Patient-reported use of pancreatic enzyme replacement treatment (PERT) in pancreatic cancer in New Zealand and Australia: a cross-sectional survey study.

PURPOSE: This study investigated pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) use in people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in New Zealand (NZ) and Australia (AU). METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted using a mixed-media campaign to recruit people with pancreatic cancer and collect information about current PERT use. The questionnaire gathered data on participant demographics, awareness of PERT, prescribing practices and efficacy of enzyme replacement. RESULTS: Over 300 people with pancreatic cancer were recruited, 135 from New Zealand and 199 from Australia. Every region, state and territory was represented except for the West Coast (NZ) and the Northern Territory (AU), the lowest populated areas in both countries. In New Zealand, 60% of participants had heard about PERT, compared to 69.3% in Australia. Dosing regimens were inconsistent in both countries, with 18% and 27% of participants being prescribed PERT considered best practice in New Zealand and Australia, respectively. Before PERT commencement, 70% of participants experienced symptoms of malabsorption, with all symptoms improving after therapy was established. The majority of participants were compliant with their medication. CONCLUSION: PERT use in pancreatic cancer in New Zealand and Australia was highly variable and not compliant with international guidelines in which PERT is recommended as standard therapy. Enzyme replacement is effective for improving the symptoms of malabsorption in patients with pancreatic cancer. Clinician education may be needed to help improve the use of PERT in people with pancreatic cancer.

Subcutaneous Lidocaine Infusion for Complex Cancer Pain: A Retrospective Review.

This retrospective review assesses the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous lidocaine infusions for complex cancer pain, in a specialist palliative care unit. A retrospective chart review was undertaken of 18 infusions over a 2-year period. Data collected included patient demographics, use of adjuvant analgesics, methadone use and opioid requirements (as oral morphine equivalent daily dose, oMEDD) at three time periods: 24 hours prior to starting infusion, 24 hours after starting infusion and 24 hours after stopping infusion. Data was collected on infusion characteristics, adverse events and the patient's perception of lidocaine efficacy. Eighteen infusions were analyzed; all patients had metastatic cancer with 83.3% having stage IV disease. The majority of patients were prescribed three or more adjuvant analgesics, in addition, methadone was prescribed in 16 oMEDD use both 24 hours after starting, and 24 hours after stopping the lidocaine infusions. Events were reported in three out of 18 infusions, only one minor adverse event was attributed to lidocaine. Thirteen out of 18 infusions were perceived, by patients, to be effective for pain. This retrospective review has shown that a subcutaneous lidocaine infusion is a safe and effective means of managing complex cancer pain in a specialist palliative care unit.