Objective: The purpose of this case series was to describe patients with aberrant drug-related behaviors and similar patterns of dose escalation in whom interdisciplinary assessment revealed different bases for their dose increases.Method: During the period from December 26 to December 30, 2011, the medical records of two patients with opioid-related aberrant behaviors were reviewed.Results: We described two patients with a significant cancer history and different comorbidities who presented with different aberrant drug-related behaviors and opioid requirements.Significance of Results: Opioid-related aberrant behaviors can be interpreted in different ways, and two of the more common syndromes in cancer patients are chemical coping and pseudoaddiction. In advanced cancer patients, the boundaries between these conditions are not as clear, and diagnosis is often made retrospectively. Furthermore, there have been relatively limited studies describing these two syndromes. Thus, they continue to pose a diagnostic and treatment challenge that requires different approaches for effective management of symptoms. The key characteristic between the two syndromes is that the behaviors displayed in chemical coping are motivated by obtaining opioids to relieve psychosocial distress, while in pseudoaddiction these behaviors are motivated by uncontrolled nociceptive input. Close monitoring of the pain syndromes, aberrant behaviors, and opioid requirements over several visits is usually necessary to distinguish the two syndromes.

Objective: Caregivers of cancer patients face intense demands throughout the course of the disease, survivorship, and bereavement. Caregiver burden, needs, satisfaction, quality of life, and other significant areas of caregiving are not monitored regularly in the clinic setting, resulting in a need to address the availability and clinical effectiveness of cancer caregiver distress tools. This review aimed to determine the availability of cancer caregiver instruments, the variation of instruments between different domains of distress, and that between adult and pediatric cancer patient populations.Method: A literature search was conducted using various databases from 1937 to 2013. Original articles on instruments were extracted separately if not included in the original literature search. The instruments were divided into different areas of caregiver distress and into adult versus pediatric populations. Psychometric data were also evaluated.Results: A total of 5,541 articles were reviewed, and 135 articles (2.4%) were accepted based on our inclusion criteria. Some 59 instruments were identified, which fell into the following categories: burden (n = 26, 44%); satisfaction with healthcare delivery (n = 5, 8.5%); needs (n = 14, 23.7%); quality of life (n = 9, 15.3%); and other issues (n = 5, 8.5%). The median number of items was 29 (4–125): 20/59 instruments (33.9%) had ≤20 items; 13 (22%) had ≤20 items and were psychometrically sound, with 12 of these 13 (92.3%) being self-report questionnaires. There were 44 instruments (74.6%) that measured caregiver distress for adult cancer patients and 15 (25.4%) for caregivers of pediatric patients.Significance of results: There is a significant number of cancer caregiver instruments that are self-reported, concise, and psychometrically sound, which makes them attractive for further research into their clinical use, outcomes, and effectiveness.

Background: There is a growing preference for the use of marijuana for medical purposes, despite limited evidence regarding its benefits and potential safety risks. Legalization status may play a role in the attitudes and preferences toward medical marijuana (MM). Objectives: The attitudes and beliefs of cancer patients in a legalized (Arizona) versus nonlegalized state (Texas) regarding medical and recreational legalization and medical usefulness of marijuana were compared. Settings/Subjects: Two hundred adult cancer patients were enrolled from outpatient Palliative Care centers at Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center in Gilbert, AZ ( n = 100) and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX ( n = 100). Design and Measurements: Adult cancer patients seen by the Palliative Care teams in the outpatient centers were evaluated. Various physical and psychosocial assessments were conducted, including a survey of attitudes and beliefs toward marijuana. Results: The majority of individuals support legalization of marijuana for medical use (Arizona 92% [85–97%] vs. Texas 90% [82–95%]; p = 0.81) and belief in its medical usefulness (Arizona 97% [92–99%] vs. Texas 93% [86–97%]; p = 0.33) in both states. Overall, 181 (91%) patients supported legalization for medical purposes whereas 80 (40%) supported it for recreational purposes ( p < 0.0001). Patients preferred marijuana over current standard treatments for anxiety (60% [51–68%]; p = 0.003). Patients found to favor legalizing MM were younger ( p = 0.027), had worse fatigue ( p = 0.015), appetite ( p = 0.004), anxiety ( p = 0.017), and were Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener-Adapted to Include Drugs (CAGE-AID) positive for alcohol/drugs ( p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Cancer patients from both legalized and nonlegalized states supported legalization of marijuana for medical purposes and believed in its medical use. The support for legalization for medical use was significantly higher than for recreational use in both states.

Objective: Caregiver symptom assessment is not part of regular clinical cancer care. The ESAS (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System) is a multidimensional tool regularly used to measure symptom burden in patients but not caregivers. The objectives of the present study were to determine the feasibility of the ESAS in caregiver completion (defined as ≥ 9 of 12 items) and determine its concurrent validity with the Zarit Burden Interview–12 (ZBI–12).Method: We conducted a prospective study on 90 patient–primary caregiver dyads seen in an outpatient supportive care center in a cancer center. The 12 item ESAS–FS (financial–spiritual) was completed by the dyads along with other clinical and psychosocial measures.Results: The caregiver ESAS was found to be feasible (90/90 caregivers, 100% completed ≥ 9/12 items) and useful (66/90 caregivers, 73%) by caregivers to report their symptom burden. Some 68 of 90 (76%) caregivers had symptom distress scores ≥ 4 on at least one symptom. A significant association was found between the ESAS scores of caregivers and patients for fatigue (0.03), depression (<0.01), anxiety (<0.01), sleep (0.05), well-being (<0.01), financial distress (<0.01), spiritual pain (<0.01), and total ESAS score (<0.01). Concurrent validity with the ZBI–12 was not achieved (r = 0.53, p = 0.74). A significant correlation was found between caregiver ESAS scores and time spent feeding, housekeeping, total combined caregiver activities, and total ZBI–12 scores.Significance of results: The caregiver ESAS is a feasible tool and was found useful by our caregivers. Further research is needed to modify the ESAS based on caregivers' recommendations, and further psychometric studies need to be conducted.

Background: Trust influences healthcare through the willingness to seek care, disclose sensitive information, adhere to treatment, and satisfaction with care. Understanding factors that influence trust may help in physician–patient relationship particularly at end of life. Objectives: We explored the association between trust and other demographic and psychosocial factors. We also explored the performance of the single-item Degree of Trust scale (0 best to 10 worst) compared with the validated five-item Trust in Medical Profession scale (5 best to 25 worst). Design: A secondary analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. Trust scores completed by 100 patients were correlated with age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, anxiety, depression, and hopefulness (Herth Hope Index [12 best to 48 worst]). Setting/Subjects: The study was conducted on 100 patients in an outpatient Supportive Care Center in a cancer center in Houston, Texas. Results: Median age was 57 years (49–65), depression was 6 (3–9), and hopefulness was 22 (20–25). Trust in Medical Profession score was 13, 11–14 (median, IQR) and Degree of Trust score was 2, 1–4 (median, IQR) with moderate correlation (r = 0.587, p < 0.001). On evaluating performance of Degree of Trust scale to the validated Trust in Medical Profession scale, a moderately high performance was found (Youden's J = 0.73; Topleft = 0.21). Older age (p = 0.02) lower depression scores (p < 0.01) and more hopefulness (p = 0.01) were associated with higher levels of trust. Conclusions: Trust was associated with older age, less depressed, and more hopeful patients. A single 0–10 item trust scale was found to perform adequately compared with a multiple-item questionnaire.