From "Breakthrough" to "Episodic" Cancer Pain? A European Association for Palliative Care Research Network Expert Delphi Survey Towards a Common Terminology and Classification of Transient Cancer Pain Exacerbations

Context: Cancer pain can appear with spikes of higher intensity. Breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP) is the most common term for the transient exacerbations of pain, but the ability of the nomenclature to capture relevant pain variations and give treatment guidance is questionable. Objectives: To reach consensus on definitions, terminology, and sub classification of transient cancer pain exacerbations. Methods: The most frequent authors on BTCP literature were identified using the same search strategy as in a systematic review and invited to participate in a two-round Delphi survey. Topics with a low degree of consensus on BTCP classification were refined into twenty statements. The participants rated their degree of agreement with the statements on a numeric rating scale (NRS 0-10). Consensus was defined as a median NRS score of ≥ 7 and an interquartile range of ≤ 3. Results: Fifty-two authors had published three or more papers on BTCP over the past ten years. Twenty-seven responded in the first round and 24 in the second round. Consensus was reached for 13 of 20 statements. Transient cancer pain exacerbations can occur without background pain, when background pain is uncontrolled, and regardless of opioid treatment. There exist cancer pain exacerbations other than BTCP, and the phenomenon could be named “episodic pain”. Patient reported treatment satisfaction is important with respect to assessment. Sub classification according to pain pathophysiology can provide treatment guidance. Conclusion: Significant transient cancer pain exacerbations include more than just BTCP. Patient input and pain classification are important factors for tailoring treatment

Diagnostic routes and time intervals for ovarian cancer in nine international jurisdictions; findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP)

BACKGROUND: International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of ovarian cancer (OC) diagnosis routes and intervals (symptom onset to treatment start), which may inform previously reported variations in survival and stage. METHODS: Data were collated from 1110 newly diagnosed OC patients aged >40 surveyed between 2013 and 2015 across five countries (51-272 per jurisdiction), their primary-care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists, supplement by treatment records or clinical databases. Diagnosis routes and time interval differences using quantile regression with reference to Denmark (largest survey response) were calculated. RESULTS: There were no significant jurisdictional differences in the proportion diagnosed with symptoms on the Goff Symptom Index (53%; P = 0.179) or National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NG12 guidelines (62%; P = 0.946). Though the main diagnosis route consistently involved primary-care presentation (63-86%; P = 0.068), onward urgent referral rates varied significantly (29-79%; P < 0.001). In most jurisdictions, diagnostic intervals were generally shorter and other intervals, in particular, treatment longer compared to Denmark. CONCLUSION: This study highlights key intervals in the diagnostic pathway where improvements could be made. It provides the opportunity to consider the systems and approaches across different jurisdictions that might allow for more timely ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment

Time intervals and routes to diagnosis for lung cancer in 10 jurisdictions: cross-sectional study findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP)

OBJECTIVE: Differences in time intervals to diagnosis and treatment between jurisdictions may contribute to previously reported differences in stage at diagnosis and survival. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis and time intervals from symptom onset until treatment start for patients with lung cancer. DESIGN: Newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, their primary care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) were surveyed in Victoria (Australia), Manitoba and Ontario (Canada), Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Using Wales as the reference jurisdiction, the 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles for intervals were compared using quantile regression adjusted for age, gender and comorbidity. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, aged ≥40 years, diagnosed between October 2012 and March 2015 were identified through cancer registries. Of 10 203 eligible symptomatic patients contacted, 2631 (27.5%) responded and 2143 (21.0%) were included in the analysis. Data were also available from 1211 (56.6%) of their PCPs and 643 (37.0%) of their CTS. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Interval lengths (days; primary), routes to diagnosis and symptoms (secondary). RESULTS: With the exception of Denmark (-49 days), in all other jurisdictions, the median adjusted total interval from symptom onset to treatment, for respondents diagnosed in 2012-2015, was similar to that of Wales (116 days). Denmark had shorter median adjusted primary care interval (-11 days) than Wales (20 days); Sweden had shorter (-20) and Manitoba longer (+40) median adjusted diagnostic intervals compared with Wales (45 days). Denmark (-13), Manitoba (-11), England (-9) and Northern Ireland (-4) had shorter median adjusted treatment intervals than Wales (43 days). The differences were greater for the 10% of patients who waited the longest. Based on overall trends, jurisdictions could be grouped into those with trends of reduced, longer and similar intervals to Wales. The proportion of patients diagnosed following presentation to the PCP ranged from 35% to 75%. CONCLUSION: There are differences between jurisdictions in interval to treatment, which are magnified in patients with lung cancer who wait the longest. The data could help jurisdictions develop more focused lung cancer policy and targeted clinical initiatives. Future analysis will explore if these differences in intervals impact on stage or survival

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) Antidepressants in Pregnancy and Congenital Anomalies: Analysis of Linked Databases in Wales, Norway and Funen, Denmark

Background: Hypothesised associations between in utero exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and congenital anomalies, particularly congenital heart defects (CHD), remain controversial. We investigated the putative teratogenicity of SSRI prescription in the 91 days either side of first day of last menstrual period (LMP). Methods and Findings: Three population-based EUROCAT congenital anomaly registries- Norway (2004–2010), Wales (2000–2010) and Funen, Denmark (2000–2010)—were linked to the electronic healthcare databases holding prospectively collected prescription information for all pregnancies in the timeframes available. We included 519,117 deliveries, including foetuses terminated for congenital anomalies, with data covering pregnancy and the preceding quarter, including 462,641 with data covering pregnancy and one year either side. For SSRI exposures 91 days either side of LMP, separately and together, odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (ORs, 95%CI) for all major anomalies were estimated. We also explored: pausing or discontinuing SSRIs preconception, confounding, high dose regimens, and, in Wales, diagnosis of depression. Results were combined in meta-analyses. SSRI prescription 91 days either side of LMP was associated with increased prevalence of severe congenital heart defects (CHD) (as defined by EUROCAT guide 1.3, 2005) (34/12,962 [0.26%] vs. 865/506,155 [0.17%] OR 1.50, 1.06–2.11), and the composite adverse outcome of 'anomaly or stillbirth' (473/12962, 3.65% vs. 15829/506,155, 3.13%, OR 1.13, 1.03–1.24). The increased prevalence of all major anomalies combined did not reach statistical significance (3.09% [400/12,962] vs. 2.67% [13,536/506,155] OR 1.09, 0.99–1.21). Adjusting for socio-economic status left ORs largely unchanged. The prevalence of anomalies and severe CHD was reduced when SSRI prescriptions were stopped or paused preconception, and increased when >1 prescription was recorded, but differences were not statistically significant. The dose-response relationship between severe CHD and SSRI dose (meta-regression OR 1.49, 1.12–1.97) was consistent with SSRI-exposure related risk. Analyses in Wales suggested no associations between anomalies and diagnosed depression. Conclusion: The additional absolute risk of teratogenesis associated with SSRIs, if causal, is small. However, the high prevalence of SSRI use augments its public health importance, justifying modifications to preconception care

Dissecting the Shared Genetic Architecture of Suicide Attempt, Psychiatric Disorders, and Known Risk Factors

Background Suicide is a leading cause of death worldwide, and nonfatal suicide attempts, which occur far more frequently, are a major source of disability and social and economic burden. Both have substantial genetic etiology, which is partially shared and partially distinct from that of related psychiatric disorders. Methods We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 29,782 suicide attempt (SA) cases and 519,961 controls in the International Suicide Genetics Consortium (ISGC). The GWAS of SA was conditioned on psychiatric disorders using GWAS summary statistics via multitrait-based conditional and joint analysis, to remove genetic effects on SA mediated by psychiatric disorders. We investigated the shared and divergent genetic architectures of SA, psychiatric disorders, and other known risk factors. Results Two loci reached genome-wide significance for SA: the major histocompatibility complex and an intergenic locus on chromosome 7, the latter of which remained associated with SA after conditioning on psychiatric disorders and replicated in an independent cohort from the Million Veteran Program. This locus has been implicated in risk-taking behavior, smoking, and insomnia. SA showed strong genetic correlation with psychiatric disorders, particularly major depression, and also with smoking, pain, risk-taking behavior, sleep disturbances, lower educational attainment, reproductive traits, lower socioeconomic status, and poorer general health. After conditioning on psychiatric disorders, the genetic correlations between SA and psychiatric disorders decreased, whereas those with nonpsychiatric traits remained largely unchanged. Conclusions Our results identify a risk locus that contributes more strongly to SA than other phenotypes and suggest a shared underlying biology between SA and known risk factors that is not mediated by psychiatric disorders.Peer reviewe

Cancer pain classification

Klassifikasjon av kreftsmerte Kreftsmerte – hva skal et fremtidig klassifikasjonssystem inneholde? Smerte er et subjektivt, sammensatt og plagsomt symptom som forekommer hyppig hos kreftpasienter. Til tross for eksisterende retningslinjer, er det mange kreftpasienter som ikke får god smertebehandling, særlig ved langkommet sykdom. En av mange årsaker til dette, er mangelen på et allment akseptert klassifiseringssystem for kreftsmerte – et verktøy for å stille en korrekt diagnose. På bakgrunn av ovennevnte forhold ble den internasjonale EU-finansierte forskningsgruppen ‘European Palliative Care Research Collaborative’ (EPCRC) dannet. En av gruppens hovedmålsettinger var å utvikle klassifikasjonssystem for tre vanlige symptomer hos kreftpasienter med langtkommet sykdom: smerte, depresjon og ufrivillig vekttap. Arbeidene i denne avhandlingen har vært utført i nær tilknytning til EPCRC. Det overordnete målet med avhandlingen er å bidra i utviklingsprosessen av et internasjonalt klassifikasjonssystem for smerte hos kreftpasienter blant annet ved å finne frem til noen faktorer som er avgjørende for å kunne beskrive en smertetilstand og derved å kunne stille en korrekt smertediagnose. Hovedfunnene i avhandlingen er: Det foreligger flere systemer for klassifisering av smerte hos kreftpasienter, men ingen av disse er i utstrakt bruk, verken i forskning eller klinisk praksis. Smertens intensitet og patofysiologi, forekomst av gjennombruddssmerte, psykisk stress og respons på behandling inngår i to eller flere av de seks formelle systemene som ble funnet ved systematisk litteraturgjennomgang.Pasienter bekreftet i intervju at faktorer påvist å være viktige for kreftsmerte i tidligere studier, også var relevante for deres smerteopplevelse. De vektla fysiske og psykiske aspekter ved det å ha smerte, og søvn ble ansett som en viktig faktor.I en europeisk studie hvor mer enn 2000 kreftpasienter som brukte sterke smertestillende (opioider) deltok, ble følgende faktorer funnet å ha betydning for grad av smerteintensitet og/eller smertelindring: gjennombruddssmerte, smertens lokalisasjon, opioiddose, bruk av svake smertestillende, søvn, psykisk stress, smertens patofysiologi, misbruk av alkohol/narkotika, kreftdiagnose og lokalisasjon av spredning av kreftsykdommen.I en italiensk studie hvor 1800 kreftpasienter deltok, ble de fem førstnevntes relevans bekreftet. Videre ble det i den samme studien påvist at smerteintensitet og opplevd smertelindring målt ved studiens oppstart samt forekomst av gjennombruddssmerte, smertens lokalisasjon, alder og kreftdiagnose var faktorer som kunne predikere smerte etter to uker. Minst tre hovedutfordringer må løses for å komme nærmere et internasjonalt klassifikasjonssystem for kreftsmerte: å velge de mest relevante faktorene for inklusjon i systemet, inkludert å velge et tilstrekkelig antall faktorer, å oppnå enighet om hvilke endepunkt som skal brukes og til slutt å innføre det fremtidige klassifikasjonssystemet i klinisk praksis

Resilience for family carers of advanced cancer patients-how can health care providers contribute? A qualitative interview study with carers.

Background: Caring for advanced cancer patients affects carers’ psychological and physical health. Resilience has been defined as “the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats or even significant sources of threat.” Aim: The aim of this study was to explore factors promoting carer resilience, based on carers’ experiences with and preferences for health care provider support. Design: Qualitative, semi-structured, individual interviews with family carers of advanced cancer patients were performed until data saturation. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using systematic text condensation. Setting/participants: Carers (n = 14) of advanced cancer patients, not receiving curative treatment, admitted to an integrated curative and palliative care cancer outpatient clinic or to a university hospital cancer clinic, were included. Results: 14 carers of advanced cancer patients were included; 7 men, 7 women, and mean age of 59 years; 3 were bereaved; 12 were partners; 5 had young and teenage children. Four main resilience factors were identified: (1) being seen and known by health care providers—a personal relation; (2) availability of palliative care; (3) information and communication about illness, prognosis, and death; and (4) facilitating a good carer–patient relation. Conclusion: Health care providers may enhance carers’ resilience by a series of simple interventions. Education should address carers’ support needs and resilience. Systematic assessment of carers’ support needs is recommended. Further investigation is needed into how health care providers can help carers and patients communicate about death.acceptedVersion© 2018. This is the authors' accepted and refereed manuscript to the article. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1177/026921631877765

Resilience for family carers of advanced cancer patients-how can health care providers contribute? A qualitative interview study with carers.

Background: Caring for advanced cancer patients affects carers’ psychological and physical health. Resilience has been defined as “the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats or even significant sources of threat.” Aim: The aim of this study was to explore factors promoting carer resilience, based on carers’ experiences with and preferences for health care provider support. Design: Qualitative, semi-structured, individual interviews with family carers of advanced cancer patients were performed until data saturation. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using systematic text condensation. Setting/participants: Carers (n = 14) of advanced cancer patients, not receiving curative treatment, admitted to an integrated curative and palliative care cancer outpatient clinic or to a university hospital cancer clinic, were included. Results: 14 carers of advanced cancer patients were included; 7 men, 7 women, and mean age of 59 years; 3 were bereaved; 12 were partners; 5 had young and teenage children. Four main resilience factors were identified: (1) being seen and known by health care providers—a personal relation; (2) availability of palliative care; (3) information and communication about illness, prognosis, and death; and (4) facilitating a good carer–patient relation. Conclusion: Health care providers may enhance carers’ resilience by a series of simple interventions. Education should address carers’ support needs and resilience. Systematic assessment of carers’ support needs is recommended. Further investigation is needed into how health care providers can help carers and patients communicate about death

Resilience for family carers of advanced cancer patients-how can health care providers contribute? A qualitative interview study with carers.

Background: Caring for advanced cancer patients affects carers’ psychological and physical health. Resilience has been defined as “the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats or even significant sources of threat.” Aim: The aim of this study was to explore factors promoting carer resilience, based on carers’ experiences with and preferences for health care provider support. Design: Qualitative, semi-structured, individual interviews with family carers of advanced cancer patients were performed until data saturation. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using systematic text condensation. Setting/participants: Carers (n = 14) of advanced cancer patients, not receiving curative treatment, admitted to an integrated curative and palliative care cancer outpatient clinic or to a university hospital cancer clinic, were included. Results: 14 carers of advanced cancer patients were included; 7 men, 7 women, and mean age of 59 years; 3 were bereaved; 12 were partners; 5 had young and teenage children. Four main resilience factors were identified: (1) being seen and known by health care providers—a personal relation; (2) availability of palliative care; (3) information and communication about illness, prognosis, and death; and (4) facilitating a good carer–patient relation. Conclusion: Health care providers may enhance carers’ resilience by a series of simple interventions. Education should address carers’ support needs and resilience. Systematic assessment of carers’ support needs is recommended. Further investigation is needed into how health care providers can help carers and patients communicate about death

Supporting carers: health care professionals in need of system improvements and education - a qualitative study

Background: Health care professionals should prevent and relieve suffering in carers of patients with advanced cancer. Despite known positive effects of systematic carer support, carers still do not receive sufficient support. Carers have reported to be less satisfied with coordination of care and involvement of the family in treatment and care decisions than patients. In a rural district of Mid-Norway, cancer palliative care services across specialist and community care were developed. Participants’ experiences and opinions were investigated as part of this development process. Methods: The aim of this qualitative study was to explore and describe health care professionals’ experiences with carer support from their own perspective. Data were collected in focus groups. Purposeful sampling guided the inclusion. Six groups were formed with 21 professionals. The discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using systematic text condensation. Results: In the analyzis of the focus group discussions, ten categories emerged from the exploration of health care professionals’ carer support, assessment of needs, and factors hampering carer support: 1) dependent on profession, role, and context, 2) personal relationship, 3) personal skills and competence, 4) adjusted to the stage of the disease, 5) informal assessment of carers’ needs, 6) lack of education 7) lack of systems for carer consultations, 8) lack of systems for documentation, 9) lack of systems for involving GPs, and 10) lack of systematic spiritual care. Conclusions: Health care professionals built a personal relationship with the carers as early as possible, to facilitate carer support throughout the disease trajectory. Systematic carer support was hampered by lack of education and system insufficiencies. Organizational changes were needed, including 1) education in carer support, communication, and spiritual care, 2) use of standardized care pathways, including systematic carer needs assessment, 3) systematic involvement of general practitioners, and 4) a system for documentation of clinical work with carers. Keywords: Health care professionals, Oncology, Palliative care, Family carers, Carer support, Needs assessment, Integratio