Results: One thousand patients were included from January 1999 to December 2006. A negative PMI was calculated for 25.8% of patients at initial consultation. Prevalence of negative PMI significantly increased over years (P<0.0001). Higher Karnofsky Performance Status (P<0.0001) and breast primary cancer site (P<0.0001) were significantly associated with negative PMI after adjusting for year variable., Conclusion: Despite publication of numerous cancer pain management guidelines, undermedication appears to be a persistent problem for patients with painful bone metastases referred for radiotherapy., (Crown Copyright 2010. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The primary objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of underdosage of analgesics for pain associated with bone metastases in outpatients referred to the Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program at the Odette Cancer Centre from 1999 to 2006. A prospective database containing data for all patients with bone metastases who were referred to the Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program for palliative radiotherapy from 1999 to 2006 was analyzed. The database included patient demographic information, including age at referral for radiation to the bone, gender, primary cancer site, and Karnofsky Performance Status; information on treatment-related factors, such as worst pain ratings and analgesic consumption in the past 24 hours (recorded as oral morphine equivalent doses); pain intensity ratings (none [rating=0], mild [rating=1-4], moderate [rating=5-6] or severe [rating=7-10]; and analgesic consumption (rated as none, nonopioids, weak opioids [e.g., codeine] and strong opioids [e.g., morphine and hydromorphone]). Patients who experienced moderate or severe pain and were prescribed no pain medication, nonopioids, or weak opioids were considered to be undermedicated. Between January 1999 and December 2006, 1,038 patients were included in the study database. Approximately 56% of patients were male and 44% were female. The median age was 68 years (range 28-95) and the median Karnofsky Performance Status was 70 (range 10-100). The percentages of undermedicated patients were 40% in 1999, 34% in 2000, 29% in 2001, 37% in 2003, 39% in 2004, 36% in 2005, and 48% in 2006. No appreciable decline was noted in the proportion of patients with moderate-to-severe pain who received no pain medication, nonopioids, or weak opioids during the study period. Despite the publication of pain management guidelines and the dissemination of data regarding the proportion of patients with bone metastases who are being prescribed inadequate analgesics, our findings suggest that a significant proportion of patients continue to be undermedicated.

To prospectively assess patient-rated symptoms in patients with brain metastases treated with whole brain radiotherapy, these patients were asked to rate their symptoms on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) before, and 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks following the radiation treatment. ESAS evaluates pain, fatigue, nausea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, appetite, sense of well-being, and shortness of breath on a scale of 0-10 (0=absence of symptom and 10=worst possible symptom). Patients with a language barrier or significant cognitive impairment were excluded. The mean difference of ESAS symptoms at each follow up were compared with baseline and P < 0.01 was considered statistically significant. One hundred seventy patients (102 female and 68 male) were included between January 1999 and January 2002. Their median age was 66 years (range 33-84) and the median Karnofsky performance score (KPS) at baseline was 60 (range 20-90). The most common primary cancer sites were lung (99; 58%), breast (32; 19%), gastrointestinal (16; 9%), unknown (14; 8%) and others (9; 6%). One-third had significant weight loss (> or =10% over the last 6 months). All patients were prescribed dexamethasone at varying doses during radiotherapy. The dose fractionations were 20 Gy in 5 fractions, 138 (81%); 30 Gy in 10 fractions, 7 (4%); and others, 25 (15%). The baseline mean +/- SD for ESAS scores were: pain 2.4 +/- 2.8, fatigue 5.3 +/- 2.8, nausea 1.3 +/- 2.2, depression 2.8 +/- 2.7, anxiety 3.6 +/- 3.0, drowsiness 3.5 +/- 2.9, appetite 3.0 +/- 3.2, sense of well-being 3.8 +/- 2.7, and shortness of breath 2.3 +/- 2.5. For the entire cohort, after the delivery of palliative radiotherapy for brain metastases, there were statistically significant deteriorations in the mean differences from the baseline for the following ESAS domains: fatigue 1.0 to 1.8; drowsiness 1.2 to 1.8; and appetite 2.2 to 2.4. The data demonstrate that certain parameters of quality of life worsen after whole brain radiotherapy.

Clinical trials generally include motivated patients with relatively good performance status. This can result in an overestimation of the effectiveness of an intervention. Clinic follow-up protocols for outcome assessment after palliative treatments suffer from high attrition rates. In this study, the feasibility of telephone follow-up for the assessment of symptom palliation in patients receiving outpatient palliative radiotherapy as a tool to evaluate outcome was examined. Patients referred for palliative radiotherapy were asked to rate their symptom distress using the modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) at initial consultation. Patient demographics and analgesic consumption were collected. For those who received radiotherapy, follow-up was conducted through telephone interviews at week 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 post-treatment using the same modified ESAS and analgesic diary. One hundred ninety patients received radiotherapy to 256 sites from January to August 1999. Seventy-eight patients (41%) died during the 12-week follow-up period. The percentage of surviving patients responding to the telephone interview ranged from 63% to 68% during the 12-week study. Telephone follow-up is a feasible tool for the prospective outcome assessment of symptom palliation in this population. It compares well to clinic visits or mailed questionnaires. However, to improve the follow-up rates, other modalities may also need to be implemented.

To determine the positive rate of the CAGE questionnaire in an outpatient palliative radiotherapy clinic and to examine the association between problem drinking, pain control, and analgesic consumption, patients referred for palliative radiotherapy were screened with the CAGE questionnaire and asked to rate their symptom distress using the modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). The latter instrument uses 11-point numeric scales (0 = best, 10 = worst). Their daily analgesic consumption in oral morphine equivalent was recorded. A total of 128 patients participated in the study. Only 9 patients answered one of the four CAGE questions affirmatively (positive group). All the rest answered negatively (negative group). The mean pain intensity at index site/overall pain was 4.97 +/- 3.31/3.27 +/- 2.76 for the negative group and 6.29 +/- 4.42/2.89 +/- 3.37 for the positive group. The mean total daily oral morphine equivalent for the negative and positive group were 112.35 +/- 233.58 mg and 36.82 +/- 58.85 mg, respectively. There was no significant difference found in other symptoms in the modified ESAS between these two groups. The positive rate of the CAGE in patients with advanced cancer attending an out-patient radiotherapy clinic was only 7%, and analyses were limited by the small sample size of those with a positive CAGE. Whether our observed low positive rate of CAGE represents the true prevalence of problem drinking or the CAGE questionnaire is an insensitive tool for screening problem drinking in an outpatient palliative radiotherapy clinic requires further investigation. We did not find a statistically significant worse pain intensity nor higher analgesic consumption in patients who screened positive for CAGE questionnaire.