Search

Introduction/Aims: Oxaliplatin often causes acute or chronic peripheral neuropathy in patients with an intestinal or pancreatic tumor, but in‐depth insights in its influence on quality of life (QoL) are lacking. We explored the influence of acute oxaliplatin‐induced peripheral neuropathy (OIPN) on daily QoL in these patients. Methods: We performed semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of patients receiving oxaliplatin and possibly experiencing acute OIPN. Interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded by two researchers. Data were analyzed by using the constant comparative method for content analysis with ATLAS.ti software. Results: After nine patients, saturation took place. In total, 11 patients were interviewed. Four themes were extracted from the data: (1) adverse effects, (2) physical (un)well‐being, (3) emotional aspects, and (4) treatment aspects. All participants were suffering from acute OIPN to a certain extent, leading to restrictions in daily activities such as household chores, but also to a decrease in mobility and independency. Other adverse effects such as general malaise and gastrointestinal side effects also influenced the participants' well‐being, as did the diagnosis and prognosis of their disease. Conclusion: Acute OIPN, together with other side effects of chemotherapeutic treatment and the difficulties that come with the diagnosis of cancer and its prognosis, largely influences patients' daily QoL. Managing expectations (by patient education) seems important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Surprise Question (" Would I be surprised if this patient were to die within the next 12 months?") is widely used to identify palliative patients, though with low predictive value. To improve timely identification of palliative care needs, we propose an additional Surprise Question (" Would I be surprised if this patient is still alive after 12 months?") if the original Surprise Question is answered with "no." The combination of the two questions is called the Double Surprise Question. Aim: To examine the prognostic accuracy of the Double Surprise Question in outpatients with cancer. Design: A prospective study. Participants: Twelve medical oncologists completed the Double Surprise Question for 379 patients. Results: In group 1 (original Surprise Question "yes": surprised if dead) 92.1% (176/191) of the patients were still alive after 1 year, in group 2a (original and additional Surprise Question "no": not surprised if dead and not surprised if alive) 60.0% (63/105), and in group 2b (original Surprise Question "no," additional Surprise Question "yes": surprised if alive) 26.5% (22/83) (p < 0.0001). The positive predictive value increased by using the Double Surprise Question; 74% (61/83) vs 55% (103/188). Anticipatory palliative care provision and Advance Care Planning items were most often documented in group 2b. Conclusions: The Double Surprise Question is a promising tool to more accurately identify outpatients with cancer at risk of dying within 1 year, and therefore, those in need of palliative care. Studies should reveal whether the implementation of the Double Surprise Question leads to more timely palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Many patients with cancer suffer from pain, which is often not optimally treated. In 2008, the evidence-based, multidisciplinary Dutch guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of pain in this patient group was published. We assessed knowledge about and adherence to the guideline by pain specialists. Methods A cross-sectional case vignette survey describing a palliative patient with intractable pancreatic cancer and pain was sent to all 350 Dutch anesthesiologists registered as pain specialists at the Netherlands Association of Anesthesiology. Descriptive statistics were conducted. Results Ninety-three pain specialists completed the questionnaire (27%). The majority appeared to follow the guideline recommendations on pharmacological (99%) and invasive treatment (95%) in the diverse stages of the disease. However, the recommendation to use a one-dimensional pain scale to evaluate the effect of pain treatment and the recommendation to perform a multidimensional pain assessment if the patient in pain is in a deteriorating stage were only followed by a minority of the respondents (23% and 15%, respectively). Conclusions Regarding most recommendations, Dutch pain specialists know and intend to follow the national multidisciplinary cancer pain guideline. Yet, only a minority of them perform structural pain assessment of the patient with cancer pain. However, as the response rate was low (27%), the results should be interpreted with caution and cannot be generalized to the entire population of pain specialists in the Netherlands. We recommend that, in the guideline update and implementation programs, more attention be given to thorough assessment of the patient with pain and cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Patients with cancer often face physical, psychological, social, spiritual, and emotional symptoms. Our aim was to study symptoms and issues of hospitalized patients with cancer in Indonesia, a country with strong family ties, and how family members, nurses, and physicians deal with them. Methods In 2011, 150 hospitalized cancer patients in 3 general hospitals in Indonesia were invited to fill in a questionnaire, which was based on the validated Problems and Needs of Palliative Care (short version) questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were performed. Results Of 119 patients (79%) who completed the questionnaire, 85% stated that their symptoms and issues were addressed. According to these patients, financial (56%), autonomy (36%), and psychosocial (34%) issues were most often addressed by the family alone. Physical symptoms (52%) and spiritual issues (33%) were addressed mainly by a combination of family, nurses, and physicians. Conclusions Hospitalized patients with cancer in Indonesia felt that most of their symptoms and issues had been addressed, and the family was highly involved. The strong family ties in Indonesian culture may have contributed to this family role. More research is needed to clarify how this influences patient outcome, quality of care, and quality of life of both the patients and their families, along with the degree of partnership between families and professionals. This information might help answer the question what advantages and disadvantages the family role in caring for a hospitalized patient with cancer generates for the patient, the family, and professional caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients with advanced cancer experience problems and unmet needs. However, we assume that patients with advanced cancer will have more problems and unmet needs in a country with a lower economic status than in an economically stronger country. We studied whether patients with advanced cancer in Indonesia have more problems and unmet needs than a similar group of patients in the Netherlands. Methods We performed a cross-sectional survey. We compared the data for 180 Indonesian and 94 Dutch patients relating to 24 items of the Problems and Needs in Palliative Care-short version questionnaire. We performed descriptive and χ2 analysis with Bonferroni correction. Results The prevalence of most physical problems, including pain, was similar in the 2 groups. In Indonesia, financial problems were the most common: 70 to 80% vs. 30 to 42% in the Netherlands. In Indonesia, 25 to 50% of the patients reported psychological and autonomy problems versus 55 to 86% in the Netherlands. The Indonesian group had many more unmet needs for each problem (> 54%) than the Dutch group (< 35%). Conclusion Apparently, economic and cultural differences hardly influence physical problems. Nonetheless, fewer Indonesian patients reported psychological and autonomy problems than Dutch patients. This difference contradicts our hypothesis. However, we found more unmet needs for professional attention in Indonesia than in the Netherlands, which is compatible with our hypothesis. These simple comparative data provide interesting insights into problems and unmet needs and give rise to our new hypothesis about cultural influences. This hypothesis should be studied in more depth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Systematic pain registration and assessment with a visual analog scale ( VAS) or numeric rating scale ( NRS) at each visit are key recommendations in one of the most recent guidelines on cancer pain management. It is unclear whether this recommendation is applied. Objectives The aim was to explore registration of pain in medical records of patients visiting the medical oncology outpatient clinic. Methods In a multicenter study in six Dutch hospitals, data were extracted from medical records of 380 outpatients with cancer. Data of the first three visits at the outpatient clinic were studied. Descriptive statistics were conducted. Results In 23% of all 987 visits at the outpatient clinic, pain or absence of pain was registered, and in an additional 15%, a nonspecific symptom description was given. Regarding all other visits, (62%) pain or absence of pain was not documented at all. Pain measurement using a VAS or NRS was documented in only one visit. Pain was more often registered in medical records of patients with metastasis, as well as in those of patients with urogenital tumors. Conclusion Pain in medical oncology outpatients is not systematically registered in their medical records. With one exception, pain was not registered with a VAS or NRS. Yet, registration and assessment of pain to monitor pain are essential to evaluate and adapt pain treatment over time. Pain registration has not improved since 2001 and therefore implementing the recommendations regarding systematic monitoring of pain is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which evaluates the reliability and feasibility of a set of quality indicators (QIs) in palliative care settings and services across Europe. Among the methods used are descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis, and analysis of variance. It shows that the set of QIs seemed to measure four reliable domains including equipment and continuity of care, personnel training and appraisal, and availability of controlled drugs.

Objective: Our aim was to investigate the feasibility of completing an exercise program in patients with advanced cancer and to obtain preliminary data of its impact on physical and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. Methods: We conducted a nonrandomized pilot study. Participants were 26 palliative care patients with advanced cancer (mean age=54.5 years; standard deviation [SD] 8.9 years) of the outpatient clinic of the medical oncology and the urology departments of a medical center in The Netherlands. Participants followed an individually graded group exercise program, consisting of resistance training and aerobic exercise, twice a week during 6 weeks. Feasibility of the training program, muscle strength, aerobic fitness, body composition, QoL, fatigue, and physical role, social, and activities of daily living (ADL) functioning were assessed at baseline and immediately after the intervention. Results: Dropout rate during the training period was 35% due to disease progression. After the training period, based on intention to treat analysis, muscle strength and aerobic functional fitness had increased significantly ( p≤0.01). A significant decrease in fat percentage ( p≤0.02) was observed. QoL had increased significantly ( p≤0.02), as well as social ( p≤0.04), physical role ( p≤0.01), and ADL functioning ( p≤0.05). Fatigue decreased significantly on the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS) and RAND-36 questionnaires ( p≤0.02), however not on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 ( p=0.48). No change in physical functioning was observed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and RAND-36 (respectively, p=0.33 and p=0.09). Conclusions: These preliminary results show that physical exercise in patients with advanced cancer is feasible. A significant impact was observed on physical and QoL outcomes. These findings need to be confirmed with a larger-scale, randomized controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Neuropathic pain is a common symptom, present in 39% of the patients with cancer pain. Treating this type of pain is challenging, as this patient group is often frail and has comorbidities which increase the risk of side events and hence influences their quality of life. Clinical practice guidelines ( CPGs) can be helpful for clinicians, especially when scientific evidence is uncertain or weak. In this study, we focused on the quality of the review of the literature used in treatment recommendations in the selected European CPGs. Methods In a previous study, 9 CPGs from European countries that contained at least one paragraph on treatment for neuropathic pain in cancer were included. Recommendations with their grade (according SIGN 55 classification) and supporting literature (first author, patients' population, year and type of publication) were compared between CPGs. Results In all CPGs, amitriptylin was mentioned as the drug of first choice. Six guidelines proposed also gabapentinoids. Only 30 of the 163 citations (18%) were based on studies in patients with cancer. Seven CPGs did not argue the indirect evidence due to extrapolation of study results from non-cancer to patients with cancer. Conclusion The majority of guideline development groups extrapolated their results from non-cancer publications to formulate recommendations. Consequently, these guidelines fail to address important issues such as altered kinetics and side effect profiles in these patients. We recommend creating specific recommendations by an international expert group for the treatment for neuropathic pain in patients with cancer supported by targeted research in patients with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Neuropathic pain is a prevalent symptom in patients with cancer, which needs a more specific algorithm than nociceptive pain or neuropathic pain from other origin. Clinical practice guidelines ( CPGs) can be helpful in optimizing the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. Methods In this study, 9 national CPGs in Europe on the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer were included. Recommendations with their grade (according SIGN 55 classification) and supporting literature (first author, patients' population, year, and type of publication) were compared between CPGs. Results Nine CPGs including recommendations on neuropathic pain could be selected and were assessed. In total, they used 149 references of which 72 (48%) were about cancer conditions, 39 (26%) about neuropathic pain, and only 3 about neuropathic pain in patients with cancer (2%). Only 28 (19%) references were shared between 2 or more guidelines. There was only one shared reference specifically related to cancer neuropathic pain. Recommendations and their evidence grading strongly differ between CPGs. Conclusion This work demonstrates an important heterogeneity between European recommendations on diagnosis and assessment of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. The main weaknesses are the low level of evidence and the absence of specific data focusing on neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. We recommend that physicians dealing with neuropathic pain in patients with cancer should be specially trained, that a specific methodology to develop CPGs should followed, and that specific research should be developed on the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between 19% and 39% of patients with cancer pain suffer from neuropathic pain. Its diagnosis and treatment is still challenging. Yet, national clinical practice guidelines ( CPGs) have been developed in several European countries to assist practitioners in managing these patients safely and legally. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of the development and reporting of these CPGs. Methods In collaboration with the European Federation of IASP Chapters, a European inventory of CPGs was conducted. Inclusion criteria were at least one paragraph dedicated to the treatment of neuropathic pain in cancer. Using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II instrument, 2 appraisers independently assessed the quality of the development process of the included CPGs in 6 quality domains. Besides, CPGs developed by governmental organization were compared with those developed by professional societies using t-tests. Results Mean scores of the domains 'scope and purpose' (80%) and 'clarity of presentation' (61%) were satisfactory, 'stakeholder involvement' (58%), 'rigor of development' (57%), and 'editorial independence' (53%) were acceptable, and 'applicability' was insufficient (39%). Governmental guidelines had higher quality scores than professional society guidelines for domain 'stakeholder involvement' and 'editorial independence' ( P < 0.01). Conclusions The quality of the development process of the 9 included CPGs varied widely. CPGs should be developed within a structured guideline program, including methodological support. As developing a CPG is expensive and time-consuming, we recommend more international cooperation to increase quality and lower the development costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about how GPs determine whether and when patients need palliative care. Little research has been done regarding the assumption underpinning Lynn and Adamson's model that palliative care may start early in the course of the disease. This study was conducted to explore how GPs identify a need for palliative care in patients. Methods: A qualitative interview study was performed among 20 GPs in the Netherlands. Results: GPs reported that a combination of several signals, often subtle and not explicit, made them identify a need for palliative care: signals from patients (increasing care dependency and not recuperating after intercurrent diseases) and signals from relatives or reports from medical specialists. GPs reported differences in how they identified a need for palliative care in cancer patients versus those with other diseases. In cancer patients, the need for palliative care was often relatively clear because of a relatively strict demarcation between the curative and palliative phase. However, in patients with e.g. COPD or in the very old, GPs' awareness of palliative care needs often arises gradually, relatively late in the disease trajectory. GPs consider the diagnosis of a life-threatening illness as a key point in the disease trajectory. However, this does not automatically mean that a patient needs palliative care at that point. Conclusions: GPs recognize a need for palliative care on the basis of various signals. They do not support the idea underlying Lynn and Adamson's model that palliative care always starts early in the course of the disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]