Adult Cancer Pain

Swarm, Robert A.; Abernethy, Amy Pickar; Anghelescu, Doralina L.; Benedetti, Costantino; Buga, Sorin; Cleeland, Charles S.; deLeon-Casasola, Oscar A.; Eilers, June; Ferrell, Betty; Green, Mark; Janjan, Nora A.; Kamdar, Mihir; Lévy, Michaël; Lynch, Maureen; McDowell, Rachel M.; Moryl, Natalie; Nesbit, Suzanne; Paice, Judith A.; Rabow, Michael W.; Syrjala, Karen L.; Urba, Susan G.; Weinstein, Sharon M.; Dwyer, Mary A.; Kumar, Rashmi

doi:10.6004/jnccn.2013.0119

Cited by 149 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 161 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Characterizing recovery as the attainment of symptoms rated 0–3 on the 0–10 scale is based on the cutpoints used in multiple clinical practice guidelines, such as National Comprehensive Cancer Network fatigue and pain guidelines. 17,18 Empirical work has consistently demonstrated that substantial functional impairment occurs when symptoms reach moderate to severe levels. 19,20 Median and mean recovery days and 95% confidence limits (CL) were estimated using Kaplan–Meier analysis.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Symptom recovery after thoracic surgery: Measuring patient-reported outcomes with the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory

Fagundes

Shi

Vaporciyan

et al. 2015

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has become increasingly important for assessing quality of care and guiding patient management. However, PROs have yet to be integrated with traditional clinical outcomes (such as length of hospital stay) to evaluate perioperative care. This study aimed to utilize longitudinal PRO assessments to define the postoperative symptom-recovery trajectory in patients undergoing thoracic surgery for lung cancer. Methods Newly diagnosed patients (N=60) with stage I or II non-small cell lung cancer who underwent either standard open thoracotomy or video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy reported multiple symptoms from presurgery to 3 months postsurgery using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI). We conducted Kaplan–Meier analyses to determine when symptoms returned to presurgical levels and to mild severity levels during recovery. Results The most-severe postoperative symptoms were fatigue, pain, shortness of breath, disturbed sleep, and drowsiness. The median time to return to mild symptom severity for these 5 symptoms was shorter than return to baseline severity, with fatigue taking longer. Pain recovered more quickly for patients who underwent VATS lobectomy vs standard open thoracotomy (8 days vs 18 days, respectively; P = .022). Patients who had poor preoperative performance status or comorbidities reported higher postoperative pain (all P < .05). Conclusions Assessing symptoms from the patient's perspective throughout the postoperative recovery period is an effective strategy for evaluating perioperative care. This study demonstrates that the MDASI is a sensitive tool for detecting symptomatic recovery with an expected relationship among surgery type, preoperative performance status, and comorbid conditions.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Symptom recovery after thoracic surgery: Measuring patient-reported outcomes with the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory

Fagundes

Shi

Vaporciyan

et al. 2015

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cancer is the leading cause of death worldwide, accounting for 7.6 million deaths (around 13% of all deaths) in 2008. Pain is a common and burdensome symptom associated with cancer and its treatment [1, 2]. Most of cancer patients suffered pain due to the cancer itself (the tumor pressed on bones, nerves, or other organs), the treatment, or the tests done to diagnose cancer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pain management is important in oncologic care and essential for maximizing patient outcomes [2, 4]. Mounting evidence showed that unrelieved pain significantly comprised overall quality of life and effective pain control was associated with survival [2, 4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Cancer Pain: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Bao

Kong

Yang

et al. 2014

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objective. Now with more and more published systematic reviews of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) on adult cancer pain, it is necessary to use the methods of overview of systematic review to summarize available evidence, appraise the evidence level, and give suggestions to future research and practice. Methods. A comprehensive search (the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and ISI Web of Knowledge) was conducted to identify all systematic reviews or meta-analyses of CAM on adult cancer pain. And the evidence levels were evaluated using GRADE approach. Results. 27 systematic reviews were included. Based on available evidence, we could find that psychoeducational interventions, music interventions, acupuncture plus drug therapy, Chinese herbal medicine plus cancer therapy, compound kushen injection, reflexology, lycopene, TENS, qigong, cupping, cannabis, Reiki, homeopathy (Traumeel), and creative arts therapies might have beneficial effects on adult cancer pain. No benefits were found for acupuncture (versus drug therapy or shame acupuncture), and the results were inconsistent for massage therapy, transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS), and Viscum album L plus cancer treatment. However, the evidence levels for these interventions were low or moderate due to high risk of bias and/or small sample size of primary studies. Conclusion. CAM may be beneficial for alleviating cancer pain, but the evidence levels were found to be low or moderate. Future large and rigor randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm the benefits of CAM on adult cancer pain.

show abstract

“…Consistent with the NQF approach, criteria for selection of these outcomes included prevalence of the problems, known underdetection by providers despite substantial efforts, actionability, and appropriateness for patient self-reporting. Notably, clinical practice guidelines already exist in both of these areas, 10–12 with evidence that guideline adherence improves patient outcomes. 13,14 Both areas are well recognized as priorities by cancer care providers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The workgroup selected the National Cancer Institute’s PRO-CTCAE nausea items to serve as the assessment instrument. 10,11 These two items ask patients to rate their worst nausea severity and frequency of nausea during the last 7 days.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%