Search

Background: Cancer pain is usually managed by oncologists, occasionally with input from specialists in hospice and palliative medicine (PLM) or pain medicine (PMD). We evaluated the knowledge of cancer pain management in these three specialty groups., Methods: Eight vignettes depicting challenging scenarios of patients with poorly controlled pain were developed; each had five or six treatment choices. Respondents indicated choices likely to be safe and efficacious as "true" and choices likely to be unsafe or inefficacious as "false." Two questionnaires were created, each with four vignettes. Three anonymous mailings targeted geographically representative U.S. samples of 570 oncologists, 266 PMD specialists, and 280 PLM specialists, each randomly assigned one version of the questionnaire. Vignette scores were normalized to a 0-100 numeric rating scale (NRS); a score of 50 indicates that the number of correct choices equals the number of incorrect choices (consistent with guessing)., Results: Overall response rate was 49% (oncologists, 39%; PMD specialists, 48%; and PLM specialists, 70%). Average vignette score ranges were 53.2-66.5, 45.6-65.6, and 50.8-72.0 for oncologists, PMD specialists, and PLM specialists, respectively. Oncologists scored lower than PLM specialists on both questionnaires and lower than PMD specialists on one. On a 0-10 NRS, oncologists rated their ability to manage pain highly (median 7, with an interquartile range [IQR] of 5-8). Lower ratings were assigned to pain-related training in medical school (median 3, with an IQR of 2-5) and residency/fellowship (median 5, with an IQR of 4-7). Oncologists older than 46-47 years rated their training lower than younger oncologists., Conclusion: These data suggest that oncologists and other medical specialists who manage cancer pain have knowledge deficiencies in cancer pain management. These gaps help clarify the need for pain management education., (©AlphaMed Press.)

Purpose: Pain is prevalent among patients with cancer, yet pain management patterns in outpatient oncology are poorly understood., Patients and Methods: A total of 3,123 ambulatory patients with invasive cancer of the breast, prostate, colon/rectum, or lung were enrolled onto this prospective study regardless of phase of care or stage of disease. At initial assessment and 4 to 5 weeks later, patients completed a 25-item measure of pain, functional interference, and other symptoms. Providers recorded analgesic prescribing. The pain management index was calculated to assess treatment adequacy., Results: Of the 3,023 patients we identified to be at risk for pain, 2,026 (67%) reported having pain or requiring analgesics at initial assessment; of these 2,026 patients, 670 (33%) were receiving inadequate analgesic prescribing. We found no difference in treatment adequacy between the initial and follow-up visits. Multivariable analysis revealed that the odds of a non-Hispanic white patient having inadequate pain treatment were approximately half those of a minority patient after adjusting for other explanatory variables (odds ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.70; P = .002). Other significant predictors of inadequate pain treatment were having a good performance status, being treated at a minority treatment site, and having nonadvanced disease without concurrent treatment., Conclusion: Most outpatients with common solid tumors must confront issues related to pain and the use of analgesics. There is significant disparity in pain treatment adequacy, with the odds of undertreatment twice as high for minority patients. These findings persist over 1 month of follow-up, highlighting the complexity of these problems.

The assessment and treatment of pain in persons with cognitive impairments pose unique challenges. Disorders affecting cognition include neurodegenerative, vascular, toxic, anoxic, and infectious processes. Persons with memory, language, and speech deficits and consciousness alterations are often unable to communicate clearly about their pain and discomfort. Past research has documented that persons with cognitive impairments, particularly dementia, are less likely to ask for and receive analgesics. This article provides an overview of the assessment, treatment, and management of pain in adults with cognitive impairments. We review types of cognitive impairment; recent work specific to best practices for pain management in patients with dementia, including assessment-tool development and pharmacological treatment; challenges in patients with delirium and in medical intensive care and palliative care settings; and directions for future research.

We measured pain outcomes in a cohort of patients with cancer pain in a general hematology/oncology setting at a Veterans Administration Medical center (VA). The outcomes included pain relief, pain severity, changes in pain severity, interference scores, symptom distress, quality of life (QOL), and satisfaction. Seventy-four (74) consecutive patients with worst cancer-related pain equal to or greater than 4/10 were recruited. Cancer pain diagnoses were made and the cancer pain management guidelines of the United States Agency for Health Care Policy and Research were followed. Patients were followed weekly using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), medication diary, satisfaction questionnaire, visual analogue quality of life scale (VASQOL) and record of side effects for 3 weeks. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G) and Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale Short Form (MSAS-SF) were used at initial and final interviews. The mean initial worst pain severity was 8.3 (range 4-10) and mean pain relief was 40% (range 0-100). By week 1, the majority of patients achieved pain relief of >/=80%, with a corresponding decrease in worst pain severity and pain interference scores. Pain continued to decrease over three weeks. At week 3, there was a significant improvement in the MSAS-SF psychological symptom distress subscale (P = 0.02). The average number of opioid-related side effects was 5 and remained steady over time. Most patients felt "quite a bit" or "very much" satisfied at all weeks. There was a significant improvement in VASQOL (P < 0.005) and in FACTG SUMQOL scores (P = 0.007). This experience demonstrates that cancer pain management can result in measurable and significant changes in pain relief, pain severity, pain interference scores, psychological symptom distress, and QOL scores.

The purpose of this study was to develop a Cancer Pain Prognostic Scale (CPPS) which could predict the likelihood of pain relief within 2 weeks for cancer patients with moderate to severe pain. Seventy-four (74) consecutive patients who presented with cancer-related pain were managed in accordance with the guidelines for pain management developed by the United States Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR). Patients were followed weekly using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and medications were recorded weekly for 3 weeks. Baseline scores from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G), Mental Health Inventory (MHI), Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), and Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale Short Form (MSAS-SF) at initial interview served as explanatory variables in a logistic regression model. Pain relief > or = 80% at the end of weeks 1 and 2 were used as outcomes in this model. From this analysis, we developed a predictive formula, the CPPS, which includes the worst pain severity, FACT-G emotional well being, daily opioid dose, and pain characteristics. The rule yields a numerical score that ranges from 0-17. Higher scores correspond to a higher probability of good pain relief. The CPPS has the potential to rapidly identify patients with poor pain prognosis. It can be used as a research tool to characterize pain in cancer patients.

To examine the relationship between different cancer pain management outcomes over time, 74 patients with the worst cancer related pain rated as four or greater on an 11-point numeric scale were followed weekly with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and the satisfaction questionnaire and global visual analogue scale quality of life (VASQOL) for 3 weeks. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed at weekly time points. The analyses indicated that pain outcomes can be categorized into separate QOL and satisfaction paths linked by the worst pain severity. In the QOL path, the worst pain severity predicted a pain interference score, which consistently predicted VASQOL. For the satisfaction path, independent predictors were pain relief at Week 1, and worst pain severity and changes in worst pain severity at Week 2. No variables predicted satisfaction at Week 3. The data suggest that satisfaction and quality of life may be independent outcomes of pain management. The timing of assessment may itself be important.