Exploring patient perspectives on electronic patient-reported outcome measures in home-based cancer palliative care: A qualitative study.

Background: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROMs) enhance symptom management and patients' engagement in palliative cancer care. However, integrating them into this setting brings challenges, including patients' familiarity with technological devices and declining health status. Prioritizing the patient's acceptability and feasibility is crucial for their adoption. However, more knowledge is needed about patients' perspectives on the adoption of ePROMs in the community, especially for home-based palliative care. Aim: Explore patient viewpoints on utilizing ePROMs for symptom reporting in home-based oncology palliative care. Design: A qualitative interpretative approach was used to evaluate patients' points of view on using ePROMs in this specific care setting. Semistructured interviews were carried out. Data were analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis. Setting/participants: A total of 25 patients receiving oncological home palliative care from the advanced palliative care unit of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori in Milan, Italy, were invited to participate. Twenty interviews were conducted, as five patients declined due to deteriorating health. Results: Four themes were identified: (1) strategic value of ePROMs and subjective appreciation; (2) enhancing patient centeredness through ePROMs; (3) exploring and addressing concerns about the use of ePROMs and (4) intersecting factors influencing the efficacy of ePROMs. Conclusion: Despite initial reticence, home palliative care patients consider ePROMs as potentially valuable allies monitoring symptoms, enhancing their quality of life, and amplifying their voices on less explored aspects of care. Continuous dialog between healthcare professionals and patients is crucial for addressing patient skepticism about ePROMs and their impact on the human aspect of care.

Implementation of the e-IPOS in Home Palliative Cancer Care: A Quasiexperimental Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (e-PROMs) offer advantages in palliative cancer care, including rapid completion, improved data quality and direct storage, improving clinical decision-making. The electronic Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (e-IPOS) in this context enables thorough self-assessment by patients, enhancing symptom management and self-reflection of their current situation. AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of implementing the e-IPOS in home palliative cancer care. OUTCOMES: The primary outcomes included the enrollment consent rate, study retention rate, e-IPOS completion rate and response completeness, and the number of clinical assessments and interventions performed during home visits. The secondary outcomes were the number of unscheduled visits and patients' perceived quality of life. DESIGN: A two-group quasiexperimental clinical pilot study. The control group received standard palliative care, the intervention group received standard care along with weekly e-IPOS completion during home visits. Both groups were enrolled for 4 weeks. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Adults with advanced cancer from the home palliative care unit of the Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori of Milan. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were enrolled (74.19%), and 20 completed the study (drop-out: 13.04%). 82.5% of the expected e-IPOS responses were received, of which 96.9% were fully complete. In the intervention group, the Wilcoxon test showed an increase in identified needs and documented interventions (P < .05) and a decrease in unscheduled visits (P < .05). CONCLUSION: It is feasible to recruit people via home palliative care for an e-IPOS implementation study. Future fully powered studies should investigate the feasibility and assess patients' perceptions of its use to better understand its clinical benefits.

Barriers and facilitators of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (e-PROMs) for patients in home palliative cancer care: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals' perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes in palliative care enable early monitoring and management of symptoms that most impact patients' daily lives; however, there are several barriers to adopting electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures (e-PROMs) in daily practice. This study explored the experiences of health care professionals (HCPs) regarding potential barriers and facilitators in implementing e-PROMs in palliative cancer care at home. METHODS: This was a qualitative descriptive study. The data were collected from two focus groups structured according to the conceptual framework of Grol. HCPs involved in home palliative cancer care of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori of Milan were enrolled. Data were analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 245 codes were generated, 171 for the first focus group and 74 for the second focus group. The results were subdivided into subthemes according to Grol's themes: Innovation, Individual professional, Patient, Social context, Organizational context, except Economic Political context. Nine HCPs attended the first focus group, and ten attended the second. According to these participants, e-PROMs could be integrated into clinical practice after adequate training and support of HCPs at all stages of implementation. They identified barriers, especially in the social and organizational contexts, due to the uniqueness of the oncological end-of-life setting and the intangible care interventions, as well as many facilitators for the innovation that these tools bring and for improved communication with the patient and the healthcare team. CONCLUSIONS: e-PROMs are perceived by HCPs as adding value to patient care and their work; however, barriers remain especially related to the fragility of these patients, the adequacy of technological systems, lack of education, and the risk of low humanization of care.

Palliative sedation at the end of life at a tertiary cancer center.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe the use of palliative sedation (PS) its indications and outcomes in patients followed up till death by an inpatient palliative care consult team (PCCT) at a tertiary cancer center. METHODS: All patients referred for 5 years to the PCCT and followed up till death were eligible for the study. Both PCCT recordings and hospital charts were reviewed and a codified assessment was performed. RESULTS: Over a total of 2,033 consecutive consults, 129 patients died during admission and were eligible. Eighty-three had the indication to PS, 4% of all consults (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3% to 5%) and 64% of eligible patients (95%CI, 56% to 73%). PS was more frequently indicated in males and in patients with recurrent dyspnea and recurrent agitation, while it was less frequently indicated in older people and in patients with cerebral metastases and recurrent drowsiness. The most frequent indications to PS were dyspnea (37%) and delirium (31%) alone or combined with other symptoms. PS was successfully achieved in 69 patients; the drugs most frequently used for PS were midazolam (46%), haloperidol (35%), and chlorpromazine (32%) and opioid dose escalation was higher in sedated patients (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: PS is an important intervention in the management of terminal disease by a consulting palliative care team. Improved collaboration and communication between the hospital staff and the PCCT should be offered to meet patients' needs when PS is required.

Comparison of numerical and verbal rating scales to measure pain exacerbations in patients with chronic cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Numerical rating scales (NRS), and verbal rating scales (VRS) showed to be reliable and valid tools for subjective cancer pain measurement, but no one of them consistently proved to be superior to the other. Aim of the present study is to compare NRS and VRS performance in assessing breakthrough or episodic pain (BP-EP) exacerbations. METHODS: In a cross sectional multicentre study carried out on a sample of 240 advanced cancer patients with pain, background pain and BP-EP intensity in the last 24 hours were measured using both a 6-point VRS and a 0-10 NRS. In order to evaluate the reproducibility of the two scales, a subsample of 60 patients was randomly selected and the questionnaire was administered for a second time three to four hours later. The proportion of "inconsistent" (background pain intensity higher than or equal to peak pain intensity) evaluations was calculated to compare the two scales capability in discriminating between background and peak pain intensity and Cohen's K was calculated to compare their reproducibility. RESULTS: NRS revealed higher discriminatory capability than VRS in distinguishing between background and peak pain intensity with a lower proportion of patients giving inconsistent evaluations (14% vs. 25%). NRS also showed higher reproducibility when measuring pain exacerbations (Cohen's K of 0.86 for NRS vs. 0.53 for VRS) while the reproducibility of the two scales in evaluating background pain was similar (Cohen's K of 0.80 vs. 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that, in the measurement of cancer pain exacerbations, patients use NRS more appropriately than VRS and as such NRS should be preferred to VRS in this patient's population.

Normal-release oral morphine starting dose in cancer patients with pain.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the current European Association for Palliative Care recommendation regarding the starting dose of 5 mg of normal-release morphine (NRM) sulfate oral solution every 4 hours in opioid naive patients or 10 mg in patients already being treated with "weak" opioids is effective and could be proposed as starting routine dose in clinical practice. Secondary aims were to estimate the percentage of patients who were high responders to NRM and to study the association of baseline patient characteristics with both high analgesic responsivity and the need of opioid dose escalation. METHODS: Consecutive strong opioid-naive patients with cancer pain were enrolled in a multicenter uncontrolled phase 4 clinical trial. Oral NRM was administered at 2 different dosages: 5 and 10 mg every 4 hours, respectively, for opioids-naive (group A) and nonopioids-naive (group B) patients as starting therapy. Average daily dosages of NRM and opioid escalation index (OEI) were calculated and the reduction in pain score was tested through Student t test both in group A and in group B patients. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-nine consecutive patients were enrolled and data analysis was conducted on 151 (95%) patients. On an average the OEIs were: 3.2 in group A and 6.5 in group B and a significant reduction in pain score both after 3 and 5 days from baseline (P<0.001) was shown in both groups. In multivariate analysis both Karnofsky Performance Status and episodic pain showed to be independent prognostic factors of a high analgesic response. The presence of neuropathic pain showed to be associated with a higher OEI. DISCUSSION: These data show that empiric standard doses of NRM during titration, recommended by European Association for Palliative Care, are effective in clinical practice.

Decreases in pain at rest and movement-related pain during zoledronic acid treatment in patients with bone metastases due to breast or prostate cancer: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with bone metastases, pain may be absent or moderate at rest, but may be exacerbated by different movements or positions. No study has evaluated separately pain at rest and on movement in patients with bone metastases undergoing treatment with zoledronic acid (ZA). AIM: The aim of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the reduction in intensity of pain at rest and in movement-related pain after treatment with up to six infusions of ZA 4 mg every 28 days in patients with painful bone metastases due to breast or prostate cancer cared for at the Oncological Units and Pain Therapy and Palliative Care Unit of the NCI of Milano. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pain was assessed by a six-level verbal rating scale (0-5 score) at baseline and on each infusion as well as at follow-up visits (2 weeks after every infusion). The two main endpoints (estimated reduction in pain and movement-related pain) were defined as the difference between the baseline score and the average of all the post-treatment scores for each patient. To allow for the potential confounding effect of analgesic consumption, patients without any increase in analgesic consumption during zoledronic acid treatment were also analyzed as a separate subgroup. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients with breast (34) or prostate cancer (14) were enrolled. At baseline, 100% of the patients had pain on movement, in 65% of them, the intensity ranged from moderate to very severe, in 61% of the patients, the intensity of pain on movement was higher than the intensity of pain at rest (average difference 0.89; 95% CI, 0.5-1.30). The estimated mean intensity reduction of pain at rest and on movement was: (a) 0.62 (95% CI, 0.28-0.98) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.43-1.14), respectively, during the first 90 days of ZA treatment; (b) 0.59 (95% CI, 0.23-0.96) and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.49-1.23), respectively, during the entire treatment and follow-up period. Analgesic consumption decreased or was stable on average in 31 and 27%, respectively, of available follow-up data. In the 14 patients with decreased or stable analgesic consumption, pain reduction was 0.61 and 1.01, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, at baseline, all the patients with painful bone metastases experience movement-related pain, and during zoledronic acid treatment, a decrease for both pain at rest and on movement was obtained.

Incident pain and analgesic consumption decrease after samarium infusion: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pilot study was to observe the variations of pain intensity on movement and at rest and the variation of analgesic drug consumption in patients with prostate cancer and painful bone metastases treated with a single dose of 1.0 mCi/kg of samarium-153 (153-Sm) lexidronam. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: The Nuclear Medicine Unit and Pain Therapy and Palliative Care Unit, National Cancer Institute of Milan, Italy. PATIENTS: Thirteen outpatients with hormone refractory prostate cancer and painful multiple bone metastases. INTERVENTIONS: Infusion of a single dose of 1.0 mCi/kg of 153-Sm lexidronam, pain therapy, and the assessment of pain intensity at rest and on movement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Variation of pain intensity on movement and at rest by means of a verbal scale and the reduction of analgesic drug consumption 4 weeks after infusion of 153-Sm lexidronam. RESULTS: From baseline, 61.5% of patients reported a decrease of at least two levels of pain intensity on movement and 53.8% of patients had an improvement of pain at rest. Of the patients, 15.4% were not in pain at rest or on movement at baseline and continued to be free of pain 4 weeks after the administration of samarium. All ten patients, but one, who were on analgesic drugs before samarium infusion, reduced the regular drug administration or rescue medication. Bone marrow toxicity was mild and readily reversible in three patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with bone metastases, pain on movement is a frequent and often difficult clinical problem to treat and the most frequent cause of breakthrough pain. In patients with painful multiple bone metastases due to prostate cancer, the infusion of a single dose of 1.0 mCi/kg of 153-Sm lexidronam may be considered an effective and safe treatment for pain either at rest or during movement.

Is the use of transdermal fentanyl inappropriate according to the WHO guidelines and the EAPC recommendations? A study of cancer patients in Italy.

BACKGROUND: World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) clinical practice guidelines, and EAPC recommendations indicate oral route of opioid administration as the preferred route. Transdermal administration of opioids is considered an alternative when patients cannot take medications orally. Moreover, WHO and EAPC indicate orally administered morphine as the first-choice drug for the treatment of moderate to severe cancer-related pain. However, we can see that in Italy there is an increasing use of transdermal fentanyl (TF) as first-choice strong opioid (and route) even when oral administration of opioids is possible. AIMS: The aims of this study are to describe the modality in the use of TF administration in two settings of care, taking into consideration (1) the drugs previously taken by the patients, (2) the reasons for switching from any drug to TF, (3) the conversion ratio used, and (4) the frequency of "inappropriate use of transdermal fentanyl according to the WHO guidelines and the EAPC recommendations", i.e., switching to fentanyl patch from any drug, even if there were no contraindications in using oral morphine. The settings of care considered were the out-patient palliative care unit (OP-PCU) and the oncological wards (OWs) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of Milan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The clinical charts of 98 patients prescribed with and given fentanyl patch for the first time at the NCI of Milan in 2002 were reviewed and the data gathered were grouped according to the administration of fentanyl at the OP-PCU (63 out-patients) or at the OWs (35 in-patients). Summary descriptive statistics and bar and box plots have been used. Fisher two-tailed exact text was applied to test the differences between in- and out-patients. RESULTS: Before switching to TF, (1) in-patients were more frequently treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and weak opioids (mostly tramadol) in respect to the out-patients (44.1 vs 25.8%) who were mostly treated with oral morphine (48.4 vs 20.6%) (p=0.045), and (2) 88.7% of the out-patients were treated with oral opioids and only 1.6% with parenteral opioids in respect to OWs where 69.7% were on oral opioids and 18.2% on parenteral opioids (p=0.006). In 29% of out-patients and in 53% of in-patients, changing to fentanyl patch was considered as "inappropriate" (p=0.028) according to the WHO guidelines and the EAPC recommendations. No statistically significant differences between the two settings were observed regarding the reasons for switching and the conversion ratio used. CONCLUSIONS: There is a trend to use fentanyl patch as first-choice strong opioid in cancer patients in situations such as titration phase, in the presence of instable pain, and in the absence of dysphagia or gastrointestinal symptoms where the use of oral morphine is, however, not contraindicated.

Randomized double-blind, double-dummy crossover clinical trial of oral tramadol versus rectal tramadol administration in opioid-naive cancer patients with pain.

Tramadol is commonly used as second step drug of the analgesic ladder. In circumstances where the oral route is unavailable, rectal administration of opioids might be a simple alternative. The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic activity and tolerability of tramadol by oral and rectal administration in a double-blind, double-dummy crossover trial. The study included 60 cancer patients with cancer pain no longer responsive to non-opioid drugs. Each patient initially received oral tramadol 50 mg (drops), followed by tramadol sustained release 100 mg orally, and placebo rectally, or tramadol 100 mg rectally and placebo orally, twice a day, in a randomized sequence, on each of 3 days. Patients were allowed to take 50 mg of oral tramadol by drops as needed (four doses per day, to a maximum of 400 mg/day, including the basal dose given by the oral or rectal route). Pain intensity and relief and symptom scores were recorded every day and at the end of each phase of the crossover. The mean age of the patients was 66.1 years (SD 13.5 years); 36 were female, and 44 completed both periods. Patients dropped out due to adverse effects (15 patients) and refusal (1 patient). No differences in the use of rescue dose of oral tramadol were observed between the groups. No differences in pain intensity and relief scores, or in other symptoms between the two treatments were observed. No differences in treatment efficacy as judged by the clinician (P=0.73), in patient compliance (P=0.35), or in patient satisfaction regarding treatment (P<0.35) were found. No differences in adverse effects were found between the two treatments (25.5%, 13 patients, and 20.4%, 11 patients, with oral and rectal treatment, respectively). The proportion of preferences favored oral administration for both physicians (P=0.0002) and patients (P=0.002). Rectal administration of tramadol appears a reliable, noninvasive alternative method of pain control for patients no longer responsive to non-opioid analgesics, unable to take oral tramadol.

Palliative surgery of acrometastases from lung cancer: a case report.

A clinical case of a woman with lung cancer and a very painful bone metastases of the phalangette of the 4th finger of the right hand (acrometastases) is described. Palliative radiation on the 4th finger was not indicated due to almost complete bone destruction. Both patient and daughter refused administration of strong opioids, such as morphine, for pain management, due to fear of addiction and of opioid-related adverse effects. Phalangectomy, with palliative intent, was performed under local anaesthesia, in day surgery, resulting in complete pain relief.