Purpose A variety of assessment instruments have been created to identify cancer symptoms. We reviewed systematically cancer symptom assessment instruments published in English. Methods A systematic search of the MEDLINE database, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and EMBASE was performed. Non–peer-reviewed articles were identified through BIOSIS. Articles were accessed through the related article links in PubMed and references were searched by hand. Studies were included if the instrument had symptom assessment as the primary outcome. Quality-of-life instruments were excluded. Results We identified 21 instruments; some had undergone modification or validation. An additional 28 studies examined symptom prevalence and interrelations; many involved symptom checklists. Studies varied in design, patient characteristics, symptoms, and outcome. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity in design, study outcomes, and validation. Seventy-six articles and two conference abstracts (derived from MEDLINE, Cochrane, CINAHL, EMBASE, BIOSIS, related articles link in PubMed, and search by hand) met inclusion/exclusion criteria. The electronic search (without related links) yielded only 26% of those articles and conference abstracts that met inclusion criteria. Searches by hand of related articles identified 59% of studies. Conclusion Twenty-one instruments were identified as appropriate for clinical use. The instruments vary in symptom content and extent of psychometric validation. Both comprehensive and shorter instruments have been developed, and some instruments are intended for specific symptom assessment or symptoms related to treatment. There is no ideal instrument, and the wide variety of instruments reflects the different settings for symptom assessment. Additional research is necessary.

No abstract

The optimal dose, time to start, and duration of treatment for many appetite stimulants for cancer anorexia is still unknown. A more systematic approach to research methodology with universal outcome measure and prospective randomized studies are need. Combination regimens are needed but this cannot at the present time be supported by the data presented.

Pain is one of the most common symptoms in cancer patients. Opioids are widely prescribed for this and other purposes. Properly used, they are safe, but they have serious and potentially lethal side effects. Successful use of opioids to manage cancer pain requires adequate knowledge about opioid pharmacology and equianalgesia for the purpose of both drug rotation and route conversion. The aim of this study was to demonstrate variations in equianalgesic ratios, as quoted in equianalgesic tables and various educational materials widely available to practicing physicians. We surveyed commercially available educational materials in package inserts, teaching materials provided by pharmaceutical companies, and the Physicians' Desk Reference for equianalgesic tables of commonly used opioids. We found inconsistent and variable equianalgesic ratios recommended for both opioid rotation and conversion. Multiple factors like inter- and intraindividual differences in opioid pharmacology may influence the accuracy of dose calculations, as does the heterogeneity of study design used to derive equianalgesic ratios. Equianalgesic tables should only serve as a general guideline to estimate equivalent opioid doses. Clinical judgment should be used and individual patient characteristics considered when applying any table. Professional organizations and regulators should establish a rotation and conversion consensus concerning opioid equianalgesic ratios. Systematic research on equianalgesic opioid dose calculation is recommended to avoid adverse public health consequences of incorrect or inappropriate dosing. Current information in equianalgesic tables is confusing for physicians, and dangerous to the public.