Recognizing and managing existential suffering remains challenging. We present two cases demonstrating how existential suffering manifests in patients and how to manage it to alleviate suffering.

Case 1: A 69-year-old man with renal cell carcinoma receiving end-of-life care expressed fear of lying down “as he may not wake up.” He also expressed concerns of not being a good Christian. Supportive psychotherapy and chaplain support were provided, with anxiolytic medications as needed. He was able to express his fear of dying and concern about his family, and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System scores improved. He died peacefully with family at bedside. Case 2: A 71-year-old woman presented with follicular lymphoma and colonic obstruction requiring nasogastric drain of fecaloid matter. Initially, she felt that focusing on comfort rather than cure symbolized giving up but eventually felt at peace. Physical symptoms were well-controlled but emotionally she became more distressed, repeatedly asking angrily, “Why is it taking so long to die?.” She was supported by her family through Bible readings and prayers, but she was distressed about being a burden to them. An interdisciplinary approach involving expressive supportive counseling, spiritual care, and integrative medicine resulted in limited distress relief. Owing to increasing agitation, the patient and family agreed to titrate chlorpromazine to sedation. Her family was appreciative that she was restful until her death.

Existential suffering manifests through multiple domains in each patient. A combination of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic techniques may be needed to relieve end-of-life suffering.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There is no standardized and universally accepted pain classification system for the assessment and management of cancer pain in both clinical practice and research studies. The Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain (ECS–CP) is an assessment tool that has demonstrated value in assessing pain characteristics and response. The purpose of our study was to determine the relationship between negative ECS–CP features and some pain-related variables like pain intensity and opioid use. We also explored whether the number of negative ECS–CP features was associated with higher pain intensity.

The electronic charts of 100 patients at an outpatient supportive care clinic in a comprehensive cancer center were reviewed for variables like patient characteristics, initial ECS–CP assessment, morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), opioid rotation, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS), and use of adjuvant analgesics.

Some 91 of the 100 charts were eligible for analysis. The most common primary cancer type was gastrointestinal (22.1%). The median pain intensity was 6, and the median MEDD was 45 mg. Neuropathic pain was associated with higher median pain intensity (7 vs. 5, p = 0.007) and median MEDD requirement (83 vs. 30, p = 0.013). Psychological distress was associated with higher median pain intensity (7 vs. 5, p = 0.042). Incident pain was also associated with a trend toward higher pain intensity (6 vs. 5, p = 0.06). A higher number of negative ECS–CP features was associated with higher pain intensity (p = 0.01).

The ECS–CP was successfully completed in the majority of patients, demonstrating its utility in routine clinical practice. Neuropathic pain and psychological distress were associated with higher pain intensity. Also, neuropathic pain was associated with a higher MEDD. A higher sum of negative ECS–CP features was associated with higher pain intensity. Further studies will be needed to verify and explore these observations.

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.

During the period from December 26 to December 30, 2011, the medical records of two patients with opioid-related aberrant behaviors were reviewed.

We described two patients with a significant cancer history and different comorbidities who presented with different aberrant drug-related behaviors and opioid requirements.

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.