Kimberson Tanco

Access to Palliative Care Among Patients Treated at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

BACKGROUND Palliative care (PC) is a critical component of comprehensive cancer care. Previous studies on PC access have mostly examined the timing of PC referral. The proportion of patients who actually receive PC is unclear. We determined the proportion of cancer patients who received PC at our comprehensive cancer center and the predictors of PC referral. METHODS We reviewed the charts of consecutive patients with advanced cancer from the Houston region seen at MD Anderson Cancer Center who died between September 2009 and February 2010. We compared patients who received PC services with those who did not receive PC services before death. RESULTS In total, 366 of 816 (45%) decedents had a PC consultation. The median interval between PC consultation and death was 1.4 months (interquartile range, 0.5-4.2 months) and the median number of medical team encounters before PC was 20 (interquartile range, 6-45). On multivariate analysis, older age, being married, and specific cancer types (gynecologic, lung, and head and neck) were significantly associated with a PC referral. Patients with hematologic malignancies had significantly fewer PC referrals (33%), the longest interval between an advanced cancer diagnosis and PC consultation (median, 16 months), the shortest interval between PC consultation and death (median, 0.4 months), and one of the largest numbers of medical team encounters (median, 38) before PC. CONCLUSIONS We found that a majority of cancer patients at our cancer center did not access PC before they died. PC referral occurs late in the disease process with many missed opportunities for referral.

Frequency, Predictors, and Medical Record Documentation of Chemical Coping Among Advanced Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND In this prospective study, we determined the frequency of opioid-related chemical coping among advanced cancer patients, as diagnosed by palliative medicine specialists. We also determined predictors for chemical coping and the concordance between the physicians diagnosis and documentation in the medical records. PATIENTS AND METHODS Palliative medicine specialists evaluated and diagnosed consecutive patients seen for chemical coping. The proportion of patients identified as chemically coping was compared with the proportion documented in the medical records. Demographic data; cancer diagnosis; history of smoking; substance abuse; psychiatric disease; morphine equivalent daily dosage; Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire scores; and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System scores were also collected. RESULTS A total of 432 patients were evaluated. Overall, 76 patients (18%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 14%-21%) were diagnosed as chemically coping. Documentation of chemical coping in the medical records was reported for only 15 patients (4%; 95% CI: 2%-6%). CAGE positivity (odds ratio [OR]: 2.89), younger age (OR: 0.97 per year), better performance status (OR: 0.68 per point), pain (OR: 1.20 per point), and well-being (OR: 1.28 per point) were found to be significant predictors of chemical coping by protocol definition. After recursive partitioning, 21 of 50 patients (42%) who were CAGE positive and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2 were diagnosed as chemically coping. CONCLUSION Approximately 18% of palliative care patients seen were diagnosed as chemically coping by palliative medicine specialists. The frequency of documentation in the medical records was significantly lower. Better and safer ways for physicians to assess and report chemical coping are needed. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Cancer pain is a multidimensional symptom for which opioids are the mainstay of treatment. However, opioids can have a double effect resulting in drug-seeking behaviors. Chemical coping occurs when a patient uses opioids in a nonprescribed way to cope with various stressful events. This can lead to misuse of opioids and complications including neurotoxicities, respiratory depression, and death. Proper diagnosis and documentation is needed to ensure proper management of pain and to avoid unnecessary harm. The findings of this study suggest that ∼18% of advanced cancer patients seen by a palliative care service were diagnosed as chemical coping, but only 4% were documented in the medical records.

Chemical coping versus pseudoaddiction in patients with cancer pain

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this case series was to describe patients with aberrant drug-related behaviors and similar patterns of dose escalation in whom interdisciplinary assessment revealed different bases for their dose increases. METHOD During the period from December 26 to December 30, 2011, the medical records of two patients with opioid-related aberrant behaviors were reviewed. RESULTS We described two patients with a significant cancer history and different comorbidities who presented with different aberrant drug-related behaviors and opioid requirements. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS Opioid-related aberrant behaviors can be interpreted in different ways, and two of the more common syndromes in cancer patients are chemical coping and pseudoaddiction. In advanced cancer patients, the boundaries between these conditions are not as clear, and diagnosis is often made retrospectively. Furthermore, there have been relatively limited studies describing these two syndromes. Thus, they continue to pose a diagnostic and treatment challenge that requires different approaches for effective management of symptoms. The key characteristic between the two syndromes is that the behaviors displayed in chemical coping are motivated by obtaining opioids to relieve psychosocial distress, while in pseudoaddiction these behaviors are motivated by uncontrolled nociceptive input. Close monitoring of the pain syndromes, aberrant behaviors, and opioid requirements over several visits is usually necessary to distinguish the two syndromes.

Association Between Tobacco Use, Symptom Expression, and Alcohol and Illicit Drug Use in Advanced Cancer Patients

CONTEXT Limited knowledge exists examining the association between smoking status, symptom expression, and alcohol or illicit drug use. OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to clarify these associations in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed 560 charts and identified 300 consecutive advanced cancer patients who completed a comprehensive smoking questionnaire. Data including the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, Cut down/Annoyed/Guilty/Eye opener (CAGE) alcoholism screening questionnaire, illicit drug use history, and daily opioid requirements-morphine equivalent daily dose-were collected. RESULTS Among 300 patients, 119 (40%) were never smokers, 148 (49%) former smokers, and 33 (11%) current smokers. The most common malignancies were gastrointestinal (28%) and lung (20%). Current smokers were more likely to be single (P < 0.01) and significantly younger than former smokers (P < 0.001) but did not differ in age from never smokers. Never smokers were more likely to be female (P < 0.001). Current smokers reported significantly higher pain expression than former and never smokers (median 7 vs. 5.5 vs. 5, respectively, P = 0.02), higher CAGE positivity (42% vs. 21% vs. 3%, P < 0.001) and were more likely to have a history of illicit drug use (33% vs. 16% vs. 3%, P < 0.001). The morphine equivalent daily dose was not significantly different according to smoking status. CONCLUSION In advanced cancer, patients who were former or current smokers were significantly more likely to have a history of CAGE positivity and illicit drug use compared with never smokers. Current smokers expressed significantly higher pain. A smoking history may be a marker of an increased risk of opioid misuse.

The routine use of the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain in an outpatient supportive care center.

OBJECTIVE There is no standardized and universally accepted pain classification system for the assessment and management of cancer pain in both clinical practice and research studies. The Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain (ECS-CP) is an assessment tool that has demonstrated value in assessing pain characteristics and response. The purpose of our study was to determine the relationship between negative ECS-CP features and some pain-related variables like pain intensity and opioid use. We also explored whether the number of negative ECS-CP features was associated with higher pain intensity. METHOD The electronic charts of 100 patients at an outpatient supportive care clinic in a comprehensive cancer center were reviewed for variables like patient characteristics, initial ECS-CP assessment, morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), opioid rotation, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS), and use of adjuvant analgesics. RESULTS Some 91 of the 100 charts were eligible for analysis. The most common primary cancer type was gastrointestinal (22.1%). The median pain intensity was 6, and the median MEDD was 45 mg. Neuropathic pain was associated with higher median pain intensity (7 vs. 5, p = 0.007) and median MEDD requirement (83 vs. 30, p = 0.013). Psychological distress was associated with higher median pain intensity (7 vs. 5, p = 0.042). Incident pain was also associated with a trend toward higher pain intensity (6 vs. 5, p = 0.06). A higher number of negative ECS-CP features was associated with higher pain intensity (p = 0.01). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS The ECS-CP was successfully completed in the majority of patients, demonstrating its utility in routine clinical practice. Neuropathic pain and psychological distress were associated with higher pain intensity. Also, neuropathic pain was associated with a higher MEDD. A higher sum of negative ECS-CP features was associated with higher pain intensity. Further studies will be needed to verify and explore these observations.

The Opioid Rotation Ratio of Hydrocodone to Strong Opioids in Cancer Patients

PURPOSE Cancer pain management guidelines recommend initial treatment with intermediate-strength analgesics such as hydrocodone and subsequent escalation to stronger opioids such as morphine. There are no published studies on the process of opioid rotation (OR) from hydrocodone to strong opioids in cancer patients. Our aim was to determine the opioid rotation ratio (ORR) of hydrocodone to morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) in cancer outpatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS We reviewed the records of consecutive patient visits at our supportive care center in 2011-2012 for OR from hydrocodone to stronger opioids. Data regarding demographics, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and MEDD were collected from patients who returned for follow-up within 6 weeks. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate the ORR between hydrocodone and MEDD. Successful OR was defined as 2-point or 30% reduction in the pain score and continuation of the new opioid at follow-up. RESULTS Overall, 170 patients underwent OR from hydrocodone to stronger opioid. The median age was 59 years, and 81% had advanced cancer. The median time between OR and follow-up was 21 days. We found 53% had a successful OR with significant improvement in the ESAS pain and symptom distress scores. In 100 patients with complete OR and no worsening of pain at follow-up, the median ORR from hydrocodone to MEDD was 1.5 (quintiles 1-3: 0.9-2). The ORR was associated with hydrocodone dose (r = -.52; p < .0001) and was lower in patients receiving ≥40 mg of hydrocodone per day (p < .0001). The median ORR of hydrocodone to morphine was 1.5 (n = 44) and hydrocodone to oxycodone was 0.9 (n = 24). CONCLUSION The median ORR from hydrocodone to MEDD was 1.5 and varied according to hydrocodone dose.

A systematic review of instruments assessing dimensions of distress among caregivers of adult and pediatric cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE Caregivers of cancer patients face intense demands throughout the course of the disease, survivorship, and bereavement. Caregiver burden, needs, satisfaction, quality of life, and other significant areas of caregiving are not monitored regularly in the clinic setting, resulting in a need to address the availability and clinical effectiveness of cancer caregiver distress tools. This review aimed to determine the availability of cancer caregiver instruments, the variation of instruments between different domains of distress, and that between adult and pediatric cancer patient populations. METHOD A literature search was conducted using various databases from 1937 to 2013. Original articles on instruments were extracted separately if not included in the original literature search. The instruments were divided into different areas of caregiver distress and into adult versus pediatric populations. Psychometric data were also evaluated. RESULTS A total of 5,541 articles were reviewed, and 135 articles (2.4%) were accepted based on our inclusion criteria. Some 59 instruments were identified, which fell into the following categories: burden (n = 26, 44%); satisfaction with healthcare delivery (n = 5, 8.5%); needs (n = 14, 23.7%); quality of life (n = 9, 15.3%); and other issues (n = 5, 8.5%). The median number of items was 29 (4-125): 20/59 instruments (33.9%) had ≤20 items; 13 (22%) had ≤20 items and were psychometrically sound, with 12 of these 13 (92.3%) being self-report questionnaires. There were 44 instruments (74.6%) that measured caregiver distress for adult cancer patients and 15 (25.4%) for caregivers of pediatric patients. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS There is a significant number of cancer caregiver instruments that are self-reported, concise, and psychometrically sound, which makes them attractive for further research into their clinical use, outcomes, and effectiveness.

The need for a multidisciplinary approach to pain management in advanced cancer: A clinical case

Advanced cancer patients are often affected by multiple complex symptoms brought about by persistent nociceptive stimuli and intense psychosocial distress. One such complex symptom, cancer pain, has continued to pose a challenge in medical management even though the concept of total pain was described several years ago by Cicely Saunders. Oftentimes, the application of a multidisciplinary approach is delayed after numerous opioid dose escalations and invasive procedures have been performed. The case presented here highlights the importance of timely multidisciplinary intervention and the use of an acute palliative care unit, which resulted in adequate pain control after multiple medical and invasive procedures that caused toxicities.

State of art of managing pain in patients with cancer.

AbstractPain in cancer patients involves complex interactions between physiological, psychological, sociocultural, sensory, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions. Pain management interventions will be most effective when pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments are individualized after exploring the various contributors to pain and suffering, and the patient and family are educated and involved in decision making. This entails a systematic multidimensional approach with frequent reassessments of pain and related outcomes.

Development of a Question Prompt Sheet for Cancer Patients Receiving Outpatient Palliative Care

BACKGROUND A question prompt sheet (QPS) is a structured list of potential questions available for patients to ask their doctor during a clinical encounter. Although it has been shown to improve physician-patient interaction during clinical consultations, there is paucity of data on its use in the palliative care setting. The aim of this study was to develop a single-page consensus list of prompt questions for use by patients attending outpatient palliative care. METHOD An expert group of experienced physicians and mid-level providers were invited to participate in the study conducted in three Delphi rounds. A consensus in this study was defined a priori as an agreement (i.e., agree or strongly agree) by a minimum of 80% of the experts. RESULTS One hundred percent of the 22 invited experts participated in all the three Delphi rounds of the study. The top 25 questions with the highest level of endorsement were chosen and used toward the development of the QPS. Twenty-eight percent of the questions were about symptoms, treatment, and lifestyle, 24% were about commonly asked questions by caregivers, 20% were regarding end-of-life issues, 16% were regarding the nature of the palliative care service, and 12% were regarding the type of available support. CONCLUSION A 25-item, single-page QPS was developed for use by patients attending outpatient palliative care. Further studies are needed to determine its clinical effectiveness in assisting physician-patient communication.