Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 25, Issue 9, pp 2863–2869 | Cite as

Assessing the prognostic features of a pain classification system in advanced cancer patients

  • Joseph Arthur
  • Kimberson Tanco
  • Ali Haider
  • Courtney Maligi
  • Minjeong Park
  • Diane Liu
  • Eduardo Bruera
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Purpose

The Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain (ECS-CP) has been shown to predict pain management complexity based on five features: pain mechanism, incident pain, psychological distress, addictive behavior, and cognitive function. The main objective of our study was to explore the association between ECS-CP features and pain treatment outcomes among outpatients managed by a palliative care specialist-led interdisciplinary team.

Methods

Initial and follow-up clinical information of 386 eligible supportive care outpatients were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed.

Results

Between the initial consultation and the first follow-up visit, the median ESAS pain intensity improved from 6 to 4.5 (p < 0.0001) and the median total symptom distress score (0–100) improved from 38 to 31 (p < 0.0001). At baseline, patients with neuropathic pain (p < 0.001) and those with at least one ECS-CP feature (p = 0.006) used a higher number of adjuvant medications. At follow-up, patients with neuropathic pain were less likely to achieve their personalized pain goal (PPG) (29 vs 72%, p = 0.015). No statistically significant association was found between increasing sum of ECS-CP features and any of the pain treatment outcomes at follow-up.

Conclusion

Neuropathy was found to be a poor prognostic feature in advanced cancer pain management. Increasing sum of ECS-CP features was not predictive of pain management complexity at the follow-up visit when pain was managed by a palliative medicine specialist. Further research is needed to further explore these observations.

Keywords

Cancer Pain Neuropathic Edmonton classification system for cancer pain 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Portenoy RK, Lesage P (1999) Management of cancer pain. Lancet 353(9165):1695–1700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holtan A et al (2007) Prevalence of pain in hospitalised cancer patients in Norway: a national survey. Palliat Med 21(1):7–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nekolaichuk CL, Fainsinger RL, Lawlor PG (2005) A validation study of a pain classification system for advanced cancer patients using content experts: the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain. Palliat Med 19(6):466–476CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruera E et al (1995) A prospective multicenter assessment of the Edmonton staging system for cancer pain. J Pain Symptom Manag 10(5):348–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caraceni A et al (2002) Pain measurement tools and methods in clinical research in palliative care: recommendations of an Expert Working Group of the European Association of Palliative Care. J Pain Symptom Manag 23(3):239–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruera E et al (1989) The Edmonton staging system for cancer pain: preliminary report. Pain 37(2):203–209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fainsinger, R., et al. 2012. Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain (ECS-CP) Administration Manual. 2nd:[Available from: http://www.palliative.org/newpc/_pdfs/tools/(ECS-CP)Edmonton%20Classification%20System%20for%20Cancer%20Pain%20Manual-Jan13.pdf
  8. 8.
    Fainsinger RL et al (2005) A multicenter study of the revised Edmonton Staging System for classifying cancer pain in advanced cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manag 29(3):224–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Knudsen AK et al (2009) Classification of pain in cancer patients—a systematic literature review. Palliat Med 23(4):295–308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fainsinger RL et al (2010) An international multicentre validation study of a pain classification system for cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 46(16):2896–2904CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fainsinger RL, Nekolaichuk CL (2008) A “TNM” classification system for cancer pain: the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain (ECS-CP). Support Care Cancer 16(6):547–555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tanco K et al (2017) The impact of a simplified documentation method for the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain (ECS-CP) on clinician utilization. Support Care Cancer 25(2):575–580CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hagen NA, Klepstad P, Hjermstad MJ et al (2008) Lofoten seminar: the pain sessions. Palliat Med 22(8):891–894Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bruera E et al (1991) The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): a simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. J Palliat Care 7(2):6–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chang VT, Hwang SS, Feuerman M (2000) Validation of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Cancer 88(9):2164–2171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Philip J et al (1998) Concurrent validity of the modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment System with the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist and the Brief Pain Inventory. Support Care Cancer 6(6):539–541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Breitbart W et al (1997) The Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale. J Pain Symptom Manag 13(3):128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fadul N et al (2007) Evaluation of the memorial delirium assessment scale (MDAS) for the screening of delirium by means of simulated cases by palliative care health professionals. Support Care Cancer 15(11):1271–1276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Childers, J.W., L.A. King, and R.M. Arnold 2014. Chronic pain and risk factors for opioid misuse in a palliative care clinic. Am J Hosp Palliat CareGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dev R et al (2011) Undocumented alcoholism and its correlation with tobacco and illegal drug use in advanced cancer patients. Cancer 117(19):4551–4556CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kwon JH et al (2015) Frequency, predictors, and medical record documentation of chemical coping among advanced cancer patients. Oncologist 20(6):692–697CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Farrar JT et al (2001) Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 94(2):149–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dalal S et al (2012) Achievement of personalized pain goal in cancer patients referred to a supportive care clinic at a comprehensive cancer center. Cancer 118(15):3869–3877CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hui D, Bruera E (2014) A personalized approach to assessing and managing pain in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 32(16):1640–1646CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hui D et al (2016) Personalized symptom goals and response in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer 122(11):1774–1781CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Follwell M et al (2009) Phase II study of an outpatient palliative care intervention in patients with metastatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 27(2):206–213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hui D et al (2016) Minimal clinically important difference in the physical, emotional, and total symptom distress scores of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. J Pain Symptom Manag 51(2):262–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Arthur, J., et al. 2014. The routine use of the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain in an outpatient supportive care center. Palliat Support Care :p. 1–8Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Breuer B et al (2011) Medical oncologists’ attitudes and practice in cancer pain management: a national survey. J Clin Oncol 29(36):4769–4775CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Breuer B et al (2015) How well do medical oncologists manage chronic cancer pain? A national survey. Oncologist 20(2):202–209CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Arthur J, Bruera E (2013) Supportive and palliative care: a poorly understood science for the perioperative clinician. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 27(4):563–573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yennurajalingam S et al (2012) The impact of an outpatient palliative care consultation on symptom burden in advanced prostate cancer patients. J Palliat Med 15(1):20–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Arthur, J.A., et al. 2016. Aberrant opioid use and urine drug testing in outpatient palliative care. J Palliat MedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Barclay JS, Owens JE, Blackhall LJ (2014) Screening for substance abuse risk in cancer patients using the Opioid Risk Tool and urine drug screen. Support Care Cancer 22(7):1883–1888CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Arthur, J.A., et al. 2016. Frequency, predictors, and outcomes of urine drug testing among patients with advanced cancer on chronic opioid therapy at an outpatient supportive care clinic. CancerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Palliative Care & Rehabilitation Medicine, Unit 1414The University of Texas MD Anderson CancerHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsThe University of Texas MD Anderson CancerHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations