Dataset Information

Impact of individualized management of breakthrough cancer pain on quality of life in advanced cancer patients: CAVIDIOPAL study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The main aim of the study was to assess the impact of individualized management of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) on quality of life (QoL) of patients with advanced cancer in clinical practice.

Methods

A prospective, observational, multicenter study was conducted in patients with advanced cancer that were assisted by palliative care units. QoL was assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire at baseline (V0) and after 28 days (V28) of individualized BTcP therapy. Data on background pain, BTcP, comorbidities, and frailty were also recorded.

Results

Ninety-three patients completed the study. Intensity, duration, and number of BTcP episodes were reduced (p < 0.001) at V28 with individualized therapy. Transmucosal fentanyl was used in 93.8% of patients, mainly by sublingual route. Fentanyl titration was initiated at low doses (78.3% of patients received doses of 67 μg, 100 μg, or 133 μg) according to physician evaluation. At V28, mean perception of global health status had increased from 31.1 to 53.1 (p < 0.001). All scales of EORTC QLQ-C30 significantly improved (p < 0.001) except physical functioning, diarrhea, and financial difficulties. Pain scale improved from 73.6 ± 22.6 to 35.7 ± 22.3 (p < 0.001). Moreover, 85.9% of patients reported pain improvement. Probability of no ≥ 25% improvement in QoL was significantly higher in patients ≥ 65 years old (OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.001-1.079) and patients hospitalized at baseline (OR 4.126; 95% CI 1.227-13.873).

Conclusion

Individualized BTcP therapy improved QoL of patients with advanced cancer. Transmucosal fentanyl at low doses was the most used drug.

Trial registration

This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT02840500) on July 19, 2016.

SUBMITTER: Tuca Rodriguez A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8236456 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the relationships between aging-related domains captured by geriatric assessment (GA) for older patients with advanced cancer and caregivers' emotional health and quality of life (QOL).DesignIn this cross sectional study of baseline data from a nationwide investigation of older patients and their caregivers, patients completed a GA that included validated tests to evaluate eight domains of health (eg, function, cognition).SettingThirty-one community oncology practices throughout the United States.ParticipantsEnrolled patients were aged 70 and older, had one or more GA domain impaired, and had an incurable solid tumor malignancy or lymphoma. Each could choose one caregiver to enroll.MeasurementsCaregivers completed the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Distress Thermometer, Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (depression), and Short Form Health Survey-12 (SF-12 for QOL). Separate multivariate linear or logistic regression models were used to examine the association of the number and type of patient GA impairments with caregiver outcomes, controlling for patient and caregiver covariates.ResultsA total of 541 patients were enrolled, 414 with a caregiver. Almost half (43.5%) of the caregivers screened positive for distress, 24.4% for anxiety, and 18.9% for depression. Higher numbers of patient GA domain impairments were associated with caregiver depression (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.29; P < .001], caregiver physical health on SF-12 (regression coefficient [β] = -1.24; P < .001), and overall caregiver QOL (β = -1.14; P < .01). Impaired patient function was associated with lower caregiver QOL (β = -4.11; P < .001). Impaired patient nutrition was associated with caregiver depression (aOR = 2.08; P < .01). Lower caregiver age, caregiver comorbidity, and patient distress were also associated with worse caregiver outcomes.ConclusionPatient GA impairments were associated with poorer emotional health and lower QOL of caregivers. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:969-977, 2019.

Project description:BackgroundProton therapy is a promising advancement in radiation oncology especially in terms of reducing normal tissue toxicity, although it is currently expensive and of limited availability. Here we estimated the individual quality of life benefit and cost-effectiveness of proton therapy in patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated with definitive radiation therapy (RT), as a decision-making tool for treatment individualization.Methods and materialsNormal tissue complication probability models were used to estimate the risk of dysphagia, esophagitis, hypothyroidism, xerostomia and oral mucositis for 33 patients, comparing delivered photon intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) plans to intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plans. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost were calculated for each complication while accounting for patient-specific conditional survival probability and assigning quality-adjustment factors based on complication severity. Cost-effectiveness was modeled based on upfront costs of IMPT and IMRT, and the cost of acute and/or long-term management of treatment complications. Uncertainties in all model parameters and sensitivity analyses were included through Monte Carlo sampling.ResultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) showed considerable variability in the cost of QALYs spared between patients, with median $361,405/QALY for all patients, varying from $54,477/QALY to $1,508,845/QALY between individual patients. Proton therapy was more likely to be cost-effective for patients with p16-positive tumors ($234,201/QALY), compared to p16-negative tumors ($516,297/QALY). For patients with p16-positive tumors treated with comprehensive nodal irradiation, proton therapy is estimated to be cost-effective in ≥ 50% of sampled cases for 8/9 patients at $500,000/QALY, compared to 6/24 patients who either have p16-negative tumors or receive unilateral neck irradiation.ConclusionsProton therapy cost-effectiveness varies greatly among oropharyngeal cancer patients, and highlights the importance of individualized decision-making. Although the upfront cost, societal willingness to pay and healthcare administration can vary greatly among different countries, identifying patients for whom proton therapy will have the greatest benefit can optimize resource allocation and inform prospective clinical trial design.