Search

Context: Oxycodone and morphine are recommended as first-choice opioids for moderate/severe cancer pain, but evidence about their relative tolerability has significant methodological limitations.Objectives: This study was mainly aimed at comparing the risk of developing adverse events (AEs) with controlled-release oral morphine vs. oxycodone; secondary aims were comparing their analgesic efficacy and testing heterogeneity in tolerability across different age and renal function subgroups.Methods: An open-label multicenter RCT (EudraCT number: 2006-003151-21) was carried out in patients with moderate/severe cancer pain. At baseline, 7 and 14 days, patients scored on 0-10 rating scales (0-10 numerical rating scale) the intensity of pain and of a list of common opioid side effects. The primary end point was the percentage of patients reporting an AE (a worsening ≥ 2 points on any of the listed side effects); tolerability by subgroups and average follow-up pain intensity were compared through regression models.Results: One hundred eighty-seven patients were enrolled (47% of originally planned). Intention to treat (ITT) analysis (N = 185, morphine 94, oxycodone 91) did not show any difference in the risk of developing AEs (risk difference -0.6%, 95% CI -11.0% to 9.9%) nor in analgesia (0-10 numerical rating scale pain intensity difference -0.28, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.27). No evidence of heterogeneity of tolerability across age and renal function patient subgroups emerged.Conclusion: This trial failed to show any difference in tolerability and analgesic efficacy of morphine and oxycodone as first-line treatment for moderate/severe cancer pain but results interpretation is difficult due to lack of power, potential bias from open-label design, and concerns about assay sensitivity. These data, however, can significantly contribute to future meta-analyses comparing WHO Step-III opioids and are relevant in designing future randomized studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Different definitions of breakthrough pain (BTP) influence the observed BTP prevalence. This study examined BTP prevalence variability due to use of different cutoffs for controlled background pain, different assessment periods for background pain, and difference between worst and average pain intensity (PI).Methods: Cancer patients from the EPCRC-CSA study who reported flare-ups of pain past 24 h were potential BTP cases. BTP prevalence was calculated for different cutoffs for background PI on numeric rating scales (NRS 0-10) for the past week, past 48 and past 24 h period. Furthermore, BTP cases were categorized based on the difference between maximum and average PI past 24 h (range, 0 to > 2 points, NRS 0-10).Results: Of 696 respondents, 302 patients (43.4%) reported pain flares the past 24 h. The BTP prevalence when using a defined background PI ≤ 4 for the past week was 19.8%. This number varied for different defined cutoffs for background PI. Actual background PI and BTP prevalence also varied between the assessment periods “past week”, “past 48 h”, and “past 24 h” (PI 4.0, 3.6, and 3.4; BTP prevalence 19.8, 22.7, and 24.9% for background PI ≤ 4). For patients with background PI ≤ 4 past week, 105 had a difference between maximum and average PI ≥ one point and 48 had a difference > two points.Conclusions: The reported BTP prevalence is dependent on the cutoff for background PI in the BTP definition, population background PI during the assessment period, and defined cutoff for the difference between worst and average PI.Funding: NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is slowly but steadily being implemented in all phases of clinical research. As part of the European project "Building Data Rich Clinical Trials" a survey was launched to investigate the knowledge, experiences and opinions on this topic of clinicians and researchers from seven European clinical and non-clinical centers (Cancer Core Europe). Methods: An invitation to take part in a cross-sectional web survey was sent to 199 clinicians and researchers working in the field of precision oncology. The questionnaire was developed ad hoc because no existing questionnaires met the purpose of this study. The analysis takes account of whether respondents had experience on PPI or not. Results: On a total of 101 respondents, this survey reveals that 76.2% of them knew about PPI before answering the questionnaire, 54.5% had experience in the previous five years and 86.1% were interested in a training course on this topic. PPI knowledge grew together with career seniority (peak of 86.5% for established career professionals), while the group most interested in a course was the early-career professionals (100.0%). Finally, the majority of respondents stated they had no training or education on PPI (67.3% of experienced and 82.6% of not-experienced respondents). Conclusions: This survey shows that most cancer researchers knew the term PPI, even if only a little more than half of them had any relative experience. Opinions on PPI benefits, negative effects, barriers and requirements differed between the groups of PPI experienced and not-experienced respondents, showing that experience itself can influence respondents' opinions. Most of respondents reported they would prefer a training course based on practical rather than theoretical tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early palliative care (PC) has shown beneficial effects for advanced cancer patients. However, it is still debated what criteria to use to identify patients for PC referral. Aim: To document the initial steps of the development of the Palliative Care Referral System (PCRS), a tool to be used by oncologists in clinical practice. Methods: A multiprofessional working group developed the PCRS based on the results of a scoping literature review on PC referral criteria. PCRS criteria were evaluated by experts via a nominal group technique (NGT). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize expert scores on relevance, appropriateness and perceived feasibility of the criteria proposed. Quotations of participants during the discussion were also reported. Results: Sixteen studies, including PC referral criteria/tools, emerged from the scoping review. Severe symptoms, poor performance status, comorbidities and prognosis were the most commonly used criteria. The PCRS included nine major criteria and nine assessment methods; a scoring procedure was also proposed. Answers to the questionnaire during the NGT showed that five criteria reached full agreement on all items, while four did not, and were then discussed within the group. Participants agreed on the relevance of all criteria and on the appropriateness of methods proposed to assess most of them, while issues were raised about potential feasibility of the overall assessment of the PCRS in clinical practice. Conclusion: The PCRS has been developed as an help for oncologists to timely identify patients for specialized PC referral. Since feasibility emerged as the main concern, implementation strategies have to be tested in subsequent studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Inflammation is proposed to influence tumor response in radiotherapy (RT). Clinical studies to investigate the relationship between inflammatory markers and RT response is warranted to understand the variable RT efficacy in patients with painful bone metastases.Objectives: To evaluate the association between inflammatory markers and analgesic response to RT in patients with painful bone metastases.Methods: Adult patients from 7 European study sites undergoing RT for painful bone metastases were included in this prospective and longitudinal analysis. The association between RT response and 17 inflammatory markers at baseline, as well as the association between RT response and the changes observed in inflammatory markers between baseline and three and eight weeks after RT, was analyzed with univariate regression analyses. Baseline analyses were adjusted for potential clinical predictors of RT response.Results: None of the inflammatory markers were significantly associated with an upcoming RT response in the analysis of 448 patients with complete baseline data. In patients available for follow-up, the three-week change in TNF (P 0.017), IL-8 (P 0.028), IP-10 (P 0.032), eotaxin (P 0.043), G-CSF (P 0.033) and MCP-1 (P 0.002) were positively associated with RT response, while the three-week change in CRP (P 0.006) was negatively associated.Conclusion: Results from this study show an association between RT response and change in pro-inflammatory mediators and indicate that inflammation may be important to achieve an analgesic RT response in patients with painful bone metastases. None of the investigated inflammatory markers were found to be pre-treatment predictors of RT response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Radiotherapy (RT) reduces pain in about 60% of patients with painful bone metastases, leaving many patients without clinical benefit. This study assesses predictors for RT effectiveness in patients with painful bone metastases.Materials and Methods: We included adult patients receiving RT for painful bone metastases in a multicenter, multinational longitudinal observational study. Pain response within 8 weeks was defined as ≥2-point decrease on a 0-10 pain score scale, without increase in analgesics; or a decrease in analgesics of ≥25% without increase in pain score. Potential predictors were related to patient demographics, RT administration, pain characteristics, tumor characteristics, depression and inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP]). Multivariate logistic regression analysis with multiple imputation of missing data were applied to identify predictors of RT response.Results: Of 513 eligible patients, 460 patients (90 %) were included in the regression model. 224 patients (44%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 39%-48%) responded to RT. Better Karnofsky performance status (Odds ratio (OR) 1.39, CI 1.15-1.68), breast cancer (OR 2.54, CI 1.12-5.73), prostate cancer (OR 2.83, CI 1.27-6.33) and soft tissue expansion (OR 2.00, CI 1.23-3.25) predicted RT response. Corticosteroids were a negative predictor (OR 0.57, CI 0.37-0.88). Single and multiple fraction RT had similar response. The discriminative ability of the model was moderate; C-statistic 0.69.Conclusion: This study supports previous findings that better performance status and type of cancer diagnosis predicts analgesic RT response, and new data showing that soft tissue expansion predicts RT response and that corticosteroids is a negative predictor for RT response in patients with painful bone metastases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Early access to cancer palliative care is recommended. Descriptions of structures and processes of outpatient palliative care clinics operated within smaller hospitals are scarce. This paper presents the development and operation of a fully integrated cancer and palliative care outpatient clinic at a local hospital in a rural region of Mid-Norway offering palliative care concurrent with cancer treatment. A standardized care pathway was applied. Methods: Palliative care is in Norway part of the public healthcare system. Official recommendations recent years point out action points to improve delivery of palliative care. An integrated cancer and palliative care outpatient clinic at a local hospital and an innovative care delivery model was developed and operated in this setting. Patients were recruited for a descriptive study of the patient population. Clinical data were collected by clinical staff and 13 symptom intensities were reported by the patients. Results: Cancer and palliative care were provided by one team of healthcare professionals trained in both fields. There was a close collaboration with the other departments at the hospital, with its affiliated tertiary hospital, and with community health and care services to provide timely referral, enhanced continuity, and improved coordination of care. Eighty-eight patients were included. Mean age was 65.6 years, the most common cancer diagnoses were digestive organs (22.7%), male genital organs (20.5%) or breast (25.0%), 75.0% had metastatic or locally advanced cancer, 59.1% were treated with non-curative intention and 93.1% had Karnofsky Performance Status ≥ 80%. Median scores of individual symptoms ranged from 0 to 3 (numerical rating scale, 0–10) and 61.0% reported at least one clinically significant symptom rating (≥ 4). Conclusion: This delivery model of integrated outpatient cancer and palliative care is particularly relevant in rural regions allowing cancer patients access to palliative care earlier in the disease trajectory and closer to home Plain Language Summary: Palliative care is an important part of cancer care which aims at improving cancer patients' symptom burden and quality of life and support their carers. Palliative care has traditionally been separated from cancer care. During the last decade, one has become aware of the benefits of introducing palliative care early and concurrent with cancer treatment. Most cancer patients are nowadays treated as outpatients. Availability of palliative care as a routine part of outpatient cancer clinics is therefore important. Most of the described models of early palliative care in cancer care are within large tertiary hospitals. Here it is described how early palliative care was delivered to cancer patients in an outpatient clinic in a smaller hospital in a rural region of Mid-Norway. In this integrated cancer and palliative care outpatient clinic, cancer and palliative care were provided by one team of healthcare professionals trained in both fields. The integrated outpatient clinic collaborated closely with the other hospital departments and with community health and care services. This was needed to be able to offer palliative care to all cancer patients in need of it, and closer to their home. Many of the patients attending the integrated outpatient clinic could not be cured for their cancer. They did not have many symptoms of their cancer, and they had a high functional status. This demonstrated that the integrated outpatient clinic in this local hospital was a relevant place to offer palliative care early and concurrent with cancer treatment before symptoms became severe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several publications have addressed the need for a systematic integration of oncological care focused on the tumor and palliative care (PC) focused on the patient with cancer. The exponential increase in anticancer treatments and the high number of patients living longer with advanced disease have accentuated this. Internationally, there is now a persuasive argument that introducing PC early during anticancer treatment in patients with advanced disease has beneficial effects on symptoms, psychological distress, and survival.Methods: This is a national cluster-randomized trial (C-RCT) in 12 Norwegian hospitals. The trial investigates effects of early, systematic integration of oncology and specialized PC in patients with advanced cancer in six intervention hospitals compared with conventional care in six. Hospitals are stratified on the size of local catchment areas before randomization. In the intervention hospitals, a three-part complex intervention will be implemented. The backbone of the intervention is the development and implementation of patient-centered care pathways that contain early, compulsory referral to PC and regular and systematic registrations of symptoms. An educational program must be completed before patient inclusion. A total of 680 patients with advanced cancer and one caregiver per patient are included when patients come for start of last line of chemotherapy, defined according to national treatment guidelines. Data registration, clinical variables, and patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes take place every 2 months for 1 year or until death. The primary outcome is use of chemotherapy in the last 3 months of life by comparing the proportion of patients who receive this in the intervention and control groups. Primary outcome is use of chemotherapy in the last 3 months before death, i.e. number of patients. Secondary outcomes are initiation, discontinuation and number of cycles, last 3 months of life, administration of other medical interventions in the last month of life, symptom burden, quality of life (QoL), satisfaction with information and follow-up, and caregiver health, QoL, and satisfaction with care.Discussion: Results from this C-RCT will be used to raise the awareness about the positive outcomes of early provision of specialized palliative care using pathways for patients with advanced cancer receiving medical anticancer treatment. The long-term clinical objective is to integrate these patient-centered pathways in Norwegian cancer care. The specific focus on the patient and family and the organization of a predictable care trajectory is consistent with current Norwegian strategies for cancer care.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088202. Registered on 23 March 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Few studies have addressed the impact of previous opioid exposure on the effect of opioids for the treatment of severe cancer pain episodes.Objectives: We aimed to test whether previous exposure to higher opioid doses was associated with a reduced analgesic effect of fentanyl sublingual tablets (FST) and subcutaneous morphine (SCM) and whether it had an influence on their relative effect.Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a placebo-controlled randomized trial comparing 100 μg FST with 5 mg SCM for the acute treatment of severe cancer pain episodes. The effect of previous opioid exposure (oral morphine equivalent daily dose from 20 to 120 mg) on pain intensity difference (PID) and side effects at 30 and 60 minutes after administration (PID 0-30 minutes, PID 0-60 minutes, and adverse events 30-60 minutes) and on re-medication for inefficacy, was studied by multivariable linear and logistic regression models and statistical tests for interaction.Results: A total of 114 patients were enrolled. Results indicate modest and nonstatistically significant effect of previous opioid exposure on all the outcomes examined (P = 0.11, P = 0.35, P = 0.07, and P = 0.52, respectively, for PID 0-30 minutes, re-medication, PID 0-60 minutes, and adverse events 30-60 minutes). Nonstatistically significant tests for interaction for all models indicated a lack of impact of previous opioid exposure on the difference in the analgesic effect between treatments.Conclusion: In this study, we could not demonstrate an effect of previous opioid exposure, from 20 to 120 mg oral morphine equivalent daily dose, on the absolute and relative efficacy and tolerability of 100 μg FST and 5 mg SCM for severe cancer pain episodes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Few studies regarding palliative sedation (PS) have been carried out in home care (HC) setting. A comparison of PS rate and practices between hospice (HS) and HC is also lacking.Objectives: Comparing HC and HS settings for PS rate, patient clinical characteristics before and during PS, decision-making process, and clinical aspects of PS.Methods: About 38 HC/HS services in Italy participated in a multicenter observational longitudinal study. Consecutive adult cancer patients followed till death during a four-month period and undergoing PS were eligible. Symptom control and level of consciousness were registered every eight hours to death.Results: About 4276 patients were screened, 2894 followed till death, and 531 (18%) underwent PS. PS rate was 15% in HC and 21% in HS (P < 0.001). Principal refractory symptoms were delirium (54%) and dyspnea (45%), respectively, more common in HC (P < 0.001) and HS (P = 0.03). Informed consent was not obtained in 72% of patients but achieved by 96% of families. Midazolam was the most used drug (94% HS vs. 75% HC; P < 0.001) mainly by continuous infusion (74% HC vs. 89% HS; P < 0.001). PS duration was less than 48 hours in 67% of patients. Hydration during PS was less frequent in HC (27% vs. 49%; P < 0.001). In the eight hours before death, consciousness level was unrousable to mild physical stimulation in 81% and symptom control complete in 89% of cases.Conclusion: Our results show feasibility of PS in HC and HS and suggest setting differences in rates, indications, and practice of PS, possibly related to patients' selection or care organization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The semantics of defining cancer cachexia over the last decade has resulted in uncertainty as to the prevalence. This has further hindered the recognition and subsequent treatment of this condition. Following the consensus definition for cancer cachexia in 2011, there is now a need to establish estimates of prevalence. Therefore, the primary aim of the present study was to assess the prevalence of cachexia in an unselected cancer population. A secondary aim was to assess patient-perceived need of attention to cachexia.Methods: A cross-sectional study in hospital patients was undertaken. Key inclusion criteria were the following: age > 18 years, cancer diagnosis, and no surgery the preceding 24 h. Data on demographics, disease, performance status, symptoms, cachexia, and patients' perceived need of attention to weight loss and nutrition were registered.Results: Data were available on 386 of 426 eligible patients. Median age (IQR) was 65 years (56-72), 214 (55%) were male and 302 (78%) had a performance status of 0-1 (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group). Prevalence of cachexia (inpatients/outpatients) was 51/22%. Prevalence was highest in patients with gastrointestinal cancer (62/42%) and lung cancer (83/36%). There was no major difference in prevalence between patients with metastatic (55/24%) and localized disease (47/19%). Twenty percent of inpatients and 15% of outpatients wanted more attention to weight loss and nutrition. Cachexia (p < 0.001), symptoms of mood disorder (p < 0.001), and male gender (p < 0.01) were independently associated with increased need of attention.Conclusion: Cachexia is a prevalent condition, affecting both patients with localized and metastatic cancer. Clinical attention to the condition is a sizeable unmet need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer Core Europe brings together the expertise, resources, and interests of seven leading cancer institutes committed to leveraging collective innovation and collaboration in precision oncology. Through targeted efforts addressing key medical challenges in cancer and partnerships with multiple stakeholders, the consortium seeks to advance cancer research and enhance equitable patient care., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become an essential part of health research. There is a need for genuine involvement in order to ensure that research is relevant to patients. This can then improve the quality, relevance, and impact of health research, while at the same time reducing wasted research and in doing so bringing science and society closer together. Despite the increasing attention for this involvement, it is not yet common practice to report on proposed activities. An article reporting planned PPI could provide guidance and inspiration for the wider academic community in future activities. Therefore, this current article aims to describe the way in which PPI principles are incorporated in the research project called "Quality of Life in Oncology: measuring what matters for cancer patients and survivors in Europe (EUonQoL)." This project aims to develop a new set of questionnaires to enable cancer patients to assess their quality of life, entitled the EUonQoL-Kit., Methods: The first step is to recruit cancer patients and their informal caregivers as co-researchers in order to train them to collaborate with the researchers. Based on their skills and preferences, they are then assigned to several of the project's work packages. Their individual roles, tasks, and responsibilities regarding the work packages, to which they have been assigned, are evaluated and adapted when necessary. The impact of their involvement is evaluated by both the researchers and co-researchers., Discussion: PPI is a complex and dynamic process. As such, the overall structure of the research may be defined while at the same time leaving room for certain aspects to be filled in later. Our research is, we believe, relevant as co-researcher involvement in such a large European project as EUonQoL is a new development., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Patients with cancer often want to spend their final days at home. In Norway, most patients with cancer die in institutions. We hypothesized that full integration of oncology and palliative care services would result in more time spent at home during end-of-life., Methods: A prospective non-randomized intervention trial was conducted in two rural regions of Mid-Norway. The hospitals' oncology and palliative care outpatient clinics and surrounding communities participated. An intervention including information, education, and a standardized care pathway was developed and implemented. Adult non-curative patients with cancer were eligible. Proportion of last 90 days of life spent at home was the primary outcome., Results: We included 129 patients in the intervention group (I) and 76 patients in the comparison group (C), of whom 82% of patients in I and 78% of patients in C died during follow-up. The mean proportion of last 90 days of life spent at home was 0.62 in I and 0.72 in C (p = 0.044), with 23% and 36% (p = 0.073), respectively, dying at home. A higher proportion died at home in both groups compared to pre-study level (12%). During the observation period the comparison region developed and implemented an alternative intervention to the study intervention, with the former more focused on end-of-life care., Conclusion: A higher proportion of patients with cancer died at home in both groups compared to pre-study level. Patients with cancer in I did not spend more time at home during end-of-life compared to those in C. The study intervention focused on the whole disease trajectory, while the alternative intervention was more directed towards end-of-life care. "Simpler" and more focused interventions on end-of-life care may be relevant for future studies on integration of palliative care into oncology., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02170168., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Better diagnosis and treatment of neuropathic cancer pain (NcP) remains an unmet clinical need. The EAPC/IASP algorithm was specifically designed for NcP diagnosis; yet, to date, there is no information on its application and accuracy., Objectives: Our aim was to determine the accuracy of the EAPC/IASP algorithm compared with the Neuropathic Special Interest Group grading system (gold standard) and to describe patients' sensory profile with quantitative sensory testing (QST)., Methods: This is a cross-sectional observational study conducted in a palliative care and pain outpatient clinic. Patients with cancer pain intensity ≥3 (numerical rating scale 0-10) were eligible. The palliative care physician applied the EAPC/IASP algorithm as a grading system to diagnose probable or definite NcP, and an independent investigator applied the gold standard and performed the QST. Sensitivity and specificity of the EAPC/IASP algorithm were measured in comparison with the gold standard results. Kruskal-Wallis and unequal variance independent-samples t tests were used to compare the QST parameters in patients with and without NcP., Results: Ninety-eight patients were enrolled from August 2020 to March 2023. Sensitivity and specificity for the EAPC/IASP algorithm were 85% (95% CI 70.2-94.3) and 98.3% (95% CI 90.8-100), respectively. Patients with NcP in contrast to patients without NcP showed cold hypoesthesia ( P = 0.0032), warm hypoesthesia ( P = 0.0018), pressure hyperalgesia ( P = 0.02), and the presence of allodynia ( P = 0.0001)., Conclusion: The results indicate a good performance of the EAPC/IASP algorithm in diagnosing NcP and the QST discriminated well between patients with and without NcP., Competing Interests: E.Z. has received honoraria from Amgen. R.R. has received fees as a speaker or for counseling services from the following companies: Aristo Pharma, Cannamedical, Hormosan, Grünenthal, Lilly & Company, Pfizer, Tilray, and Spectrum Therapeutics. S.K. has received honoraria from Nutricia Norge AS and Pfizer Norge AS. A.C. has received honoraria from Molteni, Pfizer/Eli Lilly Italia Spa, and Mundipharma. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Competing Interests: A.C. has received consultant honoraria from Mundipharma, Pfizer/Eli Lilly Italia Spa, Angelini, Shionogi, Molteni, and Kyowa Kirin. He has also received research grants from Molteni & C Soc Esercizio Spa and Ipsen. Other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Aim: Assessing the incidence of Medication Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (MRONJ) in cancer patients with bone metastases receiving Denosumab (Dmab) and identifying potential risk factors., Methods: A retrospective observational study on consecutive cancer patients with bone metastases, who received at least one dose of Dmab and one follow-up visit. MRONJ crude cumulative incidence (CCI) was estimated considering death without MRONJ as competing event. Multiple regression models were used to study the association between MRONJ incidence and potential risk factors: age, cancer diagnosis, previous bisphosphonates, dental treatments before starting Dmab, extraction or other dental treatment during Dmab, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and antiangiogenic (AA) agents concurrent use., Results: On 780 patients included (median follow-up 17 months), 54% and 18% had, respectively, breast and prostate cancer. The mean number of Dmab administration was 12. Fifty-six patients developed MRONJ with a 24- and a 48-month crude cumulative incidence of 5.7% (95% Cl: 4.2%-7.8%) and 9.8% (95% CI: 7.6%-12.7%), respectively. Higher MRONJ incidence was significantly associated with middle aged group (>56 and ≤73), both at univariate and multivariate analysis (p = 0.029 and 0.0106). Dental treatments (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 3.67; p = 0.0001), dental extractions (HR = 23.40; p < 0.0001), and previous BP administration (HR = 2.62; p = 0.0024) were significantly associated with higher MRONJ incidence at multivariate Cox analysis. Although not statistically significant, MRONJ incidence was lower for patients receiving chemotherapy or hormone therapy and higher for those receiving AAs., Conclusions: The results confirm a clinically relevant incidence of Dmab-induced MRONJ. Dental treatments, especially extraction, during and before Dmab, constitute a serious risk factor. The role of AA concurrent administration deserves further investigations., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The multidisciplinary approach is considered "best practice" in oncology. Multidisciplinary Teamwork (MDTW) can be broadly classified into Multidisciplinary Team Meetings (MDTM) and Multidisciplinary Cancer Clinics (MDCC; involving also patients), yet both models are heterogeneously implemented., Purpose: This study aims at describing the different MDTW implemented models in a Comprehensive Cancer Center., Methods: All clinical unit directors of the hospital were contacted to identify any MDTW activities the personnel of the unit were involved in. Structured interviews were carried out to collect MDTWs information, ie, type (MDTM vs MDCC), team composition, aims, disease phase, use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Descriptive analyses and Social Network Analysis (SNA) were performed., Results: Among 38 structured interviews, 25 concerned MDTMs and 13 in MDCCs. Responders were mainly surgeons (35%) and oncologists (29%), 35% of them were team leaders. Teams were mostly composed of physicians only (64% in MDTMs, 69% in MDCCs). Case managers (8% and 31%), palliative care specialists (12% and 23%) and psychologists (20% and 31%) were involved to a lesser extent, mainly when dealing with advanced disease. MDTWs were mainly aimed at integrating the skills of the different specialists (respectively 72% for MDTMs and 64% for MDCCs) and offering the best overall patient care pathway (64%, 61.5%). MDTWs were directed at patients in both diagnostic (72%, 61.5%) and locally advanced/metastatic (32%, 38.4%) disease. PROMs were seldom used (24%, 23%). SNA shows a similar density in the two MDTWs, but in the MDCCs two nodes remain isolated (pathologists and radiologists)., Conclusion: Despite a high number of MDTWs for advanced/metastatic disease, there is limited involvement of palliative care specialists, psychologists, and nurses., Competing Interests: Dr Cinzia Brunelli reports grants from Italian Ministry of Health, during the conduct of the study; Dr Giulia V Bianchi reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Daichi/astraZeneza, personal fees from Seagen, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Lilly, outside the submitted work; Professor Augusto Caraceni reports grants from Italian Ministry of Health, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Mundipharma, personal fees from Molteni, personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from Kiowa Kirin, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest., (© 2023 Alfieri et al.)

Purpose: There is increasing interest in integrating electronic patient-reported outcomes (e-PROs) into clinical routines in cancer settings. However, little is known about patients' experiences with and perceptions of e-PRO measures (e-PROMs). This study examines patients' experiences with e-PROMS, particularly their perspectives about its usefulness and its implications for the clinical encounter with their doctors., Method: A total of 19 individual in-person interviews with cancer patients at a Comprehensive Cancer Center in northern Italy conducted in 2021 inform this study., Results: The findings suggested that, overall, patients had positive attitudes towards data collection using e-PROMs. On the one hand, most patients found the integration of e-PROMs into routine clinical practice as beneficial in treating patients with cancer. The main benefits of e-PROMs according to this group of patients were that: they promoted patient-centred care; could be used to tailor and improve the quality of care through a holistic approach; supported early detection of problematic symptoms; increased patient self-awareness; and contributed to clinical research. On the other hand, many patients did not fully understand the purpose of e-PROMs and some patients were also sceptical about their usefulness in routine clinical practice., Conclusions: These findings have several practical implications for ensuring the successful implementation of e-PROMs in routine clinical practice. These include the following preconditions: patients are informed about the purposes of data collection; physicians provide feedback to patients about the e-PROMs' results; and that hospital administrators allocate sufficient time for clinical interactions to integrate e-PROMs into routine clinical practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Cancer, in Europe, is the second cause of death. In addition, there is an unacceptable variability in terms of access to innovation, quality of care, and outcomes, within and between countries. The European Union has activated an unprecedented initiative to fight cancer by launching Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the Cancer Mission. The goals are to reduce mortality, increase survival, and ameliorate quality of life by increasing knowledge, improving quality of care, and reducing inequalities through interventions on actionable determinants of variability. A competitive call was launched with the objective to develop and validate a set of quality of life and patient preference measures for cancer patients and survivors, to be used for routine data collection all over Europe. A consortium, the EUonQoL, was funded, including partners from 41 countries with 55 participants. It will start the activities on January 2023 and rresults are expected by December 2024., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Introduction: Early palliative care (PC) in the clinical pathway of advanced cancer patients improves symptom control, quality of life and has a positive impact on overall quality of care. At present, standardised criteria for appropriate referral for early PC in oncology care are lacking. The aim of this project is to develop a set of standardised referral criteria and procedures to implement appropriate early PC for advanced cancer patients (the palliative care referral system, PCRS) and test its impact on user perception of quality of care received, on patient quality of life and on the use of healthcare resources., Setting: Selected oncology clinics and PC outpatient clinic., Methods and Analysis: A scoping literature review and an expert consultation through a nominal group technique will be used to revise existing referral tools and to develop a new one, the PCRS. 25 patients will be enrolled in a pilot study to assess feasibility of the implementation of PCRS; 10 interviews with patients and healthcare professionals will be carried out to evaluate applicability.A pretest-post-test quasiexperimental study involving 150 patients before implementation of the PCRS and 150 patients after implementation will be carried out.Patient satisfaction with care received, quality of life and use of resources, and caregiver satisfaction with care will also be assessed to explore the impact of the intervention., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval for the study has been granted by the Institutional Review board of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori; approval reference INT201/19.Results will be disseminated through open access publications and through scientific communication presented at national and international conferences., Trial Registration Number: NCT04936568., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AC has received consultant honoraria from Mundipharma, Pfizer/Eli Lilly Italia Spa, Angelini, Shionogi, Molteni and Kyowa Kirin. He has also received research grants from Molteni & C Soc Esercizio Spa and Ipsen. EZ has received consultant honoraria from Amgen. MN has received travel expenses from Celgene, speaker honorarium from Accademia della Medicina and consultant honoraria from EMD Serono, Basilea Pharmaceutica, Incyte and MSD Italia. FDB has received consultant honoraria from Roche, EMD Serono, NMS Nerviano Medical Science, Sanofi, MSD, Novartis and Incyte. He has received speaker honoraria from BMS, Healthcare Research & Pharmacoepidemiology, Merck Group, ACCMED, Nadirex, MSD, Pfizer, Servier, Sanofi, Roche and AMGEN. He has also received research grants from Novartis, Roche, BMS, Celgene, Incyte, NMS, Merck KGAA, Kymab, Pfizer, Tesaro and MSD. AP, PB, MC, SLD, VF, CBe, MB, PS, SP, SA, AR, GT and CBr declare no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Pain is a prevalent symptom in patients with advanced cancer. Recognition of prognostic factors associated with pain intensity, could help provide better assessment, leading to better pain management., Aim: identifying prognostic factors which could guide improvements on cancer pain classification., Design: a prospective observational study on chronic cancer pain, exploring the association between average mean pain intensity during a 28 days study follow-up and patients' clinical and pain-related characteristics, including pain syndromes. To evaluate these associations, a mixed model was built., Setting/participants: Patients attending a Palliative Care and Pain Outpatient Clinic from May 2015 to June 2019 were screened. Patients with moderate to severe cancer pain who were already receiving or needed treatment with third step WHO ladder opioids were enrolled in the study. Data from 342 patients with at least one follow-up visit were analyzed., Results: Pain intensity decreased significantly for all patients during time ( p  < 0.001). Age, sex, emotional distress, pain duration and neuropathic pain presence evaluated by the Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) questionnaire were not significantly associated to pain intensity. Breakthrough/episodic pain was associated with higher pain intensity during follow-up ( p  < 0.001). The diagnosis of pain syndrome was overall significantly associated with mean pain intensity during follow-up ( p  = 0.016). Particularly, the concurrent presence of visceral and soft ( p  = 0.026) or soft and nervous tissue pain ( p  = 0.043) were significantly related to worse outcome, whereas pain due to only soft tissue damage with better outcome ( p  = 0.032)., Conclusions: The recognition of specific pain syndromes may help to better classify cancer pain.

Few studies have investigated the needs of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), and none have been conducted in Italy. Three categories of needs have been identified from the literature: information, support, and practical resources. The present study aims to achieve an in-depth understanding of the patients' needs related to the MBC care pathway. In-depth interviews were conducted and analyzed by thematic analysis. The participants were 9 women with MBC (age range 36-74) who were enrolled at the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionalde dei tumori, in Milan. The analysis enabled us to identify four themes (which reflect the needs of the participants), each divided into numerous sub-themes: (1) the need for clinical recognition, (2) the need for more attention from healthcare professionals, (3) the need for more and better services to be available at the hospital, (4) the need for specific public health policies. Since the metastatic phase of breast cancer seems to elicit additional, specific needs and multi-level management, changes in attitudes and multidisciplinary practices should be tested in order to ascertain how these needs can be met., (© 2021. American Association for Cancer Education.)

Background: Despite evidence of the positive impact of routine assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), their systematic collection is not widely implemented in cancer care., Aim: To assess the knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards PROMs and electronically collected PROMs (ePROMs) in clinical practice and research and to explore respondent-related factors associated with the above dimensions., Method: An ad hoc developed online survey was administered to all HCPs employed in clinical activity in an Italian comprehensive cancer center. The survey investigated which PROMs were known and used, as well as HCPs' opinions on the advantages and drawbacks of routine PROM assessment, including electronic assessment (ePROM). Linear and logistic regression models were used for association analyses., Results: Five Hundred Eleven of nine hundred ninety-two invited HCPs (52%) provided analyzable responses. 68% were women, 46% were nurses and 42% physicians, and 52.5% had > 20 years seniority. The average number of PROMs known was six among 17 proposed. All proved to be under-used (< 28%) except unidimensional and multidimensional pain scales (77 and 36%). Respondents expressed an overall positive attitude towards PROMs, with strengths outweighing weaknesses (mean overall scores 3.6 and 2.9, respectively, on a 1-5 scale). 67% of respondents preferred electronic collection over paper and pencil. Profession was associated with knowledge and use (physicians reported knowing more PROMs than other professionals) and with a preference for electronic collection (nurses were less likely to prefer the electronic format than physicians). Senior HCPs were slightly more critical about both PROMs and electronic administration., Conclusions: This survey indicates an acceptable level of knowledge of common PROM tools but low usage in practice. Based on the generally positive attitude of HCPs, routine implementation of ePROMs can be promoted as long as adequate resources and training are provided., Trial Registration: Not registered., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Primary retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) may require multivisceral resection (MVR). Clinical outcome (morbidity and renal function) and quality of life (QoL) are not as well reported as the oncologic outcome., Methods: Patients with primary RPS who underwent surgery between 2014 and 2016 were prospectively enrolled in an observational longitudinal study. At baseline, then at 4 and 12 months, the study measured Clavien-Dindo morbidity, estimated glomerular filtration rate (EGFR), EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR29, DN4 (neuropathic pain [NP]), lower-extremity functional scale (LEFS), and the brief pain inventory. The primary end point was the difference in global health status (GHS/QoL). The secondary end points were EGFR changes, difference in other QLQ-C30 scales, pain intensity, NP, and LEFS. The study is registered at ClinTrials.gov (NCT03480399)., Results: Of 74 patients, 58 were evaluable. Morbidity grade 3 or higher was 24.1%, and mortality was 1.3%. After nephrectomy, the mean 1-year EGFR change was -33.9%. The GHS/QoL at baseline was 58.6 and had increased of 6.9 points at 1 year, comparable with that of the general population. A transient worsening in pain and diarrhea had recovered at 12 months. Average pain was mild and did not differ at 12 months. However, NP was found in 41.4% of the patients and was significantly associated with resection of the psoas muscle. At baseline, LEFS was already lower than the normative value, and worsening after surgery was not clinically relevant., Conclusion: A QoL measure after MVR in primary RPS is complex and requires multiple tools. Whereas overall MVR is safe and associated with an improvement in GHS/QoL, chronic NP is frequent and deserves specific attention. Pre-surgery rehabilitation tracks may help to prevent or reduce chronic NP.

Background: Listening to "patient voices" in terms of symptoms, emotional status and experiences with care, is crucial for patient empowerment in clinical practice. Despite convincing evidence that routine patient reported outcomes and experience measurements (PRMs) with rapid feed-back to oncologists can improve symptom control, patient well-being and cost effectiveness, PRMs are not commonly used in cancer care, due to barriers at various level. Part of these barriers may be overcome through electronic PRMs collection (ePRMs) integrated with the electronic medical record (EMR). The PATIENT VOICES initiative is aimed at achieving a stepwise integration of ePRMs assessment into routine cancer care. The feasibility project presented here is aimed at assessing the knowledge, use and attitudes toward PRMs in a comprehensive cancer centre; developing and assessing feasibility of a flexible system for ePRM assessment; identifying barriers to and developing strategies for implementation and integration of ePRMs clinical practice., Methods: The project has been organized into four phases: a) pre-development; b) software development and piloting; c) feasibility assessment; d) post-development. A convergent mixed method design, based on concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection will be applied. A web-survey on health care providers (HCPs), qualitative studies on patients and HCPs (semi-structured interviews and focus groups) as well as longitudinal and cross-sectional quantitative studies will be carried out. The quantitative studies will enroll 600 patients: 200 attending out-patient clinics (physical symptom assessement), 200 attending inpatient wards (psychological distress assessment) and 200 patients followed by multidisciplinary teams (patient experience with care assessment). The Edmonton symptom assessment scale, the Distress Thermometer, and a tool adapted from existing patient reported experience with cancer care questionnaires, will be used in quantitative studies. A multi-disciplinary stakeholder team including researchers, clinicians, health informatics professionals, health system administrators and patients will be involved in the development of potentially effective implementation strategies in the post development phase., Discussion: The documentation of potential advantages and implementation barriers achieved within this feasibility project, will serve as a starting point for future and more focused interventions aimed at achieving effective ePRMs routine assessment in cancer care., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03968718 ) May 30th, 2019.

Nausea and vomiting are often associated with opioid analgesia in cancer patients; however, only a subset of patients develop such side effects. Here, we tested the hypothesis that the occurrence of nausea and vomiting is modulated by the genetic background of the patients. Whole exome sequencing of DNA pools from patients with either low (n = 937) or high (n = 557) nausea and vomiting intensity, recruited in the European Pharmacogenetic Opioid Study, revealed a preliminary association of 53 polymorphisms. PCR-based genotyping of 45 of these polymorphisms in the individual patients of the same series confirmed the association for six SNPs in AIM1L, CLCC1, MUC16, PDE3A, POM121L2, and ZNF165 genes. Genotyping of the same 45 polymorphisms in 264 patients of the Italian CERP study, also treated with opioids for cancer pain, instead confirmed the association for two SNPs in ZNF568 and PDE3A genes. Only one SNP, rs12305038 in PDE3A, was confirmed in both series, although with opposite effects of the minor allele on the investigated phenotype. Overall, our findings suggest that genetic factors are indeed associated with nausea and vomiting in opioid-treated cancer patients, but the role of individual polymorphisms may be weak.

Background and Aims: The prevalence of pain in cancer patients are relatively high and indicate inadequate pain management strategies. Therefore, it is necessary to develop new methods and to improve implementation of guidelines to assess and treat pain. The vast improvement in information technology facilitated development of a computerized symptom assessment and decision support system (CCDS) - the Combat system - which was implemented in an outpatient cancer clinic to evaluate improvement in pain management., Methods: We conducted a controlled before-and-after study between patient cohorts in two consecutive study periods: before (n=80) and after (n=134) implementation of the Combat system. Patients in the first cohort completed questionnaires with the paper-and-pencil method and this data was not shown to physicians. Patients in the latter cohort completed an electronic questionnaire by using an iPad and the data were automatically transferred and presented to physicians at point of care. Additionally, the system provided computerized decision support at point of care for the physician based on the electronic questionnaires completed by the patients, an electronic CRF completed by physicians and clinical guidelines., Results: The Combat system did not improve pain intensity and there were no significant alterations in the prescribed dose of opiates compared to the cohort of patients managed without the Combat system., Conclusion: The Combat system did not improve pain management. This may be explained by several factors, however, we consider lack of proper implementation of the CCDS in the clinic to be the most important factor. As a result, we did not manage to change the behaviour of the physicians in the clinic., Implications: There is a need to conduct larger prospective studies to evaluate the efficacy of modern information technology to improve pain management in cancer patients. Before introducing new information technology in the clinics, it is important to have a well thought out implementation strategy. The trial is registered at Clinialtrials.gov, number NCT01795157., (Copyright © 2017 Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The present study is the result of theory-driven research investigating the role of the search for and presence of meaning in enhancing both mental adjustment and eudaimonic well-being in cancer patients., Method: A cross-sectional study involved 266 cancer patients currently in the treatment and management phase of their illness. Data were collected by a written questionnaire. The search for meaning was assessed with the Seeking of Noetic Goals Test, and the presence of meaning was assessed using the Purpose in Life Test. Mental adjustment to a cancer diagnosis was assessed by two subscales of the Italian version of the Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale, and eudaimonic well-being was assessed with the Psychological Well-Being Scale. Correlation and mediation analyses based on five thousand bootstrapping samples were performed., Results: The mediation analyses showed that the presence of meaning totally or partially mediated the effect of the search for meaning on both mental adjustment and eudaimonic well-being. Further correlation analyses showed a high negative correlation between eudaimonic well-being and hopelessness., Significance of Results: Our results appear relevant from both the theoretical and clinical points of view. They support a deeper understanding of the combined contribution of the search for and presence of meaning in promoting well-being in cancer patients. Simultaneously, they are consistent with suggestions from recent studies on the clinical psychology of posttraumatic growth and emphasize the relevance of eudaimonic well-being as a protective factor for hopelessness.

Neuropathic pain (NP) in cancer patients lacks standards for diagnosis. This study is aimed at reaching consensus on the application of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) special interest group for neuropathic pain (NeuPSIG) criteria to the diagnosis of NP in cancer patients and on the relevance of patient-reported outcome (PRO) descriptors for the screening of NP in this population. An international group of 42 experts was invited to participate in a consensus process through a modified 2-round Internet-based Delphi survey. Relevant topics investigated were: peculiarities of NP in patients with cancer, IASP NeuPSIG diagnostic criteria adaptation and assessment, and standardized PRO assessment for NP screening. Median consensus scores (MED) and interquartile ranges (IQR) were calculated to measure expert consensus after both rounds. Twenty-nine experts answered, and good agreement was found on the statement "the pathophysiology of NP due to cancer can be different from non-cancer NP" (MED=9, IQR=2). Satisfactory consensus was reached for the first 3 NeuPSIG criteria (pain distribution, history, and sensory findings; MEDs⩾8, IQRs⩽3), but not for the fourth one (diagnostic test/imaging; MED=6, IQR=3). Agreement was also reached on clinical examination by soft brush or pin stimulation (MEDs⩾7 and IQRs⩽3) and on the use of PRO descriptors for NP screening (MED=8, IQR=3). Based on the study results, a clinical algorithm for NP diagnostic criteria in cancer patients with pain was proposed. Clinical research on PRO in the screening phase and on the application of the algorithm will be needed to examine their effectiveness in classifying NP in cancer patients., (Copyright © 2014 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)