What do patients and oncologists think about the evaluation and management of cancer-related anorexia-cachexia? The Quasar_SEOM study

Introduction Cancer patients often suffer from malnutrition and early detection and raising awareness of nutritional issues is crucial in this population. Methods The Spanish Oncology Society (SEOM) conducted the Quasar_SEOM study to investigate the current impact of the Anorexia–Cachexia Syndrome (ACS). The study employed questionnaires and the Delphi method to gather input from both cancer patients and oncologists on key issues related to early detection and treatment of ACS. A total of 134 patients and 34 medical oncologists were surveyed about their experiences with ACS. The Delphi methodology was used to evaluate oncologists' perspectives of ACS management, ultimately leading to a consensus on the most critical issues. Results Despite widespread acknowledgement of malnutrition in cancer as a significant issue by 94% of oncologists, the study revealed deficiencies in knowledge and protocol implementation. A mere 65% of physicians reported being trained to identify and treat these patients, with 53% failing to address ACS in a timely manner, 30% not monitoring weight, and 59% not adhering to any clinical guidelines. The lack of experience was identified as the primary hindrance to the use of orexigens in 18% of cases. Furthermore, patients reported concerns and a perception of inadequate attention to malnutrition-related issues from their physicians. Conclusion The results of this study point to a gap in the care of this syndrome and a need to improve education and follow-up of cancer patients with anorexia-cachexia (AU)

What do patients and oncologists think about the evaluation and management of cancer-related anorexia-cachexia? The Quasar_SEOM study.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients often suffer from malnutrition and early detection and raising awareness of nutritional issues is crucial in this population. METHODS: The Spanish Oncology Society (SEOM) conducted the Quasar_SEOM study to investigate the current impact of the Anorexia-Cachexia Syndrome (ACS). The study employed questionnaires and the Delphi method to gather input from both cancer patients and oncologists on key issues related to early detection and treatment of ACS. A total of 134 patients and 34 medical oncologists were surveyed about their experiences with ACS. The Delphi methodology was used to evaluate oncologists' perspectives of ACS management, ultimately leading to a consensus on the most critical issues. RESULTS: Despite widespread acknowledgement of malnutrition in cancer as a significant issue by 94% of oncologists, the study revealed deficiencies in knowledge and protocol implementation. A mere 65% of physicians reported being trained to identify and treat these patients, with 53% failing to address ACS in a timely manner, 30% not monitoring weight, and 59% not adhering to any clinical guidelines. The lack of experience was identified as the primary hindrance to the use of orexigens in 18% of cases. Furthermore, patients reported concerns and a perception of inadequate attention to malnutrition-related issues from their physicians. CONCLUSION: The results of this study point to a gap in the care of this syndrome and a need to improve education and follow-up of cancer patients with anorexia-cachexia.

Good practice recommendations to better coordinate the management of oncological pain: a Delphi survey.

Treatment of oncological pain is complex and requires a multidisciplinary management approach between oncology services and pain units. Although significant improvements have been achieved in the treatment and overall survival of cancer patients, the management of oncological pain has not followed the same directions. Many patients are not referred to pain units even though they could benefit from it. The purpose of this Delphi survey was to map the current situation in the management of cancer pain, identify barriers and propose recommendations to improve its management by emphasizing the importance of collaboration and coordination between oncology services and pain units. A survey among members with recognized experience in the management of oncology patients and oncological pain was held based on the Delphi method principles. The experts were asked to vote preselected statements on cancer pain management in two rounds and conclusions and recommendations were formulated based on the consensus reached for each statement. Barriers and areas for improvement were identified: need of multidisciplinary management approach, effective communication between oncology services and pain units, timely referral of cancer patients to pain units, training of health care professionals dealing with cancer aspects and identification of those patients that could benefit from a multidisciplinary management of their oncological disease. The experts issued recommendations targeting the identified barriers and areas for improvement by defining the service requirements of hospital and units treating cancer pain patients, establishing referral pathways necessities and adopted measures to improve the care of cancer patients.

A Delphi Study on the Management of Neuropathic Cancer Pain in Spain: The DOLNEO Study.

Purpose: The objectives of this project were to assess the current situation and management of cancer-related neuropathic pain (CRNP) in Spain and to provide specific recommendations for the assessment, diagnosis and treatment of CRNP using a Delphi methodology. Methods: This was a qualitative study that followed a Delphi methodology using a questionnaire with 56 statements that were grouped into 5 areas related to CRNP: prevalence and impact, pathophysiology, assessment and diagnosis, specific syndromes, treatment, and multidisciplinary approach. Based on the responses, the scientific committee prepared an algorithm and a recommended pathway for the management of CRNP. Results: Seventy-nine physicians attended the meeting and completed the questionnaire. Consensus was reached for all statements relating to the prevalence and impact of CRNP. However, the perceptions of specialists from palliative care of the frequency and impact of CRNP differed from those of other specialists. A high degree of consensus was reached for all statements concerning the assessment and diagnosis of CRNP. Regarding specific syndromes, the only statement with a lack of consensus was that on the frequency of NP in patients undergoing radiotherapy. There were some disagreements regarding the multidisciplinary approach and referral criteria for the management of NP. Conclusion: Our results show a large degree of agreement on the assessment, diagnosis and treatment of cancer-related neuropathic pain among the specialists involved in its management. There were, however, some disagreements regarding the multidisciplinary approach and referral criteria for the management of neuropathic pain.

Correction to: SEOM Clinical Guideline update for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (2021)

In this article the title was incorrectly given as “SEOM clinical guideline emesis (2021)” but should have been “SEOM Clinical Guideline update for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (2021).”The original article has been corrected.

Rapid-Onset Opioids for Management of Breakthrough Cancer Pain: Considerations for Daily Practice.

Background and Objective: Rapid-onset opioids (ROOs) are effective treatments for breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) given their rapid onset of action and relatively short duration of analgesia. The aim of this article is to describe specific considerations for the use of ROOs in daily practice, focusing on dose titration and treatment of specific populations. Type of Review: We conducted a narrative review on the use of ROOs for BTcP. We selected papers according to the following search terms: "breakthrough cancer pain" and "rapid onset opioids". Results: ROOs may be considered as the most suitable drugs to treat BTcP and can be used "on-demand". Several fentanyl formulations are available and have been associated with control of BTcP and with improvement in quality of life. Various titration schemes have been used to optimize ROO dosing; however, a dose-proportional scheme could be considered safe and effective in most patients. Specific formulations may be more suitable for specific patient subgroups; for example, patients with oral mucositis may prefer intranasal to oral formulations. Moreover, elderly patients or those without caregivers should be clearly educated on the use of these formulations. A key element in achieving successful treatment of BTcP is awareness of the barriers to pain management, including poor overall assessment, patient reluctance to take opioids or report pain, and physician reluctance to prescribe opioids. Conclusion: A personalized approach is fundamental when prescribing a medication for BTcP, and careful attention should be given to drug choice and route of administration, and to the need for alternative therapeutic options.

SEOM Clinical Guideline update for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (2021)

Among the side effects of anticancer treatment, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most feared given its high prevalence, affecting up to 40% of patients. It can impair patient’s quality of life and provoke low adherence to cancer treatment or chemotherapy dose reductions that can comprise treatment efficacy. Suffering CINV depends on factors related to the intrinsic emetogenicity of antineoplastic drugs and on patient characteristics. CINV can appear at different times regarding the administration of antitumor treatment and the variability of risk according to the different antitumor regimens has, as a consequence, the need for a different and adapted antiemetic treatment prophylaxis to achieve the desired objective of complete protection of the patient in the acute phase, in the late phase and in the global phase of emesis. As a basis for the recommendations, the level of emetogenicity of anticancer treatment is considered and they are classified as high, moderate, low and minimal emetogenicity and these recommendations are based on the use of antiemetic drugs with a high therapeutic index: anti 5-HT, anti-NK and steroids. Despite having highly effective treatments, clinical reality shows that they are not applied enough, so evidence-based recommendations are needed to show the best options and help in decision-making. To cover all the antiemetic prophylaxis options, we have also included recommendations for oral treatments, multiday regimens and radiation-induced emesis prevention.

SEOM clinical guideline emesis (2021).

Among the side effects of anticancer treatment, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is one of the most feared given its high prevalence, affecting up to 40% of patients. It can impair patient's quality of life and provoke low adherence to cancer treatment or chemotherapy dose reductions that can comprise treatment efficacy. Suffering CINV depends on factors related to the intrinsic emetogenicity of antineoplastic drugs and on patient characteristics. CINV can appear at different times regarding the administration of antitumor treatment and the variability of risk according to the different antitumor regimens has, as a consequence, the need for a different and adapted antiemetic treatment prophylaxis to achieve the desired objective of complete protection of the patient in the acute phase, in the late phase and in the global phase of emesis. As a basis for the recommendations, the level of emetogenicity of anticancer treatment is considered and they are classified as high, moderate, low and minimal emetogenicity and these recommendations are based on the use of antiemetic drugs with a high therapeutic index: anti 5-HT, anti-NK and steroids. Despite having highly effective treatments, clinical reality shows that they are not applied enough, so evidence-based recommendations are needed to show the best options and help in decision-making. To cover all the antiemetic prophylaxis options, we have also included recommendations for oral treatments, multiday regimens and radiation-induced emesis prevention.

Practice Patterns for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting and Antiemetic Guideline Adherence Based on Real-World Prescribing Data.

BACKGROUND: Guideline-recommended antiemetic prophylaxis improves nausea and vomiting control in most patients undergoing chemotherapy. Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/European Society for Medical Oncology (MASCC/ESMO) antiemetic guidelines recommend prophylaxis with a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1 RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3 RA), and dexamethasone for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), including anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC)- and carboplatin (considered moderately emetogenic chemotherapy)-based chemotherapy. Here, we analyze the use of NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis associated with HEC and carboplatin. METHODS: The data source was the Global Oncology Monitor (Ipsos Healthcare). Geographically representative physicians from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the U.K. were screened for treatment involvement and number of patients treated per month. Patients' data from January to December 2018 were collected from medical charts and extrapolated on the basis of the total number of physicians who prescribe chemotherapy. The emetic risk of chemotherapy was classified per MASCC/ESMO guidelines. RESULTS: Data from 45,324 chemotherapy-treated patients were collected, representing a total extrapolated prevalence of 1,394,848 chemotherapy treatments included in the analysis. NK1 RAs were used in 45%, 42%, and 19% of patients receiving cisplatin-, AC-, and carboplatin-based chemotherapy, respectively; 18%, 24%, and 7% received the guideline-recommended NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone combination; no antiemetics were prescribed for 12% of the treatments. Often, physicians' perception of the emetic risk of chemotherapy did not follow MASCC/ESMO guideline classification. CONCLUSION: Low adherence to antiemetic guidelines was revealed in clinical practice in five European countries, with 15% of all HEC-/carboplatin-based treatments receiving guideline-recommended NK1 RA-5-HT3 RA-dexamethasone prophylaxis and 12% of them receiving no antiemetics. New strategies for improving guideline adherence are urgently needed. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite recent advances in antiemetic therapy, a substantial proportion of patients experience nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy in daily clinical practice. Antiemetic guidelines aim at prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and guideline-consistent antiemetic therapy can effectively prevent vomiting and, to a lesser extent, nausea in most patients with cancer. This study reports low adherence to antiemetic guidelines in the highly emetogenic chemotherapy setting in daily clinical practice across five European countries. Opportunity exists to increase adherence to antiemetic guideline recommendations. Implementation of strategies to facilitate guideline adherence can potentially improve CINV control.

A Phase 2 Open Label, Single-Arm Trial to Evaluate the Combination of Cetuximab Plus Taxotere, Cisplatin, and 5-Flurouracil as an Induction Regimen in Patients With Unresectable Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck.

PURPOSE: Despite treatment, prognosis of unresectable squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHC) is dismal. Cetuximab therapy has proven to increase the clinical activity of radiation therapy and chemotherapy in patients with locoregional advanced disease with an acceptable toxicity profile. We designed a phase 2 trial to evaluate the efficacy of docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) plus cetuximab (C-TPF) as an induction regimen in patients with unresectable SCCHN. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A single-arm phase 2 trial was conducted. Eligible patients included those with untreated unresectable SCCHC, World Health Organization performance status of 0 to 1, 18 to 70 years of age. Treatment consisted of four 21-day cycles of TPF (docetaxel, 75 mg/m(2) day 1; cisplatin, 75 mg/m(2) day 1; 5-fluorouracil [5-FU], 750 mg/m(2) day 1-5) and cetuximab, 250 mg/m(2) weekly (loading dose of 400 mg/m(2)). Prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and antibiotic support were given. After induction, sequential accelerated radiation therapy with concomitant boost (69.9 Gy) and weekly cetuximab therapy were delivered in the absence of disease progression. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) to C-TPF. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled across 8 centers. Median age was 54 years; disease was stage IV; oropharynx and hypopharynx were the most common primary sites. Eighty-two percent received 4 cycles of C-TPF, and 86% started sequential treatment based on radiation therapy and cetuximab. ORR after C-TPF was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 73%-94%) and 24% had complete response (CR). With a median follow-up of 40.7 months, median overall survival (OS) was 40.7 months. The 2-year actuarial locoregional control (LRC) rate was 57%. The most common drug-related grade 3 or 4 toxicities during induction were neutropenia (24%), neutropenic fever (24%), and diarrhea (20%). There were 3 treatment-related deaths (6%). CONCLUSIONS: C-TPF yields high ORR and CR as induction treatment in unresectable SCCHN. However, hematologic toxicity is too high to recommend this regimen at the current dose.

Efficacy and Safety of Oral or Nasal Fentanyl for Treatment of Breakthrough Pain in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.

Formulations of fentanyl that use buccal, sublingual, or nasal transmucosal routes of administration have been developed for the treatment of BTP in opioid-tolerant patients with cancer. The purposes of this analysis were to identify and review published data describing the efficacy and safety of different oral or nasal transmucosal fentanyl formulations for treatment of cancer-related BTP, based on a critical analysis of scientific literature. Oral transmucosal or intranasal fentanyl is an effective treatment for management of BTP episodes due to a potent analgesic effect, rapid onset of action, and sustained effect. Furthermore, it is a reasonably safe treatment, causing generally mild adverse events not leading to treatment discontinuation. Nevertheless, further progress in standardizing methodology, definitions, and criteria used both in research and in clinical practice is needed in order to generate quality information allowing a better understanding of the comparable efficacy of available formulations of fentanyl. A more rigorous assessment of long-term safety is also needed to establish a balance between benefits and risks of the available options.

Incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: ADVICE (Actual Data of Vomiting Incidence by Chemotherapy Evaluation) study.

PURPOSE: This study aims to determine the incidence of nausea and vomiting (CINV) after moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), under medical practice conditions and the accuracy with which physicians perceive CINV. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients receiving MEC between April 2012 and May 2013 were included. Patients completed a diary of the intensity of nausea and number of vomiting episodes. Complete response and complete protection were assessed as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Of 261 patients included, 240 were evaluated. Median age was 64 years, 44.2 % were female and 11.2 % were aged less than 50 years; 95.3 % of patients received a combination of 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) antagonist + corticosteroid as antiemetic treatment. Vomiting within 5 days of chemotherapy administration occurred in 20.8 %, nausea in 42 % and significant nausea in 23.8 % of patients. An increase in the percentage of patients with significant nausea (from 9.4 to 21.7 %) and vomiting (from 9.2 to 16.5 %) was observed from the acute to the delayed phase. Complete response was 84.2 % in the acute phase, 77 % in the late phase and 68.9 % in overall period. Complete protection was 79.5 % in the acute phase, 68.8 % in the late phase and 62.4 % throughout the study period. Physicians estimated prophylaxis would be effective for 75 % of patients receiving MEC, compared with 54.1 % obtained from patients' diary. CONCLUSION: Despite receiving prophylactic treatment, 31 % of patients did not achieve a complete response and 38 % complete protection. In general, nausea was worse controlled than vomiting. The results also showed the late phase was worse controlled than the acute phase in all variables. Healthcare providers overestimated the effectiveness of antiemetic prophylaxis.

Breakthrough cancer pain - still a challenge.

Breakthrough cancer pain is defined as transient pain exacerbation in patients with stable and controlled basal pain. Although variable, the prevalence of breakthrough cancer pain is high (33%-95%). According to the American Pain Foundation, breakthrough pain is observed in 50%-90% of all hospitalized cancer patients, in 89% of all patients admitted to homes for the elderly and terminal-patient care centers, and in 35% of all ambulatory care cancer patients. The management of breakthrough cancer pain should involve an interdisciplinary and multimodal approach. The introduction of new fentanyl formulations has represented a great advance and has notably improved treatment. Among these, the pectin-based intranasal formulation adjusts very well to the profile of breakthrough pain attacks, is effective, has a good toxicity profile, and allows for convenient dosing - affording rapid and effective analgesia with the added advantage of being easily administered by caregivers when patients are unable to collaborate.

Treatment of cancer pain: Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) recommendations for clinical practice.

Cancer pain should be controlled in most patients, however this is not always achieved. These guidelines describe the classification, evaluation and treatment of chronic cancer pain in accordance with the WHO treatment strategy of pain stages: mild, moderate and severe. For treatment during the third stage, we cover titration and rotation of opioids, as well as their side effects and prevention. Also described is neuropathic pain and refractory pain, coadjuvant treatments and non pharmacological analgesic treatments. Finally, treatment of breakthrough pain is defined.

Transdermal buprenorphine for the treatment of cancer pain: results from a multicenter, observational, post-marketing study in Spain (RELIEF study).

UNLABELLED: SUMMARY  AIM: This study evaluated health outcomes in patients with cancer pain during treatment with transdermal buprenorphine, including quality of life, effectiveness, tolerability, and functional consequences for patients and their carers. METHODS: In this 3-month, noncomparative, multicenter, observational study performed in a normal clinical practice setting in Spain, patients received transdermal buprenorphine 37, 52.5 or 70 µg/h, with patches changed every 96 h. The effect of transdermal buprenorphine on quality of life (primary study focus) was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) component of the EuroQol 5 Dimensions™ (EQ-5D). In addition, pain (assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form [BPI-SF] and VAS-pain), the impact of pain on patients and carers (assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory, sleep quality analysis, VAS-patient limitation, VAS-carer limitation and the Palliative Care Scale), patient's use of health resources, patient satisfaction, and tolerability, were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 116 patients entering the study, 42 completed the 3-month study period. Five patients withdrew due to adverse events. The two main reasons for study discontinuation were nontreatment-related death (27.1%) and lost to follow-up (18.8%). The mean age was 62.9 years and the mean baseline duration of pain was 7.78 weeks. In the month prior to starting transdermal buprenorphine, 80% of patients had received at least one nonopioid analgesic medication; 21% had received an opioid analgesic (most commonly tramadol). The most common dose of transdermal buprenorphine used was 35 µg/h. The mean improvement from baseline in the EQ-5D VAS score among 65 patients with data was 15.20 ± 24.96 (p < 0.0001). EQ-5D descriptive parameters also improved during the study (not statistically significant). Mean improvements in BPI scores for worst pain (3.76) and average pain (3.03) were significant (p < 0.0001). The other measures of pain relief also supported transdermal buprenorphine as an effective analgesic. Sleep quality improved during the study. VAS scores (100 mm scale) for patient limitation and caregiver burden due to pain improved, with a significant mean change in VAS-carer limitation score (30.34; p < 0.0001). Adverse events were reported by ten (8.6%) patients, most commonly affecting the gastrointestinal system (vomiting [4.3% of patients], nausea [2.6%] and constipation [0.9%]). The majority of patients reported satisfaction with their analgesic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study in normal clinical practice, transdermal buprenorphine provided effective pain relief and was generally well tolerated by patients with cancer pain. It also improved quality of life for patients and reduced caregiver burden. Considering the high number of study discontinuations (mainly due to nontreatment-related death and lost to follow-up), the results of this study need to be evaluated with caution.

Linguistic adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the Memorial Pain Assessment Card (MPAC).

INTRODUCTION: The Memorial Pain Assessment Card (MPAC), validated in 1987, is a card utilised for the self-assessment of cancer pain. The MPAC provides a quick, reliable measure of quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a linguistic adaptation of the original version of the MPAC into the Spanish language and its validation. This was a multicentre, cross-sectional, observational study. Linguistic adaptation was carried out by four independent translators and two medical oncologists. The MPAC includes 4 subscales: three are visual analogue scales (VAS) measuring pain relief (VASPR), pain intensity (VASPI) and mood (VASMOOD). A fourth subscale consists of a set of pain severity descriptors (Tursky scale). RESULTS: VASPR has been validated in a subsequent prospective follow-up study. The validation of the MPAC subscales included: reliability (Cronbach's coefficient), internal validation (Spearman's coefficient) and external validation (McGill Pain Questionnaire, MPQ; Profile of Mood States, POMS; Hamilton Depression Scales, HDRS; and Zung Anxiety Scale, ZAS). A moderately high reliability of the VASPI, Tursky and VASMOOD subscales (alpha=0.72) was observed. Regarding internal validity, VASPI correlated significantly with Tursky and VASMOOD. However, they showed a non-significant correlation between each other. Regarding external validity, VASPI, Tursky and VASMOOD were correlated with most of the MPQ subscales. VASMOOD and Tursky correlated with most of the POMS subscales, but not with HDRS or ZAS. VASPI showed a non-significant correlation with all of the psychological distress measures. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed a successful validation of the VASPI, VASMOOD and Tursky subscales of the MPAC Spanish version.

Sensivity to change of the Spanish validated Memorial Pain Assessment Card in cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Pain intensity is a good parameter to assess effective treatment of cancer and palliative care. The Memorial Pain Assessment Card (MPAC) is a quick, easy and reliable measure of quality of life in cancer patients. The MPAC was validated in Spanish in 2004. This study evaluated the sensitivity to change Spanish version of the MPAC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An epidemiological, prospective, 1- month, multicentre study, conducted at 4 oncology services. Patients evaluated suffered chronic cancer pain and were in a susceptible situation of change. The MPAC was administrated at baseline, at one week and at one month, including the 4 subscales (pain relief [VASPR], pain intensity measured by VAS [VASPI] and by an 8-item descriptor [Tursky], and psychological distress [VASMOOD]). Satisfaction of patients and health-care professionals with the MPAC was also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients were studied. All of the MPAC subscales showed sensitivity to change during the follow-up. The subscale values at visit 1 vs. visit 3 were: VASPR 4.5+/-1.9 vs. 6.3+/-2.3, VASPI 6.6+/-1.6 vs. 3.5+/-1.9 and VASMOOD 5.5+/-2.1 vs. 4.0+/-2.1). Patients and healthcare professionals agreed in the facility use MPAC card (63% and 71% of cases, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed sensitivity to change among the different MPAC subscales of the Spanish version. Moreover, the MPAC Spanish version has proven to be a good tool accepted by health-care-professionals and patients. Due to its facility of administration, it may allow a useful and quick evaluation of cancer-related pain in the clinical practice.