Literature DB >> 7673767

A prospective multicenter assessment of the Edmonton staging system for cancer pain.

E Bruera1, T Schoeller, R Wenk, T MacEachern, S Marcelino, J Hanson, M Suarez-Almazor.   

Abstract

Two hundred and seventy-seven patients were admitted to this prospective multicenter study in order to assess the accuracy of a staging system for cancer pain. The staging system (SS) was completed by a trained physician during the initial consultation. This system included the assessment of pain mechanism (PM, neuropathic versus nonneuropathic), pain characteristic (PC, continuous versus incidental), previous opioid dose (OD), cognitive function (CF), psychological distress (PD), tolerance (T), past history of alcohol or drugs (A). During day 21, a final assessment of pain control was made. Agreement for staging was observed in 96% of cases for investigators 1 and 2 (kappa 0.76, P < 0.001), and in 84% of cases between investigators 1 and 3 (kappa 0.723, P < 0.001). Of 276 evaluable patients, 86/92 Stage I (good prognosis) patients achieved good PC (93%) versus 102/184 Stage II and III (poor prognosis) patients (55%, P < 0.001). Sensitivity and specificity of the system were found to be 0.93 and 0.46, respectively. Univariate correlation found significant correlation between pain control and all variables except CF. In logistic regression, CF and OD showed no significant correlation. We, therefore, propose a more simple SS of five categories (PM, PC, PD, T, and A) and two stages (good and poor prognosis). We conclude that the SS is highly accurate in predicting patients with good prognosis, but patients with "poor prognosis" can still achieve good pain control in more than 50% of cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7673767     DOI: 10.1016/0885-3924(95)00052-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage        ISSN: 0885-3924            Impact factor:   3.612


  35 in total

1.  Edmonton Regional Palliative Care Program: impact on patterns of terminal cancer care.

Authors:  E Bruera; C M Neumann; B Gagnon; C Brenneis; P Kneisler; P Selmser; J Hanson
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1999-08-10       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Prostate cancer: 10. Palliative care.

Authors:  N A Iscoe; E Bruera; R C Choo
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1999-02-09       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  Breakthrough pain in cancer patients: new therapeutic approaches to an old challenge.

Authors:  S K Reddy; P Nguyen
Journal:  Curr Rev Pain       Date:  2000

Review 4.  Substance abuse in cancer pain.

Authors:  Tatiana D Starr; Lauren J Rogak; Steven D Passik
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2010-08

5.  Gaps and junctions between clinical experience and theoretical framework in the use of opioids.

Authors:  Marianne Kloke
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 6.  [Risk factors for substance abuse and dependence in opioid therapy for chronic noncancer-related pain].

Authors:  J Jage; A Willweber-Strumpf; C Maier
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 1.107

Review 7.  Strategies for the treatment of cancer pain in the new millennium.

Authors:  C Ripamonti; E D Dickerson
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 8.  [Diagnosis and therapy of tumor related pain].

Authors:  M Kloke
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 0.639

9.  Characterization of cancer-induced bone pain: an exploratory study.

Authors:  Barry J A Laird; John Walley; Gordon D Murray; Eleanor Clausen; Lesley A Colvin; Marie T Fallon
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2010-08-01       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 10.  Management of breakthrough pain in patients with cancer.

Authors:  Leeroy William; Rod Macleod
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 9.546

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.