Annals of Oncology Advance Access published online on April 8, 2005
Annals of Oncology, doi:10.1093/annonc/mdi191
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Background:: Cancer pain is highly prevalent and commonly undertreated. This study was designed to determine whether dissemination of a clinical protocol for pain management would improve outcomes in community oncology practices. Patients and methods:: A pain management protocol was developed based on accepted guidelines. After baseline assessment, oncology practices were randomly assigned to ‘analgesic protocol’ (AP) sites, where oncologists implemented the guidelines in a group of lung or prostate cancer patients, or to ‘physician discretion’ (PD) sites, where customary treatment was continued. Patients treated on protocol and a comparison group of patients with pain due to breast cancer or myeloma were monitored for change in pain using the Brief Pain Inventory, and for change in other symptoms or mood. Results:: The protocol terminated early because of poor accrual. We compared groups using proportions of patients who had no or mild pain at follow-up. Although measures of protocol adherence did not suggest the occurrence of major practice change, the proportion of lung or prostate cancer patients with no or mild pain increased significantly from baseline for those treated at AP sites compared with those treated at PD sites. There was no significant difference between the breast and myeloma patients treated at AP sites versus those treated at PD sites. Conclusion:: A protocol for cancer pain management can improve pain control. Diffusion of these benefits to other patients was not confirmed. Given the small sample size, these findings require confirmation in a larger trial.
Received August 23, 2004
Revised January 28, 2005
Accepted February 1, 2005
Original article
Does an oral analgesic protocol improve pain control for patients with cancer? An intergroup study coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
2 Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
3 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
4 The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA; Duke Institute on Care at the End of Life, Duke University Divinity School, Durham, North Carolina, USA
5 Syracuse Hematology-Oncology CCOP, Syracuse, New York, USA
6 Southeast Cancer Control Consortium Inc. CCOP, Goldsboro, North Carolina, USA
7 Carle Clinic, Urbana, Illinois, USA
8 AMC Research Center, Denver, Colorado, USA
C. S. Cleeland, E-mail: ccleeland{at}mdanderson.org
Abstract 
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. Breivik, N. Cherny, B. Collett, F. de Conno, M. Filbet, A. J. Foubert, R. Cohen, and L. Dow Cancer-related pain: a pan-European survey of prevalence, treatment, and patient attitudes Ann. Onc., August 1, 2009; 20(8): 1420 - 1433. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. M. Dy, S. M. Asch, A. Naeim, H. Sanati, A. Walling, and K. A. Lorenz Evidence-Based Standards for Cancer Pain Management J. Clin. Oncol., August 10, 2008; 26(23): 3879 - 3885. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. M. Walke, A. L. Byers, M. E. Tinetti, J. A. Dubin, R. McCorkle, and T. R. Fried Range and Severity of Symptoms Over Time Among Older Adults With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Heart Failure Arch Intern Med, December 10, 2007; 167(22): 2503 - 2508. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. S. Cleeland The Measurement of Pain from Metastatic Bone Disease: Capturing the Patient's Experience. Clin. Cancer Res., October 15, 2006; 12(20): 6236s - 6242s. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|