Can cancer patients assess the influence of pain on functions? A randomised, controlled study of the pain interference items in the Brief Pain Inventory

BACKGROUND: The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) is recommended as a pain measurement tool by the Expert Working Group of the European Association of Palliative Care. The BPI is designed to assess both pain severity and interference with functions caused by pain. The purpose of this study was to investigate if pain interference items are influenced by other factors than pain. METHODS: We asked adult cancer patients to complete the original and a revised BPI on two study days. In the original version of the BPI the patients were asked how, during the last 24 hours, pain has interfered with functions. In the revised BPI this question was changed to how, during the last 24 hours, these functions are affected in general. Heath related quality of life was assessed at both study days applying the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire. RESULTS: Forty-eight of the 55 included patients completed both assessments. The BPI pain intensities scores and the health related quality of life scores were similar at the two study days. Except for mood this study observed no significant distinctions between the patients' BPI interference items scores in the original (pain influence on function) and the revised BPI (function in general). Seventeen patients reported higher influence from pain on functions than the total influence on function from all causes. CONCLUSION: We observed similar scores in the original BPI interference scores (pain influence on function) compared with the revised BPI interference scores (decreased function in general). This finding might imply that the BPI interference scale measures are partly responded to as more of a global interference measure

Quality of life and salivary output in patients with head-and-neck cancer five years after radiotherapy

BACKGROUND: To describe long-term changes in time of quality of life (QOL) and the relation with parotid salivary output in patients with head-and-neck cancer treated with radiotherapy. METHODS: Forty-four patients completed the EORTC-QLQ-C30(+3) and the EORTC-QLQ-H&N35 questionnaires before treatment, 6 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, and at least 3.5 years after treatment. At the same time points, stimulated bilateral parotid flow rates were measured. RESULTS: There was a deterioration of most QOL items after radiotherapy compared with baseline, with gradual improvement during 5 years follow-up. The specific xerostomia-related items showed improvement in time, but did not return to baseline. Global QOL did not alter significantly in time, although 41% of patients complained of moderate or severe xerostomia at 5 years follow-up. Five years after radiotherapy the mean cumulated parotid flow ratio returned to baseline but 20% of patients had a flow ratio <25%. The change in time of xerostomia was significantly related with the change in flow ratio (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Most of the xerostomia-related QOL scores improved in time after radiotherapy without altering the global QOL, which remained high. The recovery of the dry mouth feeling was significantly correlated with the recovery in parotid flow ratio

Personality and educational level determine self-reported health-related quality-of-life and distress in patients with renal tumors awaiting radical surgery

Objective: Data on preoperative distress and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) is lacking for patients with newly diagnosed renal tumors. This study aims to compare HRQoL within this group with the general population and to study the relationship between distress, HRQoL, personality, coping, and patient/tumor-related factors. Materials and methods: Between January 2011 and June 2014, 153 patients (100 males/53 females), scheduled for surgery were prospectively included. Distress was determined by the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), HRQoL by EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire, personality by Eysenck Personality Inventory and coping by COPE questionnaire. HRQoL-data from an age and gender matched Norwegian reference population was used for comparison. Results: The study patients had significantly poorer HRQoL than the reference population. GHQ and HRQoL sum scores had a common variance (CV = r2) of 29–35%. In regression models, the measured variables accounted for 33% of the variance for the GHQ score. Significant predictors of the measured variance were neuroticism (18%), education level (3%) and avoidant coping (2%). Similarly, the measured variables accounted for 33–44% of the variance for the HRQoL sum scores. For all HRQoL sum scores, neuroticism predicted 17–28%, while education predicted 4–11% of the measured variance. Large tumor size, comorbidity, performance status and CRP predicted 2–7% of individual sum scores. Conclusions: For both preoperative distress and HRQoL, personality traits such as neuroticism and education level were the most important predictors. Tumor-related factors and other preexisting conditions seemed to be of lesser importance. Thus, preoperatively screening of psychological factors could be helpful to identify those at risk of poor outcomes