Abstract 1499P
Background
To demonstrate the status and differences in knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of lung cancer palliative care (LCPC) management, and to measure patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in cancer pain management in of China.
Methods
A questionnaire on LCPC management was used in this study, which involved a total of 2093 participants from 706 hospitals in China. Seven major components make up the questionnaire, including chi-square tests or Fisher exact probabilities to measure the differences in KAP between hospitals grades. Comparing distributions of ordered data between groups was done using the Kruskal-Wallis H test or the Mann-Whitney U test. Multiple choice questions use multiple response cross analysis. Correlation was evaluated by the Spearman correlation coefficient.
Results
84.2% participants believed that anti-tumor therapy is equally important as palliative care. The satisfaction rate of participants from grade 3 hospitals, which was significantly higher than that of grade 2 and grade 1 hospitals (χ2=27.402, P=0.002). The most common symptoms requiring LCPC was pain. The major barriers toward to LCPC were “Patients and families are concerned about the safety of long-term use of palliative care related drugs”. The most common reasons for the use of PCA treatment were 31.1% participants thought “Patients with systemic application of large doses of opioids or adverse reactions to opioids that cannot be tolerated”. The top three barriers toward PCA treatment of cancer pain were (i) worry about adverse reactions of drug overdose, (ii) worry about opioid addiction, and (iii) increase of patients' economic burden. In the past 24 months, 33.9% of the participants had not participated in online or offline training related to palliative care of lung cancer.
Conclusions
Chinese healthcare workers are in need of training for lung cancer palliative care and, in particular, for controlling cancer pain symptoms.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
1607P - Association of the lipid biomarker, PCPro, and clinical outcomes in the ENZAMET trial (ANZUP 1304)
Presenter: Lisa Horvath
Session: Poster session 10
1608P - Prostate cancer working group 4 (PCWG4) preliminary criteria using serial PSMA PET/CT for response evaluation: Analysis from the PRINCE trial
Presenter: Michael Hofman
Session: Poster session 10
1609P - PSMA-PET and PROMISE re-define stage and risk in patients with prostate cancer
Presenter: Wolfgang Fendler
Session: Poster session 10
1610P - Circulating tumour cell (CTC) enumeration and overall survival (OS) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with xaluritamig
Presenter: Andrew Armstrong
Session: Poster session 10
1611P - Haematologic impact of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus ARPI change in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in PSMAfore
Presenter: Kim Nguyen Chi
Session: Poster session 10
1612P - Impact of FANCA, ATM, CDK12 alterations on survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)
Presenter: David Lorente
Session: Poster session 10
1613P - Clinically advanced prostate cancer (CAPC) featuring BRCA2 loss: A comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) study
Presenter: Chiara Mercinelli
Session: Poster session 10
1614P - PSA responses and PSMA scan changes after immunotherapy for biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BCR) without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)
Presenter: Ravi Madan
Session: Poster session 10
1615P - A new prognostic model of overall survival (OS) in patients (pts) with metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC)
Presenter: Susan Halabi
Session: Poster session 10