Further Clarification of Pain Management Complexity in Radiotherapy: Insights from Modern Statistical Approaches

Background: The primary objective of this study was to assess the adequacy of analgesic care in radiotherapy (RT) patients, with a secondary objective to identify predictive variables associated with pain management adequacy using a modern statistical approach, integrating the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) algorithm and the Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis. Methods: This observational, multicenter cohort study involved 1387 patients reporting pain or taking analgesic drugs from 13 RT departments in Italy. The Pain Management Index (PMI) served as the measure for pain control adequacy, with a PMI score < 0 indicating suboptimal management. Patient demographics, clinical status, and treatment-related factors were examined to discern the predictors of pain management adequacy. Results: Among the analyzed cohort, 46.1% reported inadequately managed pain. Non-cancer pain origin, breast cancer diagnosis, higher ECOG Performance Status scores, younger patient age, early assessment phase, and curative treatment intent emerged as significant determinants of negative PMI from the LASSO analysis. Notably, pain management was observed to improve as RT progressed, with a greater discrepancy between cancer (33.2% with PMI < 0) and non-cancer pain (73.1% with PMI < 0). Breast cancer patients under 70 years of age with non-cancer pain had the highest rate of negative PMI at 86.5%, highlighting a potential deficiency in managing benign pain in younger patients. Conclusions: The study underscores the dynamic nature of pain management during RT, suggesting improvements over the treatment course yet revealing specific challenges in non-cancer pain management, particularly among younger breast cancer patients. The use of advanced statistical techniques for analysis stresses the importance of a multifaceted approach to pain management, one that incorporates both cancer and non-cancer pain considerations to ensure a holistic and improved quality of oncological care

Colorectal Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy

IMPORTANCE Delays in screening programs and the reluctance of patients to seek medical attention because of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 could be associated with the risk of more advanced colorectal cancers at diagnosis. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was associated with more advanced oncologic stage and change in clinical presentation for patients with colorectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all 17 938 adult patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 (pandemic period), and from January 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020 (prepandemic period), in 81 participating centers in Italy, including tertiary centers and community hospitals. Follow-up was 30 days from surgery. EXPOSURES Any type of surgical procedure for colorectal cancer, including explorative surgery, palliative procedures, and atypical or segmental resections. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was advanced stage of colorectal cancer at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were distant metastasis, T4 stage, aggressive biology (defined as cancer with at least 1 of the following characteristics: signet ring cells, mucinous tumor, budding, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and lymphangitis), stenotic lesion, emergency surgery, and palliative surgery. The independent association between the pandemic period and the outcomes was assessed using multivariate random-effects logistic regression, with hospital as the cluster variable. RESULTS A total of 17 938 patients (10 007 men [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [12.2] years) underwent surgery for colorectal cancer: 7796 (43.5%) during the pandemic period and 10 142 (56.5%) during the prepandemic period. Logistic regression indicated that the pandemic period was significantly associated with an increased rate of advanced-stage colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95%CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .03), aggressive biology (OR, 1.32; 95%CI, 1.15-1.53; P < .001), and stenotic lesions (OR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.01-1.31; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study suggests a significant association between the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the risk of a more advanced oncologic stage at diagnosis among patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer and might indicate a potential reduction of survival for these patients

Adequacy of Pain Treatment in Radiotherapy Departments: Results of a Multicenter Study on 2104 Patients (Arise)

Aim: The frequent inadequacy of pain management in cancer patients is well known. Moreover, the quality of analgesic treatment in patients treated with radiotherapy (RT) has only been rarely assessed. In order to study the latter topic, we conducted a multicenter, observational and prospective study based on the Pain Management Index (PMI) in RT Italian departments. Methods: We collected data on age, gender, tumor site and stage, performance status, treatment aim, and pain (type: CP—cancer pain, NCP—non-cancer pain, MP—mixed pain; intensity: NRS: Numeric Rating Scale). Furthermore, we analyzed the impact on PMI on these parameters, and we defined a pain score with values from 0 (NRS: 0, no pain) to 3 (NRS: 7–10: intense pain) and an analgesic score from 0 (pain medication not taken) to 3 (strong opioids). By subtracting the pain score from the analgesic score, we obtained the PMI value, considering cases with values < 0 as inadequate analgesic prescriptions. The Ethics Committees of the participating centers approved the study (ARISE-1 study). Results: Two thousand one hundred four non-selected outpatients with cancer and aged 18 years or older were enrolled in 13 RT departments. RT had curative and palliative intent in 62.4% and 37.6% patients, respectively. Tumor stage was non-metastatic in 57.3% and metastatic in 42.7% of subjects, respectively. Pain affected 1417 patients (CP: 49.5%, NCP: 32.0%; MP: 18.5%). PMI was < 0 in 45.0% of patients with pain. At multivariable analysis, inadequate pain management was significantly correlated with curative RT aim, ECOG performance status = 1 (versus both ECOG-PS3 and ECOG- PS4), breast cancer, non-cancer pain, and Central and South Italy RT Departments (versus Northern Italy).Conclusions: Pain management was less adequate in patients with more favorable clinical condition and stage. Educational and organizational strategies are needed in RT departments to reduce the non-negligible percentage of patients with inadequate analgesic therapy

Sarcopenia and Patient's Body Composition: New Morphometric Tools to Predict Clinical Outcome After Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy: a Multicenter Study

Background: The impact of preoperative body composition as independent predictor of prognosis for esophageal cancer patients after esophagectomy is still unclear. The aim of the study was to explore such a relationship. Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective study from a prospectively maintained database. We enrolled consecutive patients who underwent Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy in four Italian high-volume centers from May 2014. Body composition parameters including total abdominal muscle area (TAMA), visceral fat area (VFA), and subcutaneous fat area (SFA) were determined based on CT images. Perioperative variables were systematically collected. Results: After exclusions, 223 patients were enrolled and 24.2% had anastomotic leak (AL). Sixty-eight percent of patients were sarcopenic and were found to be more vulnerable in terms of postoperative 90-day mortality (p = 0.028). VFA/TAMA and VFA/SFA ratios demonstrated a linear correlation with the Clavien-Dindo classification (R = 0.311 and 0.239, respectively); patients with anastomotic leak (AL) had significantly higher VFA/TAMA (3.56 ± 1.86 vs. 2.75 ± 1.83, p = 0.003) and VFA/SFA (1.18 ± 0.68 vs. 0.87 ± 0.54, p = 0.002) ratios. No significant correlation was found between preoperative BMI and subsequent AL development (p = 0.159). Charlson comorbidity index correlated significantly with AL (p = 0.008): these patients had a significantly higher index (≥ 5). Conclusion: Analytical morphometric assessment represents a useful non-invasive tool for preoperative risk stratification. The concurrent association of sarcopenia and visceral obesity seems to be the best predictor of AL, far better than simple BMI evaluation, and potentially modifiable if targeted with prehabilitation programs

Effect of centre volume on pathological outcomes and postoperative complications after surgery for colorectal cancer: results of a multicentre national study

Background: The association between volume, complications and pathological outcomes is still under debate regarding colorectal cancer surgery. The aim of the study was to assess the association between centre volume and severe complications, mortality, less-than-radical oncologic surgery, and indications for neoadjuvant therapy.Methods: Retrospective analysis of 16,883 colorectal cancer cases from 80 centres (2018-2021). Outcomes: 30-day mortality; Clavien-Dindo grade >2 complications; removal of >= 12 lymph nodes; non-radical resection; neoadjuvant therapy. Quartiles of hospital volumes were classified as LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, and VERY HIGH. Independent predictors, both overall and for rectal cancer, were evaluated using logistic regression including age, gender, AJCC stage and cancer site.Results: LOW-volume centres reported a higher rate of severe postoperative complications (OR 1.50, 95% c.i. 1.15-1.096, P = 0.003). The rate of >= 12 lymph nodes removed in LOW-volume (OR 0.68, 95% c.i. 0.56-0.85, P = 12 lymph nodes removed was lower in LOW-volume than in VERY HIGH-volume centres (OR 0.57, 95% c.i. 0.41-0.80, P = 0.001). A lower rate of neoadjuvant chemoradiation was associated with HIGH (OR 0.66, 95% c.i. 0.56-0.77, P < 0.001), MEDIUM (OR 0.75, 95% c.i. 0.60-0.92, P = 0.006), and LOW (OR 0.70, 95% c.i. 0.52-0.94, P = 0.019) volume centres (vs. VERY HIGH).Conclusion: Colorectal cancer surgery in low-volume centres is at higher risk of suboptimal management, poor postoperative outcomes, and less-than-adequate oncologic resections. Centralisation of rectal cancer cases should be taken into consideration to optimise the outcomes