An international multicentre validation study of a pain classification system for cancer patients

University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) (Impact Factor: 4.82). 11/2010; 46(16):2896-904. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.04.017
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The study's primary objective was to assess predictive validity of the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain (ECS-CP) in a diverse international sample of advanced cancer patients. We hypothesised that patients with problematic pain syndromes would require more time to achieve stable pain control, more complicated analgesic regimens and higher opioid doses than patients with less complex pain syndromes.
Patients with advanced cancer (n=1100) were recruited from 11 palliative care sites in Canada, USA, Ireland, Israel, Australia and New Zealand (100 per site). Palliative care specialists completed the ECS-CP for each patient. Daily patient pain ratings, number of breakthrough pain doses, types of pain adjuvants and opioid consumption were recorded until study end-point (i.e. stable pain control, discharge and death).
A pain syndrome was present in 944/1100 (86%). In univariate analysis, younger age, neuropathic pain, incident pain, psychological distress, addictive behaviour and initial pain intensity were significantly associated with more days to achieve stable pain control. In multivariate analysis, younger age, neuropathic pain, incident pain, psychological distress and pain intensity were independently associated with days to achieve stable pain control. Patients with neuropathic pain, incident pain, psychological distress or higher pain intensity required more adjuvants and higher final opioid doses; those with addictive behaviour required only higher final opioid doses. Cognitive deficit was associated with fewer days to stable pain control, lower final opioid doses and fewer pain adjuvants.
The replication of previous findings suggests that the ECS-CP can predict pain complexity in a range of practice settings and countries.


Available from: Michael Fisch, May 23, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Twenty years ago, the main barriers to successful cancer pain management were poor assessment by physicians, and patients' reluctance to report pain and take opioids. Those barriers are almost exactly the same today. Cancer pain remains under-treated; in Europe, almost three-quarters of cancer patients experience pain, and almost a quarter of those with moderate to severe pain do not receive any analgesic medication. Yet it has been suggested that pain management could be improved simply by ensuring that every consultation includes the patient's rating of pain, that the physician pays attention to this rating, and a plan is agreed to increase analgesia when it is inadequate. After outlining current concepts of carcinogenesis in some detail, this paper describes different methods of classifying and diagnosing cancer pain and the extent of current under-treatment. Key points are made regarding cancer pain management. Firstly, the pain may be caused by multiple different mechanisms and therapy should reflect those underlying mechanisms - not simply based on pain intensity, as recommended by the WHO three-step ladder. Secondly, a multidisciplinary approach is required which combines both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment, such as psychotherapy, exercise therapy and electrostimulation. The choice of analgesic agent and its route of administration are considered, along with various interventional procedures and the requirements of palliative care. Special attention is paid to the treatment of breakthrough pain (particularly with fast-acting fentanyl formulations, which have pharmacokinetic profiles that closely match those of breakthrough pain episodes) and chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain, which affects around one third of patients who receive chemotherapy. Finally, the point is made that medical education should place a greater emphasis on pain therapy, both at undergraduate and postgraduate level.
    Current Medical Research and Opinion 05/2014; 30(9):1-0. DOI:10.1185/03007995.2014.925439 · 2.37 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Neuropathic pain (NP) in cancer patients lacks standards for diagnosis. This study is aimed at reaching consensus on the application of the NeuPSIG criteria to the diagnosis of NP in cancer patients and on the relevance of patient reported outcome (PRO) descriptors for the screening of NP in this population. An international group of 42 experts was invited to participate in a consensus process through a modified two-round internet-based Delphi survey. Relevant topics investigated were: peculiarities of NP in patients with cancer, IASP NeuPSIG diagnostic criteria adaptation and assessment, standardized PRO assessment for NP screening. Median consensus scores (MED) and inter-quartile ranges (IQR), were calculated to measure expert consensus after both rounds. 29 experts answered and good agreement was found on the statement "the pathophysiology of NP due to cancer can be different from non-cancer NP" (MED=9, IQR=2). Satisfactory consensus was reached for the first three NeuPSIG criteria (pain distribution, history and sensory findings) (MEDs>=8, IQRs<=3), but not for the fourth one (diagnostic test/imaging) (MED=6, IQR=3). Agreement was also reached on clinical examination by soft brush or pin stimulation (MEDs>=7 and IQRs<=3) and on the use of PRO descriptors for NP screening (MED=8, IQR=3). Based on the study results a clinical algorithm for NP diagnostic criteria in cancer patients with pain was proposed. Clinical research on PRO in the screening phase and on the application of the algorithm will be needed to examine their effectiveness in classifying NP in cancer patients.
    Pain 10/2014; 155(12). DOI:10.1016/j.pain.2014.09.038 · 5.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AimThe aim of this study was to prospectively assess the prognostic value of initial pain intensity and its duration in advanced cancer patients. MethodsA prospective study was conducted in a sample of patients with cancer requiring pain control. Patients underwent standard analgesic strategies used in our palliative care units. Pain intensity was measured at admission (T0) and after successful dose titration or opioid/route switching within a week (Ts). Patients were also asked about their pain intensity reported 15days before admission (T-15). Doses of opioids and duration of opioid use were recorded. Patients were also assessed for the presence of incident pain, neuropathic pain, alcoholism, delirium, and symptom intensity, including items representing psychological distress. One week after or at time of stabilization (Ts), the opioid response was clinically graded as follows: (1) good pain control; (2) adequate pain control requiring more aggressive opioid escalation; (3) adequate pain control associated with the occurrence of adverse effects; (4) incapacity to achieve pain control within a week. Opioid escalation indexes and days for dose finding were also recorded. ResultsPain intensity at T0 and at T-15, opioid doses, duration of opioid therapy, and age were associated with more complex analgesic therapies, which were effective in almost all patients within a week. Conclusion High levels of pain intensity, often due to previous undertreatment, are predictive of more complex analgesic treatment. Opioid tolerance, as well as younger age, may also play a role.
    Pain Practice 11/2014; 15(1). DOI:10.1111/papr.12259 · 2.18 Impact Factor