Background. Pain is an important problem for patients with cancer and is particularly important for elderly patients with cancer and their family care givers. Increasingly, cancer is managed on an outpatient basis with pain management responsibility assumed by the family at home. This study evaluated a structured pain education program that included three components: basic pain management principles and assessment, pharmaco‐logic interventions, and nondrug treatments. Methods. The pain education intervention was implemented across three home visits with two paints of follow‐up evaluation. Outcomes of the 66 elderly patients with cancer completing the educational program included measures of quality of life, patient knowledge and attitudes regarding pain, and use of a self‐care log to document drug and nondrug interventions and their effectiveness. Results. Repeated measurement analysis was used to evaluate the outcomes of the three‐part education intervention. Results indicate an improvement in knowledge and attitudes regarding pain as well as the use of drug and nondrug interventions. Outcomes of the quality of life instrument suggest significant effect of pain on all aspects of quality of life, including physical well being, psychological well being, social concerns, and spiritual well being. Conclusions. The investigators concluded that the pain education intervention provided important support to elderly patients with cancer and family members at home. Structured pain education based on an evolving science of pain relief should become a part of the standard health care for pain management. Improved pain management includes quality of life for the elderly patient with cancer as well as for family care givers.

Epidemiological studies of statin use and liver cancer risk have produced conflicting results. We examined the association between statin use and risk of primary liver cancer in two large independent study populations taking account of important covariates and main indications of statins such as high cholesterol and chronic liver disease. We performed a nested case–control study within the Scottish Primary Care Clinical Informatics Unit (PCCIU) database. Five controls were matched to cases with primary liver cancer and we used conditional logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations with statin use. We also conducted a prospective cohort study within the UK Biobank using self‐reported statin use and cancer‐registry recorded primary liver cancer outcomes. Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs. In the PCCIU case–control analysis, 434 liver cancer cases were matched to 2,103 controls. In the UK Biobank cohort, 182 out of 475,768 participants developed incident liver cancer. Statin use was associated with 39% lower risk of liver cancer in the PCCIU (adjusted OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43–0.87). When we examined specific subtypes of liver cancer in the UK Biobank, statin use was associated with lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; adjusted HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24–0.94) but not intrahepatic bile duct carcinoma (IBDC; adjusted HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.45–2.64). In conclusion, we found a consistent inverse relationship between statin use and risk of primary liver cancer which was only seen for HCC but not IBDC.

The rate of appropriate drug prescribing in kidney impairment is low and remains a patient safety concern. Our results suggest that CDS improves drug prescribing, particularly when providing guidance on new prescriptions.

We found some evidence that PPI use was associated with liver cancer. Whether this association is causal or reflects residual confounding or reverse causation requires additional research.

Serum biomarkers of iron status and risk of primary liver cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.