Comparison of Three Pain Assessment Tools in Oncological Patients during Palliative Chemotherapy-Implications for Clinical Practice

Abstract

Purpose: The present methodological observation aimed to compare assessment of pain and of pain related disability when using different tools in Viennese outpatients suffering from advanced cancer during palliative chemotherapy.

Materials and Methods: A total of 100 consecutive patients with a median age of 59 years (range 27.0–72.0 years) were included in this cross-sectional observation. All participants were suffering from metastatic cancer and, receiving palliative chemotherapy as outpatients at the Department of Oncology in the General Hospital of Vienna. Pain was registered on Visual analogue scale (VAS) and by using the SF-36 Health Survey subscale “Bodily pain”. The Pain Disability Index (PDI) was used to measure the degree of interference with normal role functioning caused by chronic pain. Associations between various outcome variables were quantified using Spearman's correlation coefficient. P-values ≤0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.

Results: “Bodily pain” showed a Spearman correlation coefficient of −0.87 (p<0.001) and −0.86 (p<0.001) with VAS and PDI, respectively. PDI and VAS gave a Spearman correlation of 0.94 (p<0.001). The various subscales of PDI showed moderate to high correlations with scores on “Bodily pain” (Spearman coefficients ranging from −0.55 for the subscale Life support activity to −0.84 for the subscale recreation, all p<0.001) as well as with scores on VAS (Spearman coefficients ranging from 0.64 for the subscale Life support activity to 0.91 for the subscale recreation, all p<0.001).

Conclusions: The findings of the present investigation in Viennese outpatients suffering from advanced cancer during palliative chemotherapy indicate high correlations between pain measured by VAS or by SF-36 subscale “Bodily pain”, with disability related to pain and its impact on QOL measured using PDI. All instruments seem to be adequate for pain assessment in this patient group. For clinical practice of pain assessment in patients with different advanced cancer we recommend the usage of VAS for simple assessing intensity of pain. SF-36 should be used, if assessment of QOL including “Bodily pain” is required. Assessment by PDI should be recommended as long as no ICF (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health) Core-sets are available, or to accomplish established Core sets for assessing disability related to pain in advanced cancer.

Zusammenfassung

Fragestellung: Ziel der vorliegenden Studie war die Untersuchung der Vergleichbarkeit von Schmerzangaben Wiener onkologischer Patienten mit infauster Prognose (unter palliativer Chemotherapie) bei Anwendung unterschiedlicher Instrumente (Visuelle Analog Skala=VAS, Pain Disability Index=PDI, Schmerzdomäne des SF-36 Health Survey=„Bodily pain”) zur „Schmerz-Erfassung”.

Material und Methode: In die vorliegende Untersuchung wurden 100 onkologische Patienten (m:f=62:38, 59a, r: 27–72) mit infauster Prognose (und unter palliativer Chemotherapie) eingeschlossen. Die Erfassung des Symptoms „Körperlicher Schmerz” erfolgte unter Einsatz 1) einer VAS, 2) der Domäne Bodily pain“ des SF-36 Health Survey und 3) des PDI. Zum Vergleich zwischen den einzelnen Variablen wurde der sog. Spearmankorrelationskoeffizient herangezogen. Das Signifikanzniveau wurde mit p<0,05 angesetzt.

Resultate: Die Variable „Bodily pain” zeigte einen Spearmankorrelationskoeffizienten von 0,87 (p<0,001) bzw. −0,86 (p<0,001) verglichen mit VAS bzw. PDI. Der Vergleich zwischen PDI und VAS ergab einen Spearmankorrelationskoeffizienten von 0,94 (p<0,001). Die verschiedenen Subskalen des PDI wiesen moderate bis starke Korrelationen mit der SF-36-Subskala “Bodily pain“ (der Rahmen der Spearmankorrelationskoeffizienten reichte von −0,55 für die Subskala „lebensnotwendige Tätigkeiten” bis −0,84 für die Subskala „Erholung”, alle p<0,001). Zusätzlich zeigten alle Subskalen des PDI signifikante Korrelationen mit der VAS (das Ausmaß der Spearmankorrelationskoeffizienten reichte von 0,64 für die Subskala „lebensnotwendige Tätigkeiten” bis −0,91 für die Subskala „Erholung”, alle p<0,001).

Schlussfolgerungen: Im Rahmen der vorliegenden Studie konnten an Wiener onkologischen Patienten mit infauster Prognose (unter palliativer Chemotherapie) bei Anwendung der VAS verglichen mit der SF-36 Subskala „Bodily pain” starke Korrelationen gezeigt werden. Zusätzlich zeigten sich starke Korrelationen zwischen dem Parameter „körperlicher Schmerz” (gemessen an der VAS und an der SF-36 Subskala „Bodily pain”) und schmerzassozierter Einschränkung der Lebensqualität (gemessen anhand des PDI). Alle drei Instrumente scheinen adäquat Schmerz in dieser Patientengruppe zu „messen”. Für die Anwendung bei Patienten mit verschiedenen Entitäten eines fortgeschrittenen Krebses im klinischen Alltag lässt sich daraus schließen, dass die VAS zur simplen Einschätzung der Schmerzintensität geeignet erscheint. Der SF-36 Health Survey sollte dann verwendet werden, wenn die Lebensqualität (QOL) einschließlich der Domäne „Bodily pain” abgeschätzt wird. Eine Beurteilung mittels des PDI sollte dann zur Anwendung kommen, solange keine Subskalen des ICF (international Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health) zum „Assessment” einer schmerzassozierten „Disability” vorliegen oder zur Ergänzung derer.

Key words

pain - disability - quality of life - cancer - assessment

Schlüsselwörter

fortgeschrittene Krebserkrankung - Schmerzbeurteilung - Lebensqualität - „Disability”

References

• 1 Van den Beuken-van Everdingen MH, De Rijke JM, Kessels AG. et al . Prevalence of pain in patients with cancer: a systematic review of the past 40 years.  Ann Oncol. 2007;  18 1437-1449
• 2 Portenoy RK, Lesage P. Management of cancer pain.  Lancet. 1999;  353 1695-1700
• 3 Anderson KO. Assessment tools for the evaluation of pain in the oncology patient.  Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2007;  11 259-264
• 4 Grond S, Zech D, Lynch J. et al . Validation of World Health Organisation guidelines for pain relief in head and neck cancer. A prospective study.  Ann Otol Rhinol Larnygol. 1993;  102 342-348
• 5 Zech DF, Grond S, Lynch J. et al . Validation of World Health Organisation guidelines for cancer pain relief: a 10-year prospective study.  Pain. 1995;  63 65-76
• 6 Meuser T, Pietruck C, Radbruch L. et al . Symptoms during cancer pain treatment following WHO-guidelines: a longitudinal follow-up study of symptom prevelance, severity and etiology.  Pain. 2001;  93 247-257
• 7 American Pain Society .Principles of analgesic use in the treatment of acute pain and cancer pain. Glenview, IL: American Pain Society 1999
• 8 Benedetti C, Brock C, Cleeland C. et al . NCCN practice guidelines for cancer pain.  Oncology (Williston Park). 2000;  14 135-150
• 9 Jacox A, Carr DB, Payne R. New clinical-practice guidelines for the management of pain in patients with cancer.  New Engl J Med. 1994;  330 651-655
• 10 Cancer pain relief and palliative care .Geneva: World Health Organization 1996
• 11 Saxena AK, Kumar S. Management strategies for pain in breast carcinoma patients: current opions and future perspectives.  Pain practice. 2007;  7 163-177
• 12 Jensen MP. The vailidity and reliability of pain measures in adults with cancer.  J Pain. 2003;  4 2-21
• 13 Andersson KO, Cleeland CS. The assessment of cancer pain. In: Bruera E, Portenoy RK, editors Cancer Pain: Assessment and Management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press 2003: p. 51-66
• 14 Hack TF, Cohen L, Katz J. et al . Physical and pyschological morbidity after axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 1999;  17 143-149
• 15 Paul SM, Zelman DC, Smith M. et al . Categorizing the severity of cancer pain: further exploration of the establishment of cutpoints.  Pain. 2005;  113 37-44
• 16 Pinar R. Reliability and construct validity of the SF-36 in Turkish cancer patients.  Qual Life Res. 2005;  14 259-264
• 17 Reulen RC, Zeegers MP, Jenkinson C. et al . The use of the SF-36 questionnaire in adult survivors of childhood cancer: evalauation of data quality, score reliability, and scaling assumptions.  Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;  4 77
• 18 Di Maio M, Gridelli C, Gallo C. Prevalence and mangement of pain in Ilatian patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.  Br J Cancer. 2004;  90 2288-2296
• 19 Cleeland CS, Gonin R, Hatfield AK. et al . Pain and its treatment in outpatients with metastatic cancer.  N Engl J Med. 1994;  330 592-596
• 20 Boström D, Hinic H, Lundberg D. et al . Pain and health-related quality of life among cancer patients in final stage of life: a comparison between two palliative care teams.  J Nurs Manag. 2003;  11 189-196
• 21 Valeberg BT, Rustön T, Bjordal K. et al . Self-reported prevalence, etiology, and characteristics of pain in oncology outpatients.  Eur J Pain. 2007 Nov 13;  [Epub ahead of print] 
• 22 Stenseth G, Bjoernnes M, Kaasa S. et al . Can cancer patients assess the influence of pain on functions? A randomized, controlled study of the pain interference items in the Brief Pain Inventory.  BMC Palliative Care. 2007;  6 2
• 23 Lipscomb J, Gotay C, Synder CF. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: a review of recent research and policy initiatives.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;  57 278-300
• 24 Huskisson E. Visual analog scales. In: Melzack R, editor Pain measurement and assessment. New York: Raven press 1983: p. 33-37
• 25 Pollard CA. Preliminary validity study of the Pain Disability Index.  Percept Mot Skills. 1984;  59 974
• 26 Tait RC, Chibnall JT, Krause S. The pain Disability Index: Psychometric properties.  Pain. 1990;  40 171-182
• 27 Jerome A, Gross RT. Pain Disability Index: construct and discriminant validity.  Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1991;  72 920-922
• 28 Dillmann U, Nilges P, Saile H. et al . Assessing disability in chronic pain patients.  Schmerz. 1994;  8 100-110
• 29 Bullinger M. German translation and psychometric testing of the SF-36 Health Survey: preliminary results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment.  Soc Sci Med. 1995;  41 1359-1366
• 30 Morris JN, Suissa S, Sherwood S. et al . Last days: a study of the quality of life of terminally ill cancer patients.  J Chronic Dis. 1986;  39 47-62
• 31 Niscola P, Cartoni C, Romani C. et al . Epidemiology, features and outcome of pain in patients with advanced hematological malignancies followed in a home care program: an Italian survey.  Ann Hematol. 2007;  86 671-676
• 32 Syrjala KL. The measurements of pain. In: Yarbo CH, McGuire DB, editors Cancer pain: Nursing management. Orlando, FL: Grune & Stratton 1987: p. 133-150
• 33 Cieza A, Stucki G, Weigl M. et al . ICF Core Sets for chronic widespread pain.  J Rehabil Med.. 2004;  44 (Suppl) 63-68
• 34 Brach M, Cieza A, Stucki G. et al . ICF Core Sets for breast cancer.  J Rehabil Med.. 2004;  44 (Suppl) 121-127
• 35 Baker F, Haffer SC, Denniston M. Health related quality of life of cancer and noncancer patients in Medicare managed care.  Cancer. 2003;  97 674-681
• 36 Crevenna R, Zettinig G, Keilani M. et al . Quality of life in patients with non-metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer under thyroxine supplementation therapy.  Support Care Cancer. 2003;  11 597-603
• 37 Voigt-Radloff S, Leonhart R, Schochat T. et al . Psychometric Analysis of the Physiotherapy Assessment.  Phys Rehab Kur Med. 2006;  16 189-196
• 38 Hjermstad MJ, Gibbins J, Haugen DF. et al . Pain assessment tools in palliative care: an urgent need for consensus.  Palliat Med. 2008;  895-903
• 39 Holen JC, Hjemstad MJ, Loge JH. et al . Pain assessment tools: is the content appropriate for use in palliative care?.  J Pain Symtom Manage. 2006;  32 567-580

Correspondence