Ibrahima Gning

Bio: Ibrahima Gning is an academic researcher from University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The author has contributed to research in topics: Randomized controlled trial & Cronbach's alpha. The author has an hindex of 17, co-authored 22 publications receiving 1409 citations. Previous affiliations of Ibrahima Gning include University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston.

Automated Symptom Alerts Reduce Postoperative Symptom Severity After Cancer Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Abstract: Purpose Patients receiving cancer-related thoracotomy are highly symptomatic in the first weeks after surgery. This study examined whether at-home symptom monitoring plus feedback to clinicians about severe symptoms contributes to more effective postoperative symptom control. Patients and Methods We enrolled 100 patients receiving thoracotomy for lung cancer or lung metastasis in a two-arm randomized controlled trial; 79 patients completed the study. After hospital discharge, patients rated symptoms twice weekly for 4 weeks via automated telephone calls. For intervention group patients, an e-mail alert was forwarded to the patient's clinical team for response if any of a subset of symptoms (pain, disturbed sleep, distress, shortness of breath, or constipation) reached a predetermined severity threshold. No alerts were generated for controls. Group differences in symptom threshold events were examined by generalized estimating equation modeling. Results The intervention group experienced greater reduction ...

Stereotactic body radiation therapy for management of spinal metastases in patients without spinal cord compression: a phase 1–2 trial

Abstract: Summary Background Spinal stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is increasingly used to manage spinal metastases, yet the technique's effectiveness in controlling the symptom burden of spinal metastases has not been well described. We investigated the clinical benefit of SBRT for managing spinal metastases and reducing cancer-related symptoms. Methods 149 patients with mechanically stable, non-cord-compressing spinal metastases (166 lesions) were given SBRT in a phase 1–2 study. Patients received a total dose of 27–30 Gy, typically in three fractions. Symptoms were measured before SBRT and at several time points up to 6 months after treatment, by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the M D Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI). The primary endpoint was frequency and duration of complete pain relief. The study is completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00508443. Findings Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 9·5–30·3). The number of patients reporting no pain from bone metastases, as measured by the BPI, increased from 39 of 149 (26%) before SBRT to 55 of 102 (54%) 6 months after SBRT (p vs 20 [20·0%] of 100 at 6 months; p=0·011). Ordinal regression modelling showed that patients reported significant pain reduction according to the MDASI during the first 6 months after SBRT (p=0·00003), and significant reductions in a composite score of the six MDASI symptom interference with daily life items (p=0·0066). Only a few instances of non-neurological grade 3 toxicities occurred: nausea (one event), vomiting (one), diarrhoea (one), fatigue (one), dysphagia (one), neck pain (one), and diaphoresis (one); pain associated with severe tongue oedema and trismus occurred twice; and non-cardiac chest pain was reported three times. No grade 4 toxicities occurred. Progression-free survival after SBRT was 80·5% (95% CI 72·9–86·1) at 1 year and 72·4% (63·1–79·7) at 2 years. Interpretation SBRT is an effective primary or salvage treatment for mechanically stable spinal metastasis. Significant reductions in patient-reported pain and other symptoms were evident 6 months after SBRT, along with satisfactory progression-free survival and no late spinal cord toxicities. Funding National Cancer Institute of the US National Institutes of Health.

Cancer pain management among underserved minority outpatients: perceived needs and barriers to optimal control.

Abstract: BACKGROUND Minority patients with cancer are at risk for undertreatment of cancer-related pain. Most studies of patient-related barriers to pain control have surveyed primarily non-Hispanic Caucasian patients. The purpose of the current study was to explore barriers to optimal pain management among African-American and Hispanic patients with cancer through the use of structured patient interviews. Structured interviews allowed the authors to probe for previously unidentified barriers to pain management in these populations. METHODS Thirty-one socioeconomically disadvantaged minority patients with cancer (14 African-American patients and 17 Hispanic patients) who had cancer-related pain completed structured interviews that assessed three main content areas: information and communication regarding cancer pain, treatment of cancer pain, and the meaning of cancer pain. RESULTS The African-American and Hispanic patients reported severe pain and many concerns about pain management. The majority of patients in both ethnic groups expressed a belief in stoicism and concerns about possible addiction to opioid medications and the development of tolerance. The patients described their physicians as the most frequent and trusted source of information about cancer pain. However, patients also reported difficulties with communication and a reluctance to complain of pain. CONCLUSIONS The reported barriers to pain management indicate that socioeconomically disadvantaged African-American and Hispanic patients can benefit from educational interventions on cancer pain that dispel myths about opioids and teach patients to communicate assertively about their pain with their physicians and nurses. Cancer 2002;94:2295–304. © 2002 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.10414

Measuring head and neck cancer symptom burden: The development and validation of the M. D. Anderson symptom inventory, head and neck module†

Abstract: Background. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a symptom inventory for patients with head and neck cancer and to assess the occurrence and severity of symp- toms, the overall symptom burden, and the interference the symptoms cause in daily life. Methods. Items were generated from a comprehensive literature review, our prior work, and focus groups with head and neck cancer patients, symptom researchers, and a multidisciplinary group of head and neck cancer health care workers. We selected 11 provisional head and neck cancer-specific items for addition to the core M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), and conducted a cross-sec- tional validation study among patients with head and neck cancer. Results. Construct validity was established using principal axis factoring with direct oblimin rotation, and tests of concurrent and known-groups validity were conducted. Two items were dropped because of low severity scores and low frequency of complaint, leaving 9 final head and neck cancer-specific items. The coefficient a reliabilities were 0.88, 0.83, and 0.92 for the 13 core MDASI items, the 9 head and neck cancer-specific items, and the 6 interference items, respectively. The most prevalent severe symptoms were problems with mucus, mouth/throat sores, tasting food, difficulty with chewing or swallowing, dry mouth, pain, and fatigue. Conclusions. The M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck (MDASI-HN) is a reliable and valid instrument to mea- sure head and neck cancer symptom burden, and the interfer- ence symptoms cause in the major aspects of a patient's daily life. A subset of specifically distressing symptoms was identi- fied, many of which are not included in commonly used head and neck cancer quality of life instruments. V C 2007 Wiley Peri- odicals, Inc. Head Neck 29: 923-931, 2007

Pain Education for Underserved Minority Cancer Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract: Purpose Previous studies found that African American and Hispanic cancer patients are at risk for undertreatment of pain. We evaluated the efficacy of a pain education intervention for underserved minority patients. Patients and Methods Ninety-seven underserved African American and Hispanic outpatients with cancer-related pain were enrolled onto a randomized clinical trial of pain management education. The patients in the education group received a culture-specific video and booklet on pain management. The control group received a video and booklet on nutrition. A research nurse met with each patient to review the materials. We measured changes in pain intensity and pain-related interference 2 to 10 weeks after the intervention, as well as changes in quality of life, perceived pain control, functional status, analgesics, and physician pain assessments. Results Physicians underestimated baseline pain intensity and provided inadequate analgesics for more than 50% of the sample. Although the ratings for pain...

Symptom Monitoring With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Abstract: Purpose There is growing interest to enhance symptom monitoring during routine cancer care using patientreported outcomes, but evidence of impact on clinical outcomes is limited. Methods We randomly assigned patients receiving routine outpatient chemotherapy for advanced solid tumors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to report 12 common symptoms via tablet computers or to receive usual care consisting of symptom monitoring at the discretion of clinicians. Those with home computers received weekly e-mail prompts to report between visits. Treating physicians received symptom printouts at visits, and nurses received e-mail alerts when participants reported severe or worsening symptoms. The primary outcome was change in health-related quality of life (HRQL) at 6 months compared with baseline, measured by the EuroQol EQ-5D Index. Secondary endpoints included emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival. Results Among 766 patients allocated, HRQL improved among more participants in the intervention group than usual care (34% v 18%) and worsened among fewer (38% v 53%; P , .001). Overall, mean HRQL declined by less in the intervention group than usual care (1.4- v 7.1-point drop; P , .001). Patients receiving intervention were less frequently admitted to the ER (34% v 41%; P = .02) or hospitalized (45% v 49%; P = .08) and remained on chemotherapy longer (mean, 8.2 v 6.3 months; P = .002). Although 75% of the intervention group was alive at 1 year, 69% with usual care survived the year (P = .05), with differences also seen in quality-adjusted survival (mean of 8.7 v. 8.0 months; P = .004). Benefits were greater for participants lacking prior computer experience. Most patients receiving intervention (63%) reported severe symptoms during the study. Nurses frequently initiated clinical actions in response to e-mail alerts. Conclusion Clinical benefits were associated with symptom self-reporting during cancer care. J Clin Oncol 34:557-565. © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research

Abstract: Background The Cochrane Collaboration is strongly encouraging the use of a newly developed tool, the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (CCRBT), for all review groups. However, the psychometric properties of this tool to date have yet to be described. Thus, the objective of this study was to add information about psychometric properties of the CCRBT including inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity, in comparison with the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool (EPHPP). Methods Both tools were used to assess the methodological quality of 20 randomized controlled trials included in our systematic review of the effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions to improve the management of cancer pain. Each study assessment was completed independently by two reviewers using each tool. We analysed the inter-rater reliability of each tool’s individual domains, as well as final grade assigned to each study. Results The EPHPP had fair inter-rater agreement for individual domains and excellent agreement for the final grade. In contrast, the CCRBT had slight inter-rater agreement for individual domains and fair inter-rater agreement for final grade. Of interest, no agreement between the two tools was evident in their final grade assigned to each study. Although both tools were developed to assess ‘quality of the evidence’, they appear to measure different constructs. Conclusions Both tools performed quite differently when evaluating the risk of bias or methodological quality of studies in knowledge translation interventions for cancer pain. The newly introduced CCRBT assigned these studies a higher risk of bias. Its psychometric properties need to be more thoroughly validated, in a range of research fields, to understand fully how to interpret results from its application. What this paper adds

The Unequal Burden of Pain: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Pain

Abstract: CONTEXT: Pain has significant socioeconomic, health, and quality-of-life implications. Racial- and ethnic-based differences in the pain care experience have been described. Racial and ethnic minorities tend to be undertreated for pain when compared with non-Hispanic Whites. OBJECTIVES: To provide health care providers, researchers, health care policy analysts, government officials, patients, and the general public with pertinent evidence regarding differences in pain perception, assessment, and treatment for racial and ethnic minorities. Evidence is provided for racial- and ethnic-based differences in pain care across different types of pain (i.e., experimental pain, acute postoperative pain, cancer pain, chronic non-malignant pain) and settings (i.e., emergency department). Pertinent literature on patient, health care provider, and health care system factors that contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in pain treatment are provided. EVIDENCE: A selective literature review was performed by experts in pain. The experts developed abstracts with relevant citations on racial and ethnic disparities within their specific areas of expertise. Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience. The abstracts were compiled for this manuscript. The draft manuscript was made available to the experts for comment and review prior to submission for publication. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the Institute of Medicine's report on health care disparities, racial and ethnic disparities in pain perception, assessment, and treatment were found in all settings (i.e., postoperative, emergency room) and across all types of pain (i.e., acute, cancer, chronic nonmalignant, and experimental). The literature suggests that the sources of pain disparities among racial and ethnic minorities are complex, involving patient (e.g., patient/health care provider communication, attitudes), health care provider (e.g., decision making), and health care system (e.g., access to pain medication) factors. There is a need for improved training for health care providers and educational interventions for patients. A comprehensive pain research agenda is necessary to address pain disparities among racial and ethnic minorities.

Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User's Guide

Abstract: This user’s guide is intended to support the design, implementation, analysis, interpretation, and quality evaluation of registries created to increase understanding of patient outcomes. For the purposes of this guide, a patient registry is an organized system that uses observational study methods to collect uniform data (clinical and other) to evaluate specified outcomes for a population defined by a particular disease, condition, or exposure, and that serves one or more predetermined scientific, clinical, or policy purposes. A registry database is a file (or files) derived from the registry. Although registries can serve many purposes, this guide focuses on registries created for one or more of the following purposes: to describe the natural history of disease, to determine clinical effectiveness or costeffectiveness of health care products and services, to measure or monitor safety and harm, and/or to measure quality of care.