Search

The need for axillary dissection (AD) is declining, but it is still essential for many patients with nodal involvement who risk developing breast-cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) with lifelong consequences. Previous nonrandomized studies found axillary reverse mapping and selective axillary dissection (ARM-SAD) a safe and feasible way to preserve the arm's lymphatic drainage.The present two-arm prospective randomized clinical trial was held at a single comprehensive cancer center to ascertain whether ARM-SAD can reduce the risk of BCRL, compared with standard AD, in patients with node-positive breast cancer. Whatever the type of breast surgery or adjuvant treatments planned, 130 patients with nodal involvement met our inclusion criteria: 65 were randomized for AD and 65 for ARM-SAD. Twelve months after surgery, a physiatrist assessed patients for BCRL and calculated the excess volume of the operated arm. Lymphoscintigraphy was used to assess drainage impairment. Self-reports of any impairment were also recorded.The difference in the incidence of BCRL between the two groups was 21% (95% CI, 3-37; p = .03). A significantly lower rate of BCRL after ARM-SAD was confirmed by a multimodal analysis that included the physiatrist's findings, excess arm volume, and lymphoscintigraphic findings, but this was not matched by a significant difference in patients' self-reports.Our findings encourage a change of surgical approach when AD is still warranted. ARM-SAD may be an alternative to standard AD to reduce the treatment-related morbidity.

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 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.

Introduction Despite the essential utility of opioids for the clinical management of pain, opioid-induced constipation (OIC) remains an important obstacle in clinical practice. In patients, OIC hinders treatment compliance and has negative effects on quality of life. From a clinician perspective, the diagnosis and management of OIC are hampered by the absence of a clear, universal diagnostic definition across disciplines and a lack of standardization in OIC treatment and assessment. Methods A multidisciplinary panel of physician experts who treat OIC was assembled to identify a list of ten corrective actions—five “things to do” and five “things not to do”—for the diagnosis and management of OIC, utilizing the Choosing Wisely methodology. Results The final list of corrective actions to improve the diagnosis and clinical management of OIC emphasized a need for: (i) better physician and patient education regarding OIC; (ii) systematic use of diagnostically validated approaches to OIC diagnosis and assessment (i.e., Rome IV criteria and Bristol Stool Scale, respectively) across various medical contexts; and (iii) awareness about appropriate, evidence-based treatments for OIC including available peripheral mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs). Conclusions Physicians who prescribe long-term opioids should be forthcoming with patients about the possibility of OIC and be adequately versed in the most recent guideline recommendations for its management.

ObjectivesDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine (TM) emerged as an important mean to reduce risks of transmission, yet delivering the necessary care to patients. Our aim was to evaluate feasibility, characteristics and satisfaction for a TM service based on phone/video consultations for patients with cancer attending an outpatient palliative care clinic during COVID-19 pandemics.MethodsA longitudinal observational study was conducted from April to December 2020. Consecutive patients were screened for video consultations feasibility. Either patients or their caregivers received video/phone consultations registering reason and intervention performed. Those contacted at least twice were eligible for experience of care assessment.ResultsVideo consultations were feasible in 282 of 572 screened patients (49%, 95% CI 45% to 52%); 112 patients among the 572 had at least two phone/video consultations and 12 of them had one or more video consultations. Consultations were carried out with patients (56%), caregivers (30%) or both (14%). 63% of the consultations were requested by the patients/caregivers. Reasons for consultation included uncontrolled (66%) or new symptom onset (20%), therapy clarifications (37%) and updates on diagnostic tests (28%). Most interventions were therapy modifications (70%) and appointments’ rescheduling (51%). 49 patients and 19 caregivers were interviewed, reporting good care experience (average of 1–5 satisfaction score of 3.9 and 4.2, respectively). The majority (83% and 84%) declared they would use TM after the pandemics.ConclusionsAlthough feasibility is still limited for some patients, TM can be a satisfactory alternative to in-person visits for palliative care patients in need of limiting access to the hospital.

Weitere Nicht-UDE Autoren sind nicht mit aufgeführt. enosynovial giant cell tumour (TGCT) is a rare, locally aggressive, mesenchymal tumor arising from the joints, bursa and tendon sheaths. TGCT comprises a nodular- and a diffuse-type, with the former exhibiting mostly indolent course and the latter a locally aggressive behavior. Although usually not life-threatening, TGCT may cause chronic pain and adversely impact function and quality of life (QoL). CSFR1 inhibitors are effective with benefit on symptoms and QoL but are not available in most countries. The degree of uncertainty in selecting the most appropriate therapy and the lack of guidelines on the clinical management of TGCT make the adoption of new treatments inconsistent across the world, with suboptimal outcomes for patients. A global consensus meeting was organized in June 2022, involving experts from several disciplines and patient representatives from SPAGN to define the best evidence-based practice for the optimal approach to TGCT and generate the recommendations presented herein.

Background This study aimed to assess the characteristics of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) in patients receiving low doses of opioids for background pain in comparison with patients receiving at least 60 mg of oral morphine equivalents (OME). Materials and Methods Patients with advanced cancer receiving less than 60 mg/day of OME with episodes of BTcP were included in the analysis (group L). Data were compared with patients receiving doses of opioids ≥60 mg of OME (group H). Pain intensity, current analgesic therapy, number of BTcP episodes, intensity of BTcP, its predictability and triggers, onset duration, interference with daily activities, BTcP medications, and time to meaningful pain relief were collected. Adverse effects imputable to a BTcP medication were recorded. Results A total of 1,418 and 2,474 patients were included in groups L and H, respectively. A lower number of BTcP episodes (p = .005), a lower BTcP intensity (p = .0001), a faster BTcP onset (p = .024), and a longer time to meaningful pain relief after taking a BTcP medication (p = .009) were found in group L as compared with group H. In group L, BTcP interference on daily activity was less than in group H (p = .009). Patients in group L were less likely to be prescribed an opioid as BTcP medication in comparison with patients in group H (p = .0001). Opioid doses used for BTcP were significantly higher in group H. Patients in group L were more likely to be less satisfied (p = .003) than patients in group H. No adverse effects of severe intensity were reported in both groups. Conclusion Patients receiving lower doses of opioids exhibit some differences in BTcP presentation: fewer episodes with lower intensity and a faster onset, a longer time to meaningful pain relief, and less satisfaction with BTcP medication. A relevant percentage of patients was receiving fentanyl preparations normally reserved for patients receiving higher doses of opioids.

Neurological complications are frequent in patients with advanced cancer. This chapter discusses a variety of neurological problems found in advanced cancer together with their clinical aspects and management, including some suggested regimens for pharmacological therapy. Complications discussed include intracranial hypertension, seizures in patients with advanced illness (including a suggested algorithm for the management of status epilepticus), delirium, brain metastases, spinal cord compression (including an algorithm for the evaluation of back pain), leptomeningeal metastases, base of the skull and cranial nerve syndromes, neurological side effects of drugs used in oncology and palliative care, and paraneoplastic neurological syndromes.

Delirium is the most common and serious neuropsychiatric disorder experienced by people with advanced illness. It leads to significant morbidity, and significant distress for the person themselves, family members and staff. Delirium often bodes of a poor prognosis and can significantly interfere with pain and symptom control. Unfortunately, delirium is often under-recognized or misdiagnosed in the palliative care patient, and even when recognized, it frequently goes untreated or is inappropriately treated. Clinicians who care for patients with advanced illness must be able to diagnose delirium accurately; undertake appropriate assessment of aetiologies and consider their treatment with due consideration of treatment goals and illness trajectory; and individualize the pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to support delirium recovery, maximize patient safety, and reduce distress from symptoms.

Pain is highly prevalent in patients with cancer-nearly 40% report moderate-severe pain, which is commonly treated with opioids. Increasing cancer survivorship, opioid epidemics in some regions of the world, and limited opioid access in other regions have focused attention on nonopioid treatments. Given the limitations of monotherapy, combining nonopioids-such as antiepileptics and antidepressants-have shown promise in noncancer pain. This review seeks to evaluate efficacy of nonopioid combinations for cancer-related pain. Systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were conducted for double-blind, randomized, controlled trials comparing a nonopioid combination with at least one of its components and/or placebo. This search yielded 4 randomized controlled trials, published between 1998 and 2019 involving studies of (1) imipramine + diclofenac; (2) mitoxantrone + prednisone + clodronate; (3) pentoxifylline + tocopherol + clodronate; and (4) duloxetine + pregabalin + opioid. In the first 3 of these trials, trends favouring combination efficacy failed to reach statistical significance. However, in the fourth trial, duloxetine + pregabalin + opioid was superior to pregabalin + opioid. This review illustrates recognition for the need to evaluate nonopioid drug combinations in cancer pain, although few trials have been published to date. Given the growing practice of prescribing more than 1 nonopioid for cancer pain and the need to expand the evidence base for rational combination therapy, more high-quality trials in this area are needed.

This study reports a case series of patients with upper limb neuromotor deficits following pediatric central nervous system tumor and treated with rehabilitative therapy according to action observation therapy (AOT). AOT is based on the “mirror neurons” system and had positive results in various non-oncologic neurologic pathologies. This study is the first experience in the oncology field, and included 6 patients, 4 of whom were fully evaluated at 6-month follow-up. In all patients, therapy showed improvement in all assessment tests. These promising results lead to further studies to confirm their effectiveness.

Objective: This study reviews the scientific literature to identify and describe which assessment tools (ATs) are used in pediatric oncology and neuro-oncology rehabilitation and which development neuropsychomotor (DNPM) ATs were built for children with central nervous system (CNS) tumors. Methods: A systematic review was performed searching PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, Science Direct, and Catalog of National Institute of Tumors databases and specialized journals. The search covered 7 years (2010–2017) and used relevant keywords in different combinations. A further search was carried out on DNPM rehabilitation manuals and academic thesis. Results: The review retrieved 35 eligible articles containing 63 ATs. The most common ATs were the Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC). Most of the ATs covered a single area of child development among behavioral/psychological, cognitive, and motor areas. A total of 159 ATs were found in manuals and thesis, and only 17 of them were already identified in the journal search. None of the ATs identified in both searches had been specifically developed for children with CNS tumor. Conclusion: The results highlight the need to develop and validate a global multidimensional AT for children with CNS tumor, overcoming the fragmentation of the assessment procedures and promoting standardized rehabilitation protocols.

Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is an ultra-rare, translocated, vascular sarcoma. EHE clinical behavior is variable, ranging from that of a low-grade malignancy to that of a high-grade sarcoma and it is marked by a high propensity for systemic involvement. No active systemic agents are currently approved specifically for EHE, which is typically refractory to the antitumor drugs used in sarcomas. The degree of uncertainty in selecting the most appropriate therapy for EHE patients and the lack of guidelines on the clinical management of the disease make the adoption of new treatments inconsistent across the world, resulting in suboptimal outcomes for many EHE patients. To address the shortcoming, a global consensus meeting was organized in December 2020 under the umbrella of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) involving >80 experts from several disciplines from Europe, North America and Asia, together with a patient representative from the EHE Group, a global, disease-specific patient advocacy group, and Sarcoma Patient EuroNet (SPAEN). The meeting was aimed at defining, by consensus, evidence-based best practices for the optimal approach to primary and metastatic EHE. The consensus achieved during that meeting is the subject of the present publication., Highlights • This consensus paper provides key recommendations on the management of epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE). • Recommendations followed a consensus meeting between experts and a representative of the EHE advocacy group and SPAEN. • Authorship includes a multidisciplinary group of experts from different institutions from Europe, North America and Asia.

Stefano De Santis,1 Maria Domenica Simone,2 Sebastiano Mercadante,3 Rocco Domenico Mediati,4 Renato Vellucci,4 Paolo Marchetti,5 Giuseppe Tonini,6 Arturo Cuomo,7 Augusto Caraceni,8 Silvia Natoli,9 Grazia Armento,6 Livio Blasi,10 Massimo Mammucari11 On behalf of the IOPS-MS Study Group1Palliative Care and Oncologic Pain Service, S. Camillo-Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy; 2Hematology and BMT Unit, S. Camillo-Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy; 3Anesthesia and Intensive Care & Pain Relief and Supportive Care, La Maddalena, Palermo, Italy; 4Palliative Care and Pain Therapy Unit, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy; 5Molecular and Clinical Medicine Medical Oncology, La Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy; 6Department of Medical Oncology, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy; 7Anesthesiology, Resuscitation, and Pain Therapy Department, National Cancer Institute, IRCCS Foundation, Naples, Italy; 8Palliative Care, Pain Therapy and Rehabilitation, National Cancer Institute, IRCCS Foundation, Milan, Italy; 9Department of Clinical Science and Translational Medicine – University of Rome Tor Vergata and Department of Emergency, Admission and Critical Area – Policlinic of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy; 10Medical Oncology Unit, ARNAS Ospedale Civico Di Cristina Benfratelli, Palermo, Italy; 11Primary Care Unit, ASL RM1, Rome, 00165, ItalyCorrespondence: Stefano De Santis Email sdesantis@scamilloforlanini.rm.itBackground: International guidelines recommend moderate-to-severe cancer pain to be treated with strong opioids. However, pain management remains an unsolved matter, at least in the demanding oncology and palliative care setting. Although cancer pain consists of multiple components, which interact in complex ways where combination therapy can better intercept multiple pain characteristics, few studies have used a non-opioid/opioid association to exploit possible synergistic actions. Even the efforts of a recent approach emphasizing appropriate pain assessment and accurate classification to obtain personalized pain management have not produced a satisfactory analgesic strategy.Objective: This analysis was intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the immediate release fixed combination of oxycodone/acetaminophen (OxyIR/Par) for the treatment of moderate-to-severe intensity background pain used alone or in combination with other strong opioids in cancer patients with breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). This is a secondary analysis of a wider observational, prospective, multicenter study [Italian Oncologic Pain multiSetting Multicentric Survey (IOPS-MS)] performed on 179 patients treated with opioids for cancer pain who received the fixed combination of oxycodone/acetaminophen (OxyIR/Par) for the treatment of background pain (BGP).Results: Cancer patients with breakthrough cancer pain and controlled BGP (Background Pain) were classified according to the presence of analgesic therapy with tablets of fixed combination OxyIR/Par alone (group A, n=120) or tablets of fixed combination OxyIR/Par combined with other strong opioids (group B, n=59). Clinical features of group A were different to group B: higher mean Karnofsky Performance Status Index 70.3% (95% CI=67.2– 73.5; median=70, CI=60– 80) vs 58.3 (95% CI=53.4– 63.2; median=50, CI=45– 70) (P< 0.001), and mainly group A patients were treated in an ambulatory setting (55.0% group A vs 33.9% group B) (p< 0.001). Both groups had managed BGP with similar mean dosages (group A: 12.0, CI=10.5– 13.4; group B: 13.1, CI=11.0– 15.1) and frequencies of OxyIR/Par alone for group A and in association to other opioids for group B, but Breakthrough cancer Pain (BTcP) exhibited different characteristics in the two groups, showing a lower mean intensity numerical rating scale (NRS) of 7.5 (95% CI=7.2– 7.7; median=7, CI=7– 8 group A) vs 7.9 (95% CI=7.6, 8.2; median= 8, CI=7– 9 group B) (P=0.04) and a higher percentage of patients had a faster onset, defined as the maximum intensity reached in less than 10 minutes, 81.7% (N=98) in group A vs 59.3% (n=35) in group B (P=0.002).Conclusion: This is the first analysis about the efficacy of an immediate-release fixed combination of OxyIR/Par in the real world for moderate-to-severe background cancer pain and breakthrough cancer pain. The oral fixed combination OxyIR/Par provided an adequate level of analgesia for moderate–severe background cancer pain, in a different cohort of cancer patients with different performance status, both in ambulatory and palliative settings. The low dosage of fixed combination OxyIR/Par was effective alone or in association with other opioids.Keywords: analgesia, combination of oxycodone/acetaminophen, cancer pain, breakthrough cancer pain

Flaminia Coluzzi,1,2 Domenico Alvaro,3 Augusto Tommaso Caraceni,4 Walter Gianni,5 Franco Marinangeli,6 Giuseppe Massazza,7 Carmine Pinto,8 Giustino Varrassi,9 Fabio Lugoboni10 1Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, LT, Italy; 2Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, and Pain Medicine Unit, Sant’Andrea University Hospital, Rome, RM, Italy; 3Department of Translational and Precision Medicine, Gastroenterology Division, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, RM, Italy; 4Palliative Care, Pain Therapy, and Rehabilitation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, MI, Italy; 5Department of Internal Medicine and Geriatric Medicine, University Hospital Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, RM, Italy; 6Department of Anesthesiology, Pain Medicine, and Palliative care, University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, AQ, Italy; 7Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and “Città della Salute e della Scienza” University Hospital, Torino, TO, Italy; 8Medical Oncology Unit, Clinical Cancer Center, AUSL-IRCCS of Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, RE, Italy; 9Fondazione Paolo Procacci, Rome, RM, Italy; 10Department of Medicine, Addiction Unit, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, VR, ItalyCorrespondence: Flaminia ColuzziDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Polo Pontino, Latina, Corso della Repubblica 79, Latina, LT, 04100, ItalyTel +39 06 33775673Email flaminia.coluzzi@uniroma1.itBackground: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) remains an important clinical obstacle despite the availability of several guidelines and pharmacological options for its management. Here, we surveyed common practices and perceptions about OIC among physicians who prescribe opioids in Italy.Methods: The online survey included 26 questions about OIC. Responses were analyzed descriptively and aggregated by physician specialty.Results: A total of 501 physicians completed the survey. Most respondents (67%) did not feel adequately educated about OIC despite general consensus regarding interest in the topic. Overall, 62– 75% of physicians regularly evaluated intestinal function or OIC symptoms in patients receiving opioid therapy. The most common method for assessment was patient diary; few physicians used a validated instrument such as the Rome IV criteria. Psychiatrists and addiction specialists showed the lowest interest and poorest practices. Most respondents (78%) preferred macrogol prophylaxis followed by macrogol plus another laxative for first-line treatment of OIC symptoms. Peripheral-acting mu opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs) were not widely used among physicians; 61% had never prescribed a PAMORA for OIC.Conclusion: Our findings reveal important differences in clinical practice for OIC across physician specialties. Additional formative efforts are necessary to improve awareness about best practices in OIC.Keywords: chronic pain, opioid, opioid-induced constipation, peripherally acting mu opioid receptor antagonist

Central Nervous System (CNS) tumors are the most common pediatric solid tumor and development neuro psychomotor (DNPM) therapy can contribute to the rehabilitation of these children. This paper describes the development of a DNPM multidimensional assessment grid for children with CNS tumor (DNPM-CNS grid). The development process included 4 phases: (P1) literature review and grid development (Version 1.0), (P2) two rounds consultations with experts (Version 1.1 and 2.0), (P3) field testing, (P4) final revision (Version 3.0). (P1) The DNPM-CNS grid was developed based on previous tools and manuals and on clinical experience with this patient population. (P2) A total of 52 questionnaires were filled in by experts about relevance of assessment areas, pertinence, comprehensibility and feasibility of the grid. Average scores ranged from 7.6 to 10. (P3) At case level, good inter-rater agreement scores (78%) and limited non-evaluability rates (18%) emerged. At item level, 27% of items reached high disagreement and 26% high not-evaluability rates. The qualitative assessment was judged clinically useful for planning the neuro-oncology rehabilitation treatment and a good feasibility of the DNPM-CNS grid emerged both for preschool and school-age children. (P4) The final version of the grid consists of 8 assessment areas with 133 items. The DNPM-CNS grid is a comprehensive tool that can guide the overall DNPM assessment in a limited amount of time. It can be used as a screening tool to customize more specific assessments. Further research is needed to better characterize grid psychometric properties. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/08880018.2021.1948648 .

The prescribing and use of opioid analgesics is increasing in Italy owing to a profusion in the number and types of opioid analgesic products available, and the increasing prevalence of conditions associated with severe pain, the latter being related to population aging. Herein we provide the expert opinion of an Italian multidisciplinary panel on the management of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) and bowel dysfunction. OIC and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction are well-recognised unwanted effects of treatment with opioid analgesics that can profoundly affect quality of life. OIC can be due to additional factors such as reduced mobility, a low-fibre diet, comorbidities, and concomitant medications. Fixed-dose combinations of opioids with mu (μ) opioid receptor antagonists, such as oxycodone/naloxone, have become available, but have limited utility in clinical practice because the individual components cannot be independently titrated, creating a risk of breakthrough pain as the dose is increased. A comprehensive prevention and management strategy for OIC should include interventions that aim to improve fibre and fluid intake, increase mobility or exercise, and restore bowel function without compromising pain control. Recommended first-line pharmacological treatment of OIC is with an osmotic laxative (preferably polyethylene glycol [macrogol]), or a stimulant laxative such as an anthraquinone. A second laxative with a complementary mechanism of action should be added in the event of an inadequate response. Second-line treatment with a peripherally acting μ opioid receptor antagonist (PAMORA), such as methylnaltrexone, naloxegol or naldemedine, should be considered in patients with OIC that has not responded to combination laxative treatment. Prokinetics or intestinal secretagogues, such as lubiprostone, may be appropriate in the third-line setting, but their use in OIC is off-label in Italy, and should therefore be restricted to settings such as specialist centres and clinical trials. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01766-y.

The aim of this study was to longitudinally assess the characteristics of background pain and breakthrough pain (BTcP), analgesic treatment, and satisfaction with treatment four weeks after the first assessment. Methods: Adult cancer patients with a diagnosis of BTcP were included. At T0, age, gender, visit setting, cancer diagnosis, the extent of the disease, ongoing anticancer treatments, and Karnofsky level were recorded. The background pain intensity in the last 24 h (on a numerical scale 0–10), opioids used for background pain, and their doses, expressed as oral morphine equivalents (OME), as well as other analgesic drugs, were recorded. The number of BTcP episodes, their intensity, predictability and precipitating factors, onset duration of untreated episodes, and interference with daily activities were collected. Analgesics and doses used for BTcP, and the mean time to meaningful pain relief after taking medication, were assessed. The level of satisfaction with BTcP medication was also assessed. Adverse effects to be attributed to these medications were also recorded. At T4, the same data were evaluated. Results: After one-month follow-up, patients had a lower number of BTcP episodes and peak intensity, possibly due to the optimization of background analgesia. The principal characteristics of BTcP did not change significantly. Conclusion: A careful and continuous assessment should be guaranteed to all patients to limit the burden induced by BTcP, other than treating BTcP episodes with short-onset opioids.

Neuropathic pain can be defined as pain related to abnormal somatosensory processing in either the peripheral or central nervous system. In this review article, with neuropathic cancer pain (NCP), we refer to pain due to nervous tissue lesions caused by the tumor or its metastases. Nervous tissue damage is the cause of cancer pain in approximately 40% of those experiencing cancer pain. Recognizing a neuropathic pathophysiology in these cases may be difficult and requires specific criteria that are not homogenously applied in clinical practice. The management of this type of pain can be challenging, requiring the use of specific non-opioid adjuvant drugs. The majority of the criteria for NCP diagnosis and management have been based mainly on results from the noncancer population, risking the failure of addressing the specific needs of this population of patients. In this review, we summarize current management options available for NCP and provide some insights on new promising treatments.

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. 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). 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. 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.

ObjectivesThe aim of this work is to describe the multidisciplinary model of intervention applied and the characteristics of some COVID-19 patients assisted by the hospital palliative care unit (UCP-H) of an Italian hospital in Lombardy, the Italian region most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsA retrospective study was conducted on patients admitted to the A. Manzoni Hospital (Lecco, Lombardy Region, Italy) and referred to the UCP-H between 11 March 2020 and 18 April 2020, the period of maximum spread of COVID-19 in this area. Data were collected on the type of hospitalisation, triage process, modality of palliative care and psychological support provided.Results146 COVID-10 patients were referred to the UCP-H. Of these, 120 died during the observation time (82%) while 15 (10.2%) improved and were discharged from the UCP-H care. 93 had less favourable characteristics (rapid deterioration of respiratory function, old age, multiple comorbidities) and an intensive clinical approach was considered contraindicated, while 48 patients had more favourable presentations. Mean follow-up was 4.8 days. A mean of 4.3 assessments per patient were performed. As to respiratory support, 94 patients were treated with oxygen only (at different volumes) and 45 with Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP).ConclusionThe ongoing pandemic highlighted the need for dedicated palliative care teams and units for dying patients. This work highlights how palliative medicine specialist can make a fundamental contribution thanks to their ability and work experience in an organised multiprofessional context.

The comparison of 3 approaches with neuropathic cancer pain diagnosis demands that careful etiological assessment and standardized clinical criteria be applied to this clinical condition., Neuropathic cancer pain (NcP) is associated with worse treatment responses and specific therapy indications, but a standardized clinical diagnosis of NcP is still lacking. This is a prospective observational study on outpatients with cancer, comparing different clinical approaches with NcP evaluation. A three-step assessment of NcP was performed using DN4 (cutoff of 4), palliative care physician Clinical Impression, including etiology and pain syndrome identification, and Retrospective Clinical Classification by a board of specialists with the IASP Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group criteria. Neuropathic cancer pain classification was specifically referred to pain directly due to cancer. Three hundred fifty patients were assessed, and NcP prevalence was 20% (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.9%-24.6%), 36.9%, (95% CI 31.6%-42.1%), and 28.6% (95% CI 23.8%-33.9%) according to DN4, Clinical Impression, and Retrospective Clinical Classification, respectively. Cohen's kappa concordance coefficient between DN4 and Retrospective Clinical Classification was 0.57 (95% CI 0.47-0.67), indicating moderate concordance. Higher percentages of discordance were found for specific pain syndromes such as pain due to deep soft tissue infiltration and pain associated with tenesmus. Disagreement among clinicians accounted also for different NcP diagnoses and highlighted lack of homogeneous clinical criteria. Rigorous application of etiological and syndrome diagnosis to explain pain cause, associated with standardized diagnostic criteria and assessment of pain characteristics, that is also specific for the cancer pain condition could improve clinical classification of NcP.

This paper is aimed at focusing on the writings and the experience of the Hospice movement Founder, Dame Cicely Saunders. The in-depth analysis carried out had the objective of verifying if “the way” of Cicely to understand, live and propose palliative care was still current and “beautiful”, so that we can nowadays refer to her fascinating “Original Palliative Care”. With “beauty” we mean, on the one hand, a way able to allow a personal path of research of the meaning of the disease and of the care, both for those who care and for those who are cared for. On the other hand, it seems to us that Cicely strongly suggests how this path can not be carried out alone, but is only possible within the context of a network of relationships and support, in a so called “relational autonomy”, for the patient, included in a “care ethics”. The authors believe that the work extensively documents as the overall approach of Cicely, traditional but always to be rediscovered, is still today the most convincing way of conception and action of palliative care.

Despite the essential utility of opioids for the clinical management of pain, opioid-induced constipation (OIC) remains an important obstacle in clinical practice. In patients, OIC hinders treatment compliance and has negative effects on quality of life. From a clinician perspective, the diagnosis and management of OIC are hampered by the absence of a clear, universal diagnostic definition across disciplines and a lack of standardization in OIC treatment and assessment.A multidisciplinary panel of physician experts who treat OIC was assembled to identify a list of ten corrective actions-five "things to do" and five "things not to do"-for the diagnosis and management of OIC, utilizing the Choosing Wisely methodology.The final list of corrective actions to improve the diagnosis and clinical management of OIC emphasized a need for: (i) better physician and patient education regarding OIC; (ii) systematic use of diagnostically validated approaches to OIC diagnosis and assessment (i.e., Rome IV criteria and Bristol Stool Scale, respectively) across various medical contexts; and (iii) awareness about appropriate, evidence-based treatments for OIC including available peripheral mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs).Physicians who prescribe long-term opioids should be forthcoming with patients about the possibility of OIC and be adequately versed in the most recent guideline recommendations for its management.

Breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) is a temporary exacerbation of pain that “breaks through” a phase of adequate pain control by an opioid-based therapy. The non-predictable BTcP (NP-BTcP) is a subtype of BTcP that occurs in the absence of any specific activity. Since NP-BTcP has an important clinical impact, this analysis is aimed at characterizing the NP-BTcP phenomenon through a multidimensional statistical technique. This is a secondary analysis based on the Italian Oncologic Pain multiSetting—Multicentric Survey (IOPS-MS). A correlation analysis was performed to characterize the NP-BTcP profile about its intensity, number of episodes per day, and type. The multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) determined the identification of four groups (phenotypes). A univariate analysis was performed to assess differences between the four phenotypes and selected covariates. The four phenotypes represent the hierarchical classification according to the status of NP-BTcP: from the best (phenotype 1) to the worst (phenotype 4). The univariate analysis found a significant association between the onset time &gt, 10 min in the phenotype 1 (37.3%)’ vs. the onset &gt, 10 min in phenotype 4 (25.8%) (p &lt, 0.001). Phenotype 1 was characterized by the gastrointestinal type of cancer (26.4%) with respect to phenotype 4, where the most frequent cancer affected the lung (28.8%) (p &lt, 0.001). Phenotype 4 was mainly managed with rapid-onset opioids, while in phenotype 1, many patients were treated with oral, subcutaneous, or intravenous morphine (56.4% and 44.4%, respectively, p = 0.008). The ability to characterize NP-BTcP can offer enormous benefits for the management of this serious aspect of cancer pain. Although requiring validation, this strategy can provide many indications for identifying the diagnostic and therapeutic gaps in NP-BTcP management.

Palliative care referral is primarily based on clinician judgment, contributing to highly variable access. Standardized criteria to trigger automatic referral have been proposed, but it remains unclear how best to apply them in practice. We conducted a Delphi study of international experts to identify a consensus for the use of standardized criteria to trigger automatic referral. Sixty international experts stated their level of agreement for 14 statements regarding the use of clinician-based referral and automatic referral over two Delphi rounds. A consensus was defined as an agreement of ae70% a priori. The response rate was 59/60 (98%) for the first round and 56/60 (93%) for the second round. Twenty-six (43%), 19 (32%), and 11 (18%) respondents were from North America, Asia/Australia, and Europe, respectively. The panel reached consensus that outpatient palliative care referral should be based on both automatic referral and clinician-based referral (agreement = 86%). Only 18% felt that referral should be clinician-based alone, and only 7% agreed that referral should be based on automatic referral only. There was consensus that automatic referral criteria may increase the number of referrals (agreement = 98%), facilitate earlier palliative care access, and help administrators to set benchmarks for quality improvement (agreement = 86%). Our panelists favored the combination of automatic referral to augment clinician-based referral. This integrated referral framework may inform policy and program development.

Objectives Palliative sedation is a highly debated medical practice, particularly regarding its proper use in end-of-life care. Worldwide, guidelines are used to standardise care and regulate this practice. In this review, we identify and compare national/regional clinical practice guidelines on palliative sedation against the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) palliative sedation Framework and assess the developmental quality of these guidelines using the Appraisal Guideline Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. Methods Using the PRISMA criteria, we searched multiple databases (PubMed, CancerLit, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence and Google Scholar) for relevant guidelines, and selected those written in English, Dutch and Italian; published between January 2000 and March 2016. Results Of 264 hits, 13 guidelines—Belgium, Canada (3), Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Europe, and USA (2) were selected. 8 contained at least 9/10 recommendations published in the EAPC Framework; 9 recommended ‘pre-emptive discussion of the potential role of sedation in end-of-life care’; 9 recommended ‘nutrition/hydration while performing sedation’ and 8 acknowledged the need to ‘care for the medical team’. There were striking differences in terminologies used and in life expectancy preceding the practice. Selected guidelines were conceptually similar, comparing closely to the EAPC Framework recommendations, albeit with notable variations. Conclusions Based on AGREE II, 3 guidelines achieved top scores and could therefore be recommended for use in this context. Also, domains ‘scope and purpose’ and ‘editorial independence’ ranked highest and lowest, respectively—underscoring the importance of good reportage at the developmental stage.

Summary Although outpatient specialty palliative-care clinics improve outcomes, there is no consensus on who should be referred or the optimal timing for referral. In response to this issue, we did a Delphi study to develop consensus on a list of criteria for referral of patients with advanced cancer at secondary or tertiary care hospitals to outpatient palliative care. 60 international experts (26 from North America, 19 from Asia and Australia, and 11 from Europe) on palliative cancer care rated 39 needs-based criteria and 22 time-based criteria in three iterative rounds. Nearly all experts responded in each round. Consensus was defined by an a-priori agreement of 70% or more. Panellists reached consensus on 11 major criteria for referral: severe physical symptoms, severe emotional symptoms, request for hastened death, spiritual or existential crisis, assistance with decision making or care planning, patient request for referral, delirium, spinal cord compression, brain or leptomeningeal metastases, within 3 months of advanced cancer diagnosis for patients with median survival of 1 year or less, and progressive disease despite second-line therapy. Consensus was also reached on 36 minor criteria for specialist palliative-care referral. These criteria, if validated, could provide guidance for identification of patients suitable for outpatient specialty palliative care.

Objectives Recent evidences show that early integration of palliative care (PC) with oncology has a positive impact on patients' quality of life, quality of care and costs. However, there is no consensus on outpatient referral criteria. Based on real world data, the aim of this study was to identify timing and factors associated to PC referral in patients with thoracic malignancies, and to describe their clinical care pathway. Material and Methods This observational retrospective study included consecutive patients with thoracic cancer, seen for the first time at the Thoracic Medical Oncology outpatient Clinic (TMOC) of our institution, between Jan.01-Dec.31 2014. Patients were followed-up till death or Dec.31 2015. Clinical and demographic data were collected from the electronic patient records. Cox regression models were used to evaluate the association between time to Palliative care Outpatient Clinic (POC) referral and performance status (PS), disease stage and symptoms at inclusion. Results 229 patients were eligible. 98 of them (43%; 95%IC 36%–49%) were referred to the POC within a median of 30 days (IQR 4–188). 80/98 patients received simultaneous anticancer therapy and PC. Univariable analysis showed that the hazard ratio (HR) of being referred to POC was significantly higher for patients with worse PS (HR = 4.5), more advanced disease stage (HR = 3.1), pain (HR = 4.9), dyspnea (HR = 2.5) and cough (HR = 2.2). The multivariable model confirmed independent prognostic value for PS, disease stage and pain. On Dec.31, 2015, 25/98 patients were still alive, 8 were lost at follow up and 65 had died. Among the latter, 61% died with hospice or home care, and, in the last 30 days of life, 16% received chemotherapy and 29% were admitted to hospital. Conclusions Our results suggest considering symptom burden, PS and disease stage as screening criteria for referral to PC in patients with thoracic malignancies.

More than half of patients affected by cancer experience pain of moderate-to-severe intensity, often in multiple sites, and of different etiologies and underlying mechanisms. The heterogeneity of pain mechanisms is expressed with the fluctuating nature of cancer pain intensity and clinical characteristics. Traditional ways of classifying pain in the cancer population include distinguishing pain etiology, clinical characteristics related to pain and the patient, pathophysiology, and the use of already validated classification systems. Concepts like breakthrough, nociceptive, neuropathic, and mixed pain are very important in the assessment of pain in this population of patients. When dealing with patients affected by cancer pain it is also very important to be familiar to the characteristics of specific pain syndromes that are usually encountered. In this article we review methods presently applied for classifying cancer pain highlighting the importance of an accurate clinical evaluation in providing adequate analgesia to patients.

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.

Patients with tumours involving brain, brain stem or spinal cord, both from neuroglial precursor cells and metastatic nature, suffer from pain syndromes and neurological symptoms, with overlapping features of cancer and neurological conditions.