Chronic preoperative pain and psychological robustness predict acute postoperative pain outcomes after surgery for breast cancer

Background - Few epidemiological studies have prospectively investigated preoperative and surgical risk factors for acute postoperative pain after surgery for breast cancer. We investigated demographic, psychological, pain-related and surgical risk factors in women undergoing resectional surgery for breast cancer. Methods - Primary outcomes were pain severity, at rest (PAR) and movement-evoked pain (MEP), in the first postoperative week. Results - In 338 women undergoing surgery, those with chronic preoperative pain were three times more likely to report moderate to severe MEP after breast cancer surgery (OR 3.18, 95% CI 1.45–6.99). Increased psychological ‘robustness’, a composite variable representing positive affect and dispositional optimism, was associated with lower intensity acute postoperative PAR (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48–0.82) and MEP (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54–0.93). Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and intraoperative nerve division were associated with reduced postoperative pain. No relationship was found between preoperative neuropathic pain and acute pain outcomes; altered sensations and numbness postoperatively were more common after axillary sample or clearance compared with SLNB. Conclusion - Chronic preoperative pain, axillary surgery and psychological robustness significantly predicted acute pain outcomes after surgery for breast cancer. Preoperative identification and targeted intervention of subgroups at risk could enhance the recovery trajectory in cancer survivors.

Reducing the time before consulting with symptoms of lung cancer:a randomised controlled trial in primary care

Background: Most individuals with lung cancer have symptoms for several months before presenting to their GP. Earlier consulting may improve survival. Aim: To evaluate whether a theory-based primary care intervention increased timely consulting of individuals with symptoms of lung cancer. Design and setting: Open randomised controlled trial comparing intervention with usual care in two general practices in north-east Scotland. Method: Smokers and ex-smokers aged ≥55 years were randomised to receive a behavioural intervention or usual care. The intervention comprised a single nurse consultation at participants' general practice and a self-help manual. The main outcomes were consultations within target times for individuals with new chest symptoms (≤3 days haemoptysis, ≤3 weeks other symptoms) in the year after the intervention commenced, and intentions about consulting with chest symptoms at 1 and 6 months. Results: Two hundred and twelve participants were randomised and 206 completed the trial. The consultation rate for new chest symptoms in the intervention group was 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.92 to 1.53; P = 0.18) times higher than in the usual-care group and the proportion of consultations within the target time was 1.11 (95% CI = 0.41 to 3.03; P = 0.83) times higher. One month after the intervention commenced, the intervention group reported intending to consult with chest symptoms 31 days (95% CI = 7 to 54; P = 0.012) earlier than the usual care group, and at 6 months this was 25 days (95% CI = 1.5 to 48; P = 0.037) earlier. Conclusion: Behavioural intervention in primary care shortened the time individuals at high risk of lung disease intended to take before consulting with new chest symptoms (the secondary outcome of the study), but increases in consultation rates and the proportions of consultations within target times were not statistically significant. © British Journal of General Practice.

A pre-post test evaluation of the impact of the PELICAN MDT-TME development programme on the working lives of colorectal cancer team members

Background - The PELICAN Multidisciplinary Team Total Mesorectal Excision (MDT-TME) Development Programme aimed to improve clinical outcomes for rectal cancer by educating colorectal cancer teams in precision surgery and related aspects of multidisciplinary care. The Programme reached almost all colorectal cancer teams across England. We took the opportunity to assess the impact of participating in this novel team-based Development Programme on the working lives of colorectal cancer team members. Methods - The impact of participating in the programme on team members' self-reported job stress, job satisfaction and team performance was assessed in a pre-post course study. 333/568 (59%) team members, from the 75 multidisciplinary teams who attended the final year of the Programme, completed questionnaires pre-course, and 6-8 weeks post-course. Results - Across all team members, the main sources of job satisfaction related to working in multidisciplinary teams; whilst feeling overloaded was the main source of job stress. Surgeons and clinical nurse specialists reported higher levels of job satisfaction than team members who do not provide direct patient care, whilst MDT coordinators reported the lowest levels of job satisfaction and job stress. Both job stress and satisfaction decreased after participating in the Programme for all team members. There was a small improvement in team performance. Conclusions - Participation in the Development Programme had a mixed impact on the working lives of team members in the immediate aftermath of attending. The decrease in team members' job stress may reflect the improved knowledge and skills conferred by the Programme. The decrease in job satisfaction may be the consequence of being unable to apply these skills immediately in clinical practice because of a lack of required infrastructure and/or equipment. In addition, whilst the Programme raised awareness of the challenges of teamworking, a greater focus on tackling these issues may have improved working lives further.