A prospective study of docetaxel-associated pain syndrome.

PURPOSE: To investigate the natural history of taxane-associated acute pain syndrome (TAPS) in a docetaxel patient cohort and to examine the long-term manifestation of TAPS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For three consecutive treatment cycles, taxane-naive breast cancer patients completed diaries on days 1-7, 14, and 21 and telephone questionnaires 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months following treatment. Questionnaires to assess pain and interference were adapted from the Brief Pain Inventory. To examine the experience of arthralgia and myalgia as one syndrome, information on patient experiences with arthralgia or myalgia was elicited separately in order to determine how closely experiences of each toxicity correlated with each other. A ≥2 point increase from baseline was defined as an arthralgia or myalgia "pain flare," and only those with "flare" were included in calculations of incidence. RESULTS: A total of 278 patients were accrued. Thirty-eight patients were omitted due to missing information, and 24 patients were omitted due to metastatic disease, for a total of 216 patients overall and 188 in the docetaxel cohort. A total of 74.5% of docetaxel patients experienced joint pain flare, and 78.2% experienced muscle pain flare at some point in the overall course of three treatment cycles. Joint and muscle pain peaked on days 4-5 for each cycle, and median pain severity for both joint and muscle pain was 4/10 during the 21-day period. Median onset of joint pain flare was 3 days for cycle 1 and 4 days for cycles 2 and 3, with an average median duration of 4 days. Median onset of muscle pain flare was 4 days for all three cycles, with a median duration of 4 days for cycles 1 and 2, and 5 days for cycle 3. Both joint and muscle pain persisted 1 year after treatment in approximately half of responding patients. CONCLUSION: This study documents the significant incidence of TAPS in patients treated with docetaxel chemotherapy and shows a long-term persistence of the syndrome.

Which pain intensity scale from the Brief Pain Inventory correlates most highly with functional interference scores in patients experiencing taxane-induced arthralgia and myalgia?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess which pain intensity dimension scale (worst, least, average, or current pain) from the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) correlates most highly with functional interference scores in patients experiencing taxane-induced arthralgia and myalgia. METHODS: Breast cancer patients scheduled to receive docetaxel, paclitaxel, or albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) were enrolled in the study. Patients completed an initial baseline questionnaire and subsequently filled out a diary based on the BPI on days 1-7, 14, and 21 for three consecutive treatment cycles. Pain scores for worst, least, average, and current pain intensity dimensions as well as pain interference scores were recorded in the diaries and questionnaires using the BPI. Worst, least, average, and current pain scores were correlated with functional pain interference scores using Spearman's rank correlation coefficients. A general linear mixed model of each functional interference measure was performed over time for cycles 1-3 with each pain intensity dimension scale. RESULTS: Among worst, average, least, and current joint pain dimensions, average joint pain scores correlated best with all BPI interference responses while average muscle pain scores correlated best with all BPI interference responses except for sleeping probability and normal work. CONCLUSION: We recommend the BPI scale measuring average pain for future studies evaluating pain scores in patients experiencing taxane-induced arthralgia and myalgia.

Clinician accuracy when estimating survival duration: the role of the patient's performance status and time-based prognostic categories.

CONTEXT: Although shown to be an independent predictor of actual survival (AS) duration, previous reports have identified significant inaccuracy in clinician estimates of survival (CES). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to both examine demographic and clinical factors potentially impacting CES accuracy and explore possible strategies for improvement in a patient population with advanced incurable disease. METHODS: At the time of initial assessment by a specialist palliative care team, CES for each patient was chosen from one of the following time-based categories: <24 hours, one to seven days, one to four weeks, one to three months, three to six months, three to 12 months, or >12 months. Survival estimates were then classified as an accurate (AS=CES), overestimate (ASCES). Demographic data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and both univariate and stepwise multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify any associated demographic and/or clinical factors significantly impacting accuracy. RESULTS: Within the total study population of 1835, both CES and AS data were available for 1622 patients among whom mean and median survival was 26.5 and 88 days, respectively. The remaining 213 patients (12% of the total population) remained alive at the time of analysis. Of the total study population, CES was accurate for 34% of patients and an overestimate for 51% of patients. CES of <24 hours and one to seven days were significantly more likely to be accurate than any other prognostic category (P<0.0001). Additionally, a CES of either one to four weeks or >12 months was significantly more likely to be accurate than CES of one to three months, three to six months, and six to 12 months (P<0.0001). Finally, multivariate analyses indicated CES to be significantly more likely to be accurate for males (P=0.0407) and for patients with baseline Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) ratings of either "30 and less" (P<0.0001) or "70 and greater" (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: In a patient population referred for specialist palliative care consultation with diverse diagnoses and a wide range of CES, time-based categorization of survival estimates along with PPS and possibly gender could be used to inform the CES process for individual patients. Intentionally incorporating these objective elements into what has historically been the subjective process of CES may lead to improvements in accuracy.