Pruritus in patients with solid tumors: an overlooked supportive care need
Pruritus is a common symptom in cutaneous malignancies, but its impact on patients with solid tumors is unclear. We explored the impact and management of pruritus in patients with solid tumors, using patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data from a real-world registry.
From 2006 to 2011, patients seen in the Duke Cancer Institute reported their symptoms via the Patient Care Monitor v2.0, a validated PRO tool that includes a 0–10-point question about pruritus severity. From > 25,000 encounters, 203 patients reported severe pruritus (> 6/10) on at least one visit and 506 total visits were abstracted where patients reported either moderate or severe pruritus (> 3/10). From this cohort, we abstracted demographics, diagnosis, stage, cancer therapy, anti-pruritic therapy, and clinicians’ responses.
Mean age was 59.8 (SD 13.3), 134 (66%) were female, 125 (62%) were Caucasian, and 65 (32%) were African American. Breast cancer was the most common tumor (36.5%), followed by lung cancer (23.2%). Mean pruritus severity score was 6.8 (SD 1.8) for patients on chemotherapy, 6.9 (SD 1.8) for patients on targeted therapy alone or in combination, and 7.1(SD 1.8) for patients off treatment. Overall, 67% of patients reported at least two episodes of moderate-severe pruritus (mean # of visits 4.2 (SD 2.7)). Despite frequent report of severe and persistent pruritus, this was mentioned in just 28% of clinician notes and an intervention was recommended/prescribed in only 7% of visits.
Pruritus is an under-addressed symptom in patients with solid tumors. Additional research is needed to understand the burden of pruritus in affected populations.
KeywordsPruritus Patient-reported outcomes Patient experience research Supportive care Symptoms
Compliance with ethical standards
This study was reviewed and approved by the Duke University School of Medicine’s institutional review board.
Conflict of interest
Tom LeBlanc has full control of all primary data and agrees to allow the journal to review these data if requested, provided this is done in accordance with Duke University policies regarding data. He reports consulting fees/honoraria in the last 12 months from Amgen, Abbvie, Agios, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Helsinn, Heron, Medtronic, Otsuka, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, and Flatiron Health, as well as research grants to Duke University from the American Cancer Society, AstraZeneca, the Cambia Health Foundation, and Seattle Genetics. Amy Abernethy is a full-time employee of Flatiron Health, a member of the Roche Group; she advises SignalPath Research, The One Health Company and Robin Care; she is on the Board of Directors for Aetnahealth; and she has consulting fees from Bristol Meyers Squibb and Genentech. The remaining authors have no disclosures to report.
- 1.Abernethy AP, Herndon JE, Wheeler JL, Day JM, Hood L, Patwardhan M, Shaw H, Lyerly HK (2009) Feasibility and acceptability to patients of a longitudinal system for evaluating cancer-related symptoms and quality of life: pilot study of an e/Tablet data-collection system in academic oncology. J Pain Symptom Manag 37:1027–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Bruera E, Kuehn N, Miller MJ, Selmser P, Macmillan K (1991) The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): a simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. J Palliat Care 7(2):6–9Google Scholar
- 9.Burstein HJ, Krilov L, Aragon-Ching JB, Baxter NN, Chiorean EG, Chow WA, Groot JFD, Devine SM, DuBois SG, El-Deiry WS, Epstein AS, Heymach J, Jones JA, Mayer DK, Miksad RA, Pennell NA, Sabel MS, Schilsky RL, Schuchter LM, Tung N, Winkfield KM, Wirth LJ, Dizon DS (2017) Clinical Cancer Advances 2017: annual report on progress against cancer from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 35:1341–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Chan A, Cameron MC, Garden B, Boers-Doets CB, Schindler K, Epstein JB, Choi J, Beamer L, Roeland E, Russi EG (2015) A systematic review of patient-reported outcome instruments of dermatologic adverse events associated with targeted cancer therapies. Support Care Cancer 23:2231–2244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Kotronoulas G, Kearney N, Maguire R, Harrow A, Di Domenico D, Croy S, MacGillivray S (2014) What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. J Clin Oncol 32:1480–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Larson VA, Tang O, Stander S, Kang S, Kwatra SG (2018) Association between itch and cancer in 16,925 patients with pruritus: experience at a tertiary care center. J Am Acad Dermatol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2018.08.044
- 22.LeBlanc TW, Abernethy AP (2013) Quality of life in higher resolution: the next generation of comparative effectiveness research in malignant hematology. In: Editor (ed)^(eds) Book Quality of life in higher resolution: the next generation of comparative effectiveness research in malignant hematology. Haematologica, CityGoogle Scholar
- 24.LeBlanc TW, Samsa GP, Wolf SP, Locke SC, Cella DF, Abernethy AP (2015) Validation and real-world assessment of the functional assessment of anorexia-cachexia therapy (FAACT) scale in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and the cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome (CACS). Support Care Cancer 23:2341–2347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Neloska L, Damevska K, Kuzmanova A, Pavleska L, Kostov M, Zovic BP (2017) Dermatological diseases in palliative care patients: a prospective study of 271 patients. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 15:621–627Google Scholar
- 32.Santoni M, Conti A, Andrikou K, Bittoni A, Lanese A, Pistelli M, Pantano F, Vincenzi B, Armento G, Massari F (2015) Risk of pruritus in cancer patients treated with biological therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 96:206–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Seccareccia D, Gebara N (2011) Pruritus in palliative care. Can Fam Physician 57:1010–1013Google Scholar