No abstract

BackgroundMany patients with advanced cancer depend upon health care providers for symptom assessment. The extent of agreement between patient and provider symptom assessments and the association of agreement with demographic- and disease-related factors was examined.MethodsThis cross-sectional study included 1933 patient-health care provider dyads, from 11 European countries. Patients reported symptoms by using the four-point scales of the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) version 3, and providers used corresponding four-point categorical scales. Level of agreement was addressed at the group level (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test), by difference scores (provider score minus patient score), at the individual level (Intraclass Correlation Coefficients, ICCs) and visually by Bland-Altman plots. Absolute numbers and chi-square tests were used to investigate the relationship between agreement and demographic-, as well as disease-related factors.ResultsThe prevalence of symptoms assessed as moderate or severe by patients and providers, respectively, were for pain (67 vs.47%), fatigue (71 vs. 54%), generalized weakness (65 vs. 47%), anorexia (47 vs. 25%), depression (31 vs. 17%), constipation (45 vs. 30%), poor sleep (32 vs. 21%), dyspnea (30 vs. 16%), nausea (27 vs. 14%), vomiting (14 vs. 6%) and diarrhea (14 vs. 6%). Symptom scores were identical or differed by only one response category in the majority of patient-provider assessment pairs (79-93%). Providers underestimated the symptom in approximately one of ten patients and overestimated in 1% of patients. Agreement at the individual level was moderate (ICC 0.38 to 0.59). Patients with low Karnofsky Performance Status, high Mini Mental State-score, hospitalized, recently diagnosed or undergoing opioid titration were at increased risk of symptom underestimation by providers (all p < 0.001). Also, the agreement was significantly associated with drug abuse (p = 0.024), provider profession (p < 0.001), cancer diagnosis (p < 0.001) and country (p < 0.001).ConclusionsConsiderable numbers of health care providers underestimated symptom intensities. Clinicians in cancer care should be aware of the factors characterizing patients at risk of symptom underestimation.

No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine the adequacy of treatment for constipation, nausea, depression and poor sleep and the factors associated with inadequate symptom control in cancer patients receiving opioids.MethodsPatients receiving strong opioids for cancer pain were recruited from 17 centres in 11 European countries. By using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire C30, 1,938 patients reported their symptoms at four-point scales. Health care providers assessed symptoms at corresponding four-point scales and registered use of medications, demographic and disease-related variables. Symptomatic treatment was scored as 1 if not administered during the past 24 h and as 2 if administered. Adequacy of treatment was evaluated by subtracting the patients’ symptom score from the treatment score. Negative scores, caused by either no treatment or ineffective treatment of a symptom, were interpreted as inadequate treatment.ResultsApproximately 60% of patients with constipation, depression or poor sleep and 45% of nauseated patients were inadequately treated. Numbers of inadequately treated patients varied between countries. In general, underestimation of symptom intensity by health care providers (p < 0.001), low performance status (p < 0.05) and recent initiation of opioids (p < 0.05) increased the risk of inadequate treatment. The subset of demographic- and disease-related factors associated with inadequate treatment varied between the symptoms investigated.ConclusionsInadequate treatment, either no treatment or ineffective treatment, was frequent in cancer patients. There were subgroups of patients at particular risk for inadequate treatment, which might need additional attention from health care providers for achievement of adequate symptom control.

The objectives were to review the existing literature on management of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients and summarize the findings into evidence-based recommendations. Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were performed, using free text and MeSH/EMTREE search terms. The searches were limited to articles published in English from each database set-up date to 31 July 2009. Reference lists and relevant international conference proceedings were hand-searched. Fifty-five studies were identified, providing data on 5741 patients. The studies were classified into: (A) studies in which treatment of nausea/vomiting was the primary outcome (a total of 18 studies, of which eight studies specifically addressed opioid-induced emesis); and (B) studies in which nausea/vomiting were secondary or tertiary outcomes (37 studies). The existing evidence had several limitations, there was a lack of consistency and the overall quality was grade D. By applying the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system, three weak recommendations were formulated. The current evidence is too limited to give evidence-based recommendations for the use of antiemetics for opioid-induced nausea or vomiting in cancer patients. The evidence suggests that nausea and vomiting in cancer patients receiving an opioid might be reduced by changing the opioid or opioid administration route. The evidence was also too limited to prioritize between symptomatic treatment and adjustment of the opioid treatment.