Neuropathic cancer pain: prevalence, severity, analgesics and impact from the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative-Computerised Symptom Assessment study

Treatment of Pain in Cancer: Towards Personalised Medicine

Despite increased attention to cancer pain, pain prevalence in patients with cancer has not improved over the last decade and one third of cancer patients on anticancer therapy and half of patients with advanced disease still suffer from moderate to severe pain. In this review, we explore the possible reasons for the ongoing high prevalence of cancer pain and discuss possible future directions for improvement in personalised pain management. Among possible reasons for the lack of improvement are: Barriers for patients to discuss pain with clinicians spontaneously; pain measurement instruments are not routinely used in daily practice; limited knowledge concerning the assessment of undertreatment; changes in patients’ characteristics, including the ageing of the population; lack of significant improvement in the treatment of neuropathic pain; limitations of pharmacological treatment and lack of evidence-based nonpharmacological treatment strategies. In order to improve cancer pain treatment, we recommend: (1) Physicians proactively ask about pain and measure pain using assessment instruments; (2) the development of an optimal tool measuring undertreatment; (3) educational interventions to improve health care workers’ skills in pain management; (4) the development of more effective and personalised pharmacological and nonpharmacological pain treatment.

Neuropathic cancer pain: prevalence, pathophysiology, and management

Neuropathic cancer pain (NCP) is caused by nerve damage attributable to the cancer per se, and/or treatments including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery; the prevalence is reported to be as high as 40%. The etiologies of NCP include direct nerve invasion or nerve compression by the cancer, neural toxicity, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. NCP is subdivided into plexopathy, radiculopathy, and peripheral neuropathies, among several other categories. The clinical characteristics of NCP differ from those of nociceptive pain in terms of both the hypersensitivity symptoms (burning, tingling, and an electrical sensation) and the hyposensitivity symptoms (numbness and muscle weakness). Recovery requires several months to years, even after recovery from injury. Management is complex; NCP does not usually respond to opioids, although treatments may feature both opioids and adjuvant drugs including antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and anti-arrhythmic agents, all of which improve the quality-of-life. This review addresses the pathophysiology, clinical characteristics and management of NCP, and factors rendering pain control difficult.

A neuropathic pain component as a predictor of improvement in pain interference after radiotherapy for painful tumors: A secondary analysis of a prospective observational study

•

A neuropathic component was related to worse pain interference scores at baseline.

•

A neuropathic component predicted a greater reduction in pain interference.

•

Older patients and male patients tended to have a neuropathic component.

Background and purpose

We previously demonstrated that patients with a tumor-related neuropathic pain component were more likely to experience a pain response after radiotherapy (RT) than those without. It is unknown whether the presence of a neuropathic component also favorably influences pain interference. In a secondary analysis of our previous prospective observational study, we investigated if the presence of a neuropathic component of the index pain caused by the irradiated tumors predicts greater reduction in pain interference.

Material and methods

For patients scheduled for RT for painful tumors, Brief Pain Inventory data were collected at initiation of RT and 1, 2, and 3 months thereafter. Multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to investigate the effects of the presence of a neuropathic component on the changes in pain interference scores (i.e., follow-up minus baseline). We used 10 covariates as potential confounders.

Results

Of the 302 analyzable patients, 93 (31%) were diagnosed as having a neuropathic component of the index pain. Multivariable linear regression analyses revealed that all the point estimates of regression coefficients at 1-, 2-, and 3-month follow-up were negative values; some were statistically significant. At 2-month follow-up, patients with a neuropathic component experienced greater reductions in their pain interference scores for walking ability (p = 0.048), normal work (p = 0.021), sleep (p = 0.001), and enjoyment of life (p = 0.010) than those without it.

Conclusions

The presence of a neuropathic pain component predicted a greater reduction in pain interference after RT. Patients with neuropathic tumor-related pain should be offered the option of receiving palliative RT.

Executive summary of the Clinical Guidelines of Pharmacotherapy for Neuropathic Pain: second edition by the Japanese Society of Pain Clinicians

Neuropathic pain has a substantial effect on quality of life (QOL). The Japanese Society of Pain Clinicians (JSPC) has developed clinical guidelines of pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain. These guidelines offer clarity on recommendations based on both the most recent scientific evidence and expert opinions. Understanding the concept, disease entity, and burden of neuropathic pain, as well as its screening and diagnosis are important steps before starting pharmacotherapy. As well as other guidelines, the guidelines propose several lines of pharmacotherapies in a step-wise manner. To name a few different points, our guidelines propose an extract from inflamed cutaneous tissue of rabbits inoculated with vaccinia virus, which has been found to be effective for post-herpetic neuralgia in Japan, as one of the second-line drugs. When prescribing opioid analgesics, proposed as the third-line drugs, for neuropathic pain, the guidelines recommend physicians continue evaluations on either abuse or addiction. The guidelines do not recommend concomitant use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen because of lack of clinical evidence of their efficacy. If patients do not respond well to pharmacotherapy, which is prescribed in a step-wise manner, other treatment strategies should be considered to improve patients’ activities of daily living and QOL.

Cancer Pain With a Neuropathic Component: A Cross-sectional Study of Its Clinical Characteristics, Associated Psychological Distress, Treatments, and Predictors at Referral to a Cancer Pain Clinic

CONTEXT

In patients with cancer pain, identifying a neuropathic pain component (NPC) may inform the selection of subsequent therapeutic interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence, clinical characteristics, associated psychological distress, pre-referral treatment, and predictors of cancer pain with an NPC in patients referred to a cancer pain clinic.

METHODS

Participants had standard assessments and documentation: Brief Pain Inventory ratings, presence of an NPC, based on a Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) (neuropathic pain screening scale) score ≥4 combined with a physician's clinical assessment (blinded to DN4 result), the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, and Emotion Thermometer scores. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine predictors associated with an NPC.

RESULTS

Of 371 study participants, 120 (32.3%) had a designated NPC. Overall, psychological distress indices were similar in the NPC and nociceptive pain groups, except for a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale >7 score that was proportionately higher (74% vs. 63%, P = 0.03) in the nociceptive group. The final multivariable logistic regression model generated the following NPC predictors and their respective odds ratios (95% CIs): recent chemotherapy, 2.93 (1.63-5.26); recent surgery, 3.65 (2.03-6.59); adjuvant analgesic use, 2.93 (1.66-5.17); episodic incident pain, 2.63 (1.44-4.84); episodic breakthrough pain, 3.67 (2.00-6.73); pain duration three or more months, 2.35 (1.36-4.06); higher pain intensity, 1.47 (1.24-1.74); and pelvic or perineal pain location, 2.75 (1.09-6.96).

CONCLUSION

One in three patients with cancer have an NPC, which is independently associated with recent chemotherapy, surgery, adjuvant analgesic use, episodic incident and breakthrough pain, longer pain duration, higher pain intensity, and pelvic or perineal pain location.

Opioids combined with antidepressants or antiepileptic drugs for cancer pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Combining antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs with opioids has resulted in increased pain relief when used for neuropathic pain in non-cancer conditions. However, evidence to support their effectiveness in cancer pain is lacking.

AIM

To determine if there is additional benefit when opioids are combined with antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs for cancer pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomised control trials comparing opioid analgesia in combination with antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs versus opioid monotherapy were sought. Data on pain and adverse events were extracted. Data were pooled using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analyses, and heterogeneity was assessed.

RESULTS

Seven randomised controlled trials that randomised 605 patients were included in the review. Patients' pain was described as neuropathic cancer pain, cancer bone pain and non-specific cancer pain. Four randomised controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis in which opioid in combination with either gabapentin or pregabalin was compared with opioid monotherapy. The pooled standardised mean difference was 0.16 (95% confidence interval, -0.19, 0.51) showing no significant difference in pain relief between the groups. Adverse events were more frequent in the combination arms. Data on amitriptyline, fluvoxamine and phenytoin were inconclusive.

CONCLUSION

Combining opioid analgesia with gabapentinoids did not significantly improve pain relief in patients with tumour-related cancer pain compared with opioid monotherapy. Due to the heterogeneity of patient samples, benefit in patients with definite neuropathic cancer pain cannot be excluded. Clinicians should balance the small likelihood of benefit in patients with tumour-related cancer pain against the increased risk of adverse effects of combination therapy.

Greater trochanteric pain syndrome and gluteus medius and minimus tendinosis: nonsurgical treatment

Greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) affects 10–25% of people in developed countries. The underlying etiology for GTPS is most commonly the tendinosis or a tendon tear of the gluteus medius, minimus or both at the greater trochanter; the inflammation of the tendon is not a major feature. We critically evaluated conservative treatment, for which we reviewed 76 publications, grading them according to four levels of evidence. We identified a wide variety of conservative treatment options: home therapy (insoles, walking sticks/crutches, orthotic devices, stretching exercises and preventive measures); physiotherapy (massage and stretching exercises); infiltrations (corticosteroids and local anesthetics); image-guided infiltrations (fluoroscopy and ultrasound); shockwave therapy; platelet-rich plasma injection; and drug therapy. Severe complications associated with infiltrations are extremely rare, as are those associated with shockwave therapy. The most effective treatments were infiltrations with corticosteroids and shockwave therapy. We propose a graded treatment schedule for patients with GTPS.

Anticonvulsants or Antidepressants in Combination Pharmacotherapy for Treatment of Neuropathic Pain in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of anticonvulsants or antidepressants in combination pharmacotherapy for treatment of neuropathic pain in cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials that compared anticonvulsants or antidepressants in combination pharmacotherapy (experimental group) with treatments without anticonvulsants or antidepressants (control group) for neuropathic pain in cancer patients. Risk of bias was evaluated in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The primary outcome was a mean difference (MD) in change in global pain analyzed by a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Eight trials met the inclusion criteria with a total of 1359 participants of whom 698 received an experimental intervention. The MD in change in global pain suggested a favorable association with anticonvulsants or antidepressants in combination pharmacotherapy compared with control groups (MD, -0.41; 95% confidence interval, -0.70 to -0.12) with no heterogeneity across trials (I=0%). The MD in change estimated in all sensitivity analyses ranged from -0.36 to -0.47, suggesting that these effects were consistent across different study designs and statistical assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Anticonvulsants or antidepressants in combination pharmacotherapy reduce neuropathic pain in cancer patients compared with treatments without anticonvulsants or antidepressants. Limited evidence precludes a recommendation on specific adjuvants in combination pharmacotherapy.

Living with incurable cancer: what are the rehabilitation needs in a palliative setting?

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of people are living with incurable cancers. Symptoms, side effects, and treatment burdens impact on physical functioning, yet little is known about the impact on people's lives and how best to provide rehabilitation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A qualitative study employing a phenomenological approach explored the lived experience of incurable cancer. A purposive sample of six people participated in semi-structured interviews. The data were analysed thematically at a semantic level to identify the functional difficulties experienced by people living with incurable cancer, the meanings of those difficulties, and participants perceived rehabilitation needs.

RESULTS

People living with incurable cancer described cancer-related issues spanning all five domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Although highly valued amongst study participants, rehabilitation services were difficult to access, poorly utilised, and referrals were sporadic and consequential; indicative of poor awareness of rehabilitation for people with incurable cancer amongst potential referrers.

DISCUSSION

Participants valued a change in terminology away from "palliative" towards more positive language in line with enhanced supportive care movements. Validated tools such as the Palliative Care Therapy Outcome Measure, which align with the ICF, would allow rehabilitation professionals to demonstrate maintenance or improvement in participation and wellbeing. Implications for Rehabilitation Incurable cancer leads to a fluctuating multifactorial disability. People living with incurable cancer can benefit from rehabilitation input throughout their illness. Offering flexible and varied rehabilitation options for people living with incurable cancer will increase physical and emotional well-being, function, and coping. Allied health professionals should take and create opportunities to promote rehabilitation for people living with incurable cancer and their services to other potentially referring healthcare professionals to increase understanding of benefits and utilisation of available services for people living with incurable cancer.

Tapentadol in neuropathic pain cancer patients: a prospective open label study

Many chemotherapy treatments induce peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). These patients often experience neuropathic pain (NP) that reduces the quality of life. The aim of this prospective, open label study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of tapentadol (TP) in patients affected by CIPN. CIPN were consecutively enrolled in a prospective open label study at the Neuro-Oncology Unit of the Regina Elena National Cancer Institute in Rome. During the titration phase, each patient initially received doses of TP 50 mg twice a day. All patients underwent pain intensity (NRS) and DN4. For evaluation of quality of life, patients underwent EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-CIPN2 QLQ-CIPN20. We enrolled 31 patients, 19 were females with a median age of 60 years. After 3 months of treatment with TP, 22 patients completed the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS). Nineteen patients out of 22 showed a response to treatment (86%). We also observed that TP reduced the NRS and DN4 values from baseline to the last visit in a significant way (p < 0.001, respectively). Seven patients (22.5%) discontinued the TP therapy after the first week of occurrence of side effects. Furthermore, we observed that TP improved also the global health status measured by EORT QLQ-C30. TP is well tolerated and efficacy in the treatment of NP. The important reduction of neuropathic pain, the improvement in NRS and QoL scores after therapy with TP makes it a candidate in the management of patients suffering from neuropathic pain of CIPN also as a first line of therapy.

Patient-reported neuropathic pain in adolescent and young adult cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain, a known complication of cancer and its treatments, negatively impacts quality of life. There are limited data using screening tools to aid in the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in cancer patients. Our primary objective was to determine the proportion of adolescent and young adult cancer patients reporting neuropathic pain on a patient-completed, neuropathic pain screening tool.

PROCEDURES

This prospective, cohort study enrolled patients 14-39 years of age who were receiving therapy for primary cancer diagnosis, cancer relapse, or had recently completed treatment. The painDETECT, a patient-completed, neuropathic pain screening tool used down to age 14, was administered a maximum of three times in on-therapy patients and once in off-therapy patients. Provider documentation of neuropathic pain at the corresponding visit was abstracted from the medical record.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight patients participated. Median (interquartile range) age at study enrollment was 18.1 (16-19.4) years and 47% were female. Cancer diagnoses included 41% leukemia, 26% solid tumor, 23% lymphoma, and 10% central nervous system tumor. The proportion of patients reporting neuropathic pain was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI] 16-40%) in on-therapy patients and 11% (95% CI 3-27%) in off-therapy patients. In patients reporting neuropathic pain, only 26% had a clinical diagnosis of neuropathic pain documented in the medical record at the corresponding visit.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuropathic pain occurs in one in four adolescents and young adults receiving cancer therapy. Use of screening tools may increase the detection of neuropathic pain in adolescents and young adults receiving cancer therapy and could ultimately improve pain treatment.

Neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain is caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory system, including peripheral fibres (Aβ, Aδ and C fibres) and central neurons, and affects 7-10% of the general population. Multiple causes of neuropathic pain have been described and its incidence is likely to increase owing to the ageing global population, increased incidence of diabetes mellitus and improved survival from cancer after chemotherapy. Indeed, imbalances between excitatory and inhibitory somatosensory signalling, alterations in ion channels and variability in the way that pain messages are modulated in the central nervous system all have been implicated in neuropathic pain. The burden of chronic neuropathic pain seems to be related to the complexity of neuropathic symptoms, poor outcomes and difficult treatment decisions. Importantly, quality of life is impaired in patients with neuropathic pain owing to increased drug prescriptions and visits to health care providers, as well as the morbidity from the pain itself and the inciting disease. Despite challenges, progress in the understanding of the pathophysiology of neuropathic pain is spurring the development of new diagnostic procedures and personalized interventions, which emphasize the need for a multidisciplinary approach to the management of neuropathic pain.

[Prevalence and management of pain in patients with metastatic cancer in Franche-Comté]

INTRODUCTION

Pain management is a major public health problem, especially in oncology. In order to assess professional practice, the IRFC-FC conducted a survey amongst patients with metastatic osteophilic solid tumor in Franche-Comté. The aims were to assess the pain prevalence, and its characteristics, its management and its impact on patients' quality of life in patients in pain.

METHODS

An observational, prospective and multicenter survey was conducted using a self-report questionnaire. Patients with metastatic breast or prostate cancer managed in 5 day-hospitals of the IRFC-FC over a period of three months were included.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-three questionnaires were analyzed. Pain prevalence rate was 48.5%. Three quarters of patients in pain had chronic background pain, moderate to severe, with or without breakthrough pain. Considering their pain intensity and their analgesic therapy, 42.0% of patients seem to have an inadequate treatment. Eighty-five percent of treated patients reported to be compliant and felt that their pain was well managed despite a strong impact on their quality of life.

CONCLUSION

The setting of a specific clinical pathway is essential to secure the standardized, optimal and efficient management of patients in pain. The assessment of patient satisfaction and quality of life must be integrated in clinical practice to identify patients in pain for which the treatment is inappropriate.

Patient and caregiver perspectives on managing pain in advanced cancer: A qualitative longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in treatment of pain in advanced cancer, it remains a major source of suffering with adverse effects on patients' life quality. There is increasing understanding of its multi-dimensional nature and the variable responsiveness of medication to complex pain. Less clear is how patients and their caregivers respond to and manage pain complexity.

AIM

To explore patients' and carers' experiences of advanced cancer pain and the processes that they engage in to manage pain.

DESIGN

Qualitative study employing face-to-face interviews at two time points and audio diaries. Data were analysed using grounded theory strategies.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Purposive sample of 21 advanced cancer patients and 16 carers from oncology outpatients in a tertiary cancer centre and a hospice.

RESULTS

Three distinct patterns of pain were discerned in patients' accounts, distinguishable in terms of complexity, severity, transiency and degree of perceived control over pain. Pain was dynamic reflecting changes in the disease process, access to and effectiveness of pain relief. For patients and carers, neither pain relief nor expertise in pain management is secured once and for all. The main drivers of help-seeking and action by patients to manage pain were the sensory experiences of pain and meaning attached to it, not beliefs about analgesia.

CONCLUSION

The complex and dynamic nature of pain and how it was understood shaped help-seeking and pain management. Variable effectiveness of pain relief for different pain types were challenging for patients and professionals in achieving relief.

Update on Prevalence of Pain in Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Cancer pain has a severe impact on quality of life and is associated with numerous psychosocial responses. Recent studies suggest that treatment of cancer pain has improved during the last decade.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to examine the present status of pain prevalence and pain severity in patients with cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature published between September 2005 and January 2014 was performed using the databases PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Articles in English or Dutch that reported on the prevalence of cancer pain in an adult population were included. Titles and abstracts were screened by two authors independently, after which full texts were evaluated and assessed on methodological quality. Study details and pain characteristics were extracted from the articles with adequate study quality. Prevalence rates were pooled with meta-analysis; meta-regression was performed to explore determinants of pain prevalence.

RESULTS

Of 4117 titles, 122 studies were selected for the meta-analyses on pain (117 studies, n = 63,533) and pain severity (52 studies, n = 32,261). Pain prevalence rates were 39.3% after curative treatment; 55.0% during anticancer treatment; and 66.4% in advanced, metastatic, or terminal disease. Moderate to severe pain (numerical rating scale score ≥5) was reported by 38.0% of all patients.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased attention on assessment and management, pain continues to be a prevalent symptom in patients with cancer. In the upcoming decade, we need to overcome barriers toward effective pain treatment and develop and implement interventions to optimally manage pain in patients with cancer.

The painDETECT project - far more than a screening tool on neuropathic pain

Background and objectives The painDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q), a simple and reliable screening questionnaire of neuropathic pain, was developed in 2004 in cooperation with the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain. The initial aim was to implement quality management and to improve the situation of neuropathic pain (NeP) patients in Germany. The PD-Q proved immediately successful and was translated into and validated in multiple languages. Subsequently a comprehensive electronic system (PD) comprising various validated questionnaires with regard to pain typical comorbidities, such as function, sleep, mood or anxiety, was implemented Germany wide. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview about the development and validation as well as the application of the PD-Q in various clinical conditions. Methods This overview is based on a literature search on English full-text papers using the term 'painDETECT' in Medline and PubMed covering the time period from 2006 to September 2015, amended with further publications cited in the retrieved publications or provided by the questionnaire developers. Results PD-Q as screening tool for NeP described in patients with lower back pain (8 studies), rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis (10), thoracotomy (2 studies), tumor diseases (4 studies), fibromyalgia (4 studies), diverse musculoskeletal conditions (12 studies) and diverse other conditions (10 studies). In addition, the PD-Q was used in 9 studies that investigated the effect of drugs for the treatment of patients with a NeP component. Conclusion To date more than 300,000 patients were assessed, providing the basis for one of the world's largest datasets for chronic pain. Among others the extensive pool of PD-Q data triggered the idea of subgrouping patients on the basis of their individual sensory profiles which might in the future lead to a stratified treatment approach and ultimately to personalized therapy. Started as a healthcare utilization project in Germany, the PD-Q is nowadays used for clinical and research purposes around the world.

[Prevalence and aetiopathogenesis of neuropathic pain in elderly cancer patients]

The prevalence of neuropathic pain is difficult to estimate as most studies evaluating chronic pain do not differentiate neuropathic from nociceptive pain. There are only a few studies of neuropathic pain in the elderly, specifically in the oncology population. This article is a non-systematic review of the relevant evidence on the prevalence and aetiopathogenesis of neuropathic cancer pain in the elderly.

Pharmacovigilance in hospice/palliative care: net effect of pregabalin for neuropathic pain

INTRODUCTION

Real-world effectiveness of many medications has been poorly researched, including in hospice/palliative care. Directly extrapolating findings from other clinical settings may not yield robust clinical advice. Pharmacovigilance studies provide an opportunity to understand better the net impact of medications. The study aimed to examine immediate and short-term benefits and harms of pregabalin in routine practice for neuropathic pain in hospice/palliative care.

METHODS

A consecutive cohort of 155 patients from 62 centres in 5 countries was started on pregabalin and studied prospectively. Data were collected at three time points: baseline; day 7 (immediate, short-term harms); ad hoc reports of any harms ≤21 days; and day 21 (short-term benefits).

RESULTS

Median dose for 155 patients at day 21 was 150 mg/24 h. Benefits were reported by 61 patients (39%), of whom 11 (7%) experienced complete pain resolution. Harms were reported by 51 (35%) patients at or before 7 days, the most frequent of which were somnolence, fatigue, cognitive disturbance and dizziness. 10 patients (6%) ceased pregabalin due to harms, but 82 patients (53%) were being treated at 21 days. In regression modelling, people with worse baseline pain derived more benefit (OR=8.5 (95% CI 2.5 to 28.68).

CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin delivered benefit to many patients, with 4 of 10 experiencing pain reductions by 21 days. Harms, occurring in 1 in 3 patients, may be difficult to detect in clinical practice, as they mostly involve worsening of symptoms prevalent at baseline.

Intrathecal Ziconotide and Morphine for Pain Relief: A Case Series of Eight Patients with Refractory Cancer Pain, Including Five Cases of Neuropathic Pain

Introduction

Studies have shown that, at low doses and with careful titration, combination therapy with intrathecal ziconotide and morphine results in rapid control of opioid-refractory cancer pain. However, there is a lack of published data regarding the efficacy and safety of intrathecal ziconotide specifically for the treatment of neuropathic cancer pain.

Case series

Case reports of ziconotide intrathecal infusion in eight patients (age 45–71 years; 75% male) with chronic, uncontrolled cancer pain during therapy with intrathecal morphine plus bupivacaine were reviewed. Neuropathic pain was confirmed in five patients. Treatment was initiated with adjunctive ziconotide when pain ≥5 on a visual analog scale persisted in spite of 3 successive 20% dose increases of intrathecal morphine. Ziconotide was initiated at 0.5–1.0 µg/day, with mean increases of 0.5 µg every 4–7 days if required (maximum dose 10 µg/day; mean dose 4.9 µg/day). Pain intensity was reduced in all patients after 3–5 days. Of the eight patients, three died for reasons unrelated to ziconotide, three discontinued treatment due to adverse effects (predominantly psychoneurological disorders), and one patient is still receiving treatment. One patient discontinued ziconotide due to confusion and delirium. Due to continued lack of pain control with intrathecal morphine, intrathecal fentanyl was initiated; however, effective pain relief was not achieved with 1500 µg/day. Ziconotide was restarted and the patient then achieved pain control.

Conclusion

On the basis of our clinical experience, we recommend adding ziconotide to intrathecal opioid-based therapy in cancer patients with neuropathic pain inadequately controlled by intrathecal morphine alone.

Funding

Eisai, Spain.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40120-015-0035-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[Pain therapy in cancer and palliative medicine]

In Germany, approximately half a million people suffer from cancer pain, which is one of the most common first symptoms of tumor disease in 20-40% of the patients. The prevalence increases during the course of the disease to approximately 90% among patients in a palliative care unit. Treatment in the field of cancer pain is often provided by interdisciplinary teams of different pain or palliative care services. Due to the high availability of opioids and also, in European comparison, of a high number of specialized services in hospice and palliative care provision, Germany plays a special role next to Great Britain. There is a great need for the further development of the coordination and networking of these services within Germany, which is regulated by the Hospice and Palliative Act. The cross-sectional curricula QB 13 (palliative medicine) and QB 14 (pain medicine) were implemented in German medical faculties in order to improve integration of cancer pain management into the teaching of medical students. Research in the area of cancer pain addresses clinical topics such as the availability of opioids, but also basic research including genetic variability as a predictor for the efficacy of opioids and the neurobiology of cancer pain.

Symptoms Reported by Head and Neck Cancer Patients during Radiotherapy and Association with Mucosal Ulceration Site and Size: An Observational Study

Background

Self-reported pain and impairment of oral functions varies markedly and often in spite of extensive oral mucositis (OM). The aim of the current study was to appraise how patient-reported debilitation caused by OM is influenced by the extent and possibly location of the OM lesions.

Methods

Patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy were examined before treatment, twice weekly during 6-7 weeks of therapy, and 3-4 weeks after therapy completion. OM signs of 33 participants were evaluated using the Oral Mucositis Assessment Scale (OMAS), while OM symptoms were recorded using Patient-Reported Oral Mucositis Symptom (PROMS)-questionnaires. Changes in OM experience as a function of OM signs was undertaken by comparing the aggregated and individual PROMS scale values at the point of transition of OMAS ulceration scores between 0 to 1, 1 to 2 and 2 to 3, respectively in the nine intra-oral locations designated in the OMAS. ANOVA with pairwise contrasts using the LSD procedure was applied for comparisons of mean changes of PROMS scale values for the participants who experienced an OMAS score of 2 or more during therapy (n=24).

Results

Impairment of eating hard foods was more when the OMAS score for ulceration anywhere in the mouth or in the soft palate changed from 1 to 2, compared to between score 0 and 1 (p=.002 and p=.05) or between score 2 and 3 (p=.001 and p=.02). Mouth pain increased more upon transition of OMAS score anywhere in the mouth from 1 to 2 compared to 0 to 1 (p=.05).

Conclusion

The relationship between patient-reported impairment of oral function and pain caused by OM ulceration is not linear, but rather curvilinear. Our findings should prompt investigators of future interventional trials to consider using a less severe outcome than maximum OM scores as the primary study outcome.

Cancer treatment-related neuropathic pain syndromes--epidemiology and treatment: an update

Cancer treatment-related chronic neuropathic pain (NP) is a pervasive and distressing problem that negatively influences function and quality of life for countless cancer survivors. It occurs because of cancer treatment-induced damage to peripheral and central nervous system structures. NP becomes chronic when pain signal transmission persists, eventually sensitizing neurons in the dorsal horn and other pain-processing regions in the central nervous system. Frequently overlooked, NP due to cancer treatment has been understudied. Consequently, only a few pharmacologic interventions have been shown to be effective based on the results of randomized controlled trials. Future research designed to explore pathophysiologic mechanisms and effective mechanism-targeted interventions is sorely needed.

The Prevalence of Neuropathic Pain in Terminally Ill Patients With Cancer Admitted to a Palliative Care Unit: A Prospective Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of neuropathic pain (NP) in patients with cancer receiving palliative care.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, terminally ill patients with cancer having NP were identified by a pain management clinician using the diagnostic algorithm of NP from the International Association for the Study of Pain on the day of admission.

RESULTS

A total of 220 patients who were hospitalized in the palliative care unit were enrolled in this study. The median survival times were 21.5 days (range, 0-173 days), and 57.7% of patients were male. Among the 220 patients, 41 (18.6%; 95% confidence interval, 13.5%-23.8%) developed NP.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of NP in terminally ill patients with cancer in Japanese palliative care units was 18.6%.

Is an easy and reliable diagnosis of localized neuropathic pain (LNP) possible in general practice? Development of a screening tool based on IASP criteria

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Neuropathic pain (NP) is a common type of chronic pain in which 60% of patients present with localized symptoms. Early diagnosis of NP is often a challenge in primary care. Moreover, so far no standard diagnostic procedure for localized NP (LNP) is available. To help general practitioners, a screening tool was developed and evaluated.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The development of the screening tool was based on the grading system principles for NP proposed by the IASP, focusing on medical history and distribution of painful symptoms and sensory signs. It was tested by 31 general practitioners and evaluated against the NP diagnosis of three pain specialists as reference in a single center prospective study in Spain using a cohort study design including an adult population of chronic pain patients. This design avoids spectrum bias where the spectrum of disease is not correctly reflected in the study population.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

General practitioners rated usefulness, simplicity, and time requirements of the tool. Diagnostic accuracy was expressed by sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values.

RESULTS

General practitioners consecutively screened 2079 chronic pain patients (mean age 60.7 ± 11.1 years, 69.9% female). Using the tool, 394 patients were diagnosed with LNP. Screening including sensory examination took 7 min (median). General practitioners rated the tool as useful (24/31; 77.4%) or very useful (7/31; 22.6%) for diagnosing LNP and facilitating clinical practice (30/31; 96.8%). Under daily practice conditions, sensitivity and specificity of the tool for detecting LNP was 46.7% and 86.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed screening tool was shown to be easy and useful for detecting NP and LNP in chronic pain patients as a fast first assessment tool in primary care, thus facilitating the choice of a topical treatment. LIMITATIONS AND STRENGTHS: The drop-out rate was high but was accounted for by using correction factors in the diagnostic accuracy calculations. A strength is the unselected chronic patient population: spectrum of disease correctly reflects day-to-day clinical practice and is not biased. Diagnostic accuracy of the tool therefore appears to be realistic.

The role of screening tools in diagnosing neuropathic pain

SUMMARY: 

Neuropathic pain affects 6–8% of the general adult population. It is reported by 27% of chronic pain patients and 40% of cancer patients, yet there is no standardized diagnostic test for neuropathic pain. A number of screening tools have been developed based on verbal pain descriptors, with or without limited clinical examination, to identify individuals with neuropathic pain. Over the past decade these neuropathic pain screening tools have been validated in a wide range of pain populations, as well as translated into many languages, to discriminate between neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain. We describe here the five most commonly used neuropathic pain screening tools and discuss current assessment guidelines, the use of screening tools in novel clinical contexts and their potential use in personalized therapy.

Neuropathic cancer pain: What we are dealing with? How to manage it?

Cancer pain is a serious health problem, and imposes a great burden on the lives of patients and their families. Pain can be associated with delay in treatment, denial of treatment, or failure of treatment. If the pain is not treated properly it may impair the quality of life. Neuropathic cancer pain (NCP) is one of the most complex phenomena among cancer pain syndromes. NCP may result from direct damage to nerves due to acute diagnostic/therapeutic interventions. Chronic NCP is the result of treatment complications or malignancy itself. Although the reason for pain is different in NCP and noncancer neuropathic pain, the pathophysiologic mechanisms are similar. Data regarding neuropathic pain are primarily obtained from neuropathic pain studies. Evidence pertaining to NCP is limited. NCP due to chemotherapeutic toxicity is a major problem for physicians. In the past two decades, there have been efforts to standardize NCP treatment in order to provide better medical service. Opioids are the mainstay of cancer pain treatment; however, a new group of therapeutics called coanalgesic drugs has been introduced to pain treatment. These coanalgesics include gabapentinoids (gabapentin, pregabalin), antidepressants (tricyclic antidepressants, duloxetine, and venlafaxine), corticosteroids, bisphosphonates, N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonists, and cannabinoids. Pain can be encountered throughout every step of cancer treatment, and thus all practicing oncologists must be capable of assessing pain, know the possible underlying pathophysiology, and manage it appropriately. The purpose of this review is to discuss neuropathic pain and NCP in detail, the relevance of this topic, clinical features, possible pathology, and treatments of NCP.

Neuropathic pain in patients with sickle cell disease

BACKGROUND

Despite the suggestion of a neuropathic component to sickle cell disease (SCD) pain, there are minimal data on the systematic assessment of neuropathic pain in patients with SCD. Neuropathic pain is defined as pain primarily initiated by dysfunction of the peripheral or central nervous system.

PROCEDURE

In a cross-sectional study, we used the painDETECT questionnaire, a one-page validated neuropathic pain screening tool, to determine the presence of neuropathic pain in patients with SCD and to evaluate the relationship between neuropathic pain, age, and gender. We hypothesized that 20% of patients with SCD will experience neuropathic pain and that neuropathic pain will be associated with older age and female gender. The completed painDETECT questionnaire yields a total score between 0 and 38 (≥ 19 = definite neuropathic pain, 13-18 = probable neuropathic pain, ≤ 12 = no neuropathic pain). Scores ≥ 13 were designated as having evidence of neuropathic pain.

RESULTS

A total of 56 patients participated. Median age was 20.3 years and 77% were female. We found 37% of patients had evidence of neuropathic pain. Age was positively correlated with total score (r = 0.43; P = 0.001) suggesting older patients experience more neuropathic pain. Females had higher mean total scores (13 vs. 8.4; P = 0.04). Significantly more patients with neuropathic pain were taking hydroxyurea (90% vs. 59%; P = 0.015). Despite 37% of patients experiencing neuropathic pain, only 5% were taking a neuropathic pain drug.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuropathic pain exists in SCD. Valid screening tools can identify patients that would benefit from existing and future neuropathic pain therapies and could determine the impact of these therapies.

Determinants of quality of life in patients with skull base chordoma

Object

Skull base chordomas can be managed by surgical intervention and adjuvant radiotherapy. As survival for this disease increases, identification of determinants of quality of life becomes an important focus for guiding comprehensive patient care. In this study the authors sought to measure functional outcome and quality of life in patients with skull base chordomas and to identify determinants of quality of life in these patients.

Methods

The authors carried out an internet-based cross-sectional survey, collecting detailed data for 83 individual patients. Demographic and clinical variables were evaluated. Functional outcomes were determined by Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) and Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE), quality of life was measured using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and depression was assessed using Patient Health Questions–9 (PHQ-9) instrument. Caregiver burden was assessed using the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI). Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify determinants of the physical and mental components of the SF-36.

Results

Patients with skull base chordomas who have undergone surgery and/or radiation treatment had a median KPS score of 90 (range 10–100, IQR 10) and a median GOSE score of 8 (range 2–8, IQR 3). The mean SF-36 Physical Component Summary score (± SD) was 43.6 ± 11.8, the mean Mental Component Summary score was 44.2 ±12.6, and both were significantly lower than norms for the general US population (p < 0.001). The median PHQ-9 score was 5 (range 0–27, IQR 8). A PHQ-9 score of 10 or greater, indicating moderate to severe depression, was observed in 29% of patients. The median ZBI score was 12 (range 0–27, IQR 11), indicating a low burden. Neurological deficit, use of pain medication, and requirement for corticosteroids were found to be associated with worse SF-36 Physical Component Summary score, while higher levels of depression (higher PHQ-9 score) correlated with worse SF-36 Mental Component Summary score.

Conclusions

Patients with skull base chordomas have a lower quality of life than the general US population. The most significant determinants of quality of life in the posttreatment phase in this patient population were neurological deficits (sensory deficit and bowel/bladder dysfunction), pain medication use, corticosteroid use, and levels of depression as scored by PHQ-9.

Cancer-related neuropathic pain in out-patient oncology clinics: a European survey

Background

Although pain is frequently experienced by patients with cancer, it remains under-treated. The primary aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of cancer-related neuropathic pain (CRNP) in patients with chronic pain who attended an outpatient clinic for standard care in Europe (irrespective of the reason or stage of the cancer). The secondary aims of this study were to characterise pain and cancer in patients with CRNP (including treatment) and to evaluate the usefulness of the painDETECT (PD-Q) screening tool to help physicians identify a potential neuropathic component of cancer-related pain.

Methods

An observational, non-interventional, cross-sectional, multi-centre study of adult patients with cancer using patient and physician case report forms (CRFs). Patients with CRNP were identified by physicians’ clinical assessments after examining the completed PD-Q.

Results

A total of 951 patients visiting outpatient clinics across Europe were enrolled in this study between August 2010 and July 2011. Of these, 310 patients (32.60%; 95% confidence interval 29.62, 35.58) were identified as having CRNP. Twenty-nine of 39 (74.4%) physicians who completed the CRF relating to the PD-Q considered it a useful tool to help detect CRNP in daily practice and 28 of 39 (71.8%) indicated that they would use this tool in the future for most or some of their patients. Data from physicians before and after review of the completed PD-Qs showed a shift in clinical opinion (either to positive CRNP diagnosis [yes] or negative CRNP diagnosis [no]) in respect of 142 patients; about half of which (74) were categorised with an initial diagnosis of unknown. Opinions also shifted from a no to a yes diagnosis in 10 patients and from a yes to a no diagnosis in 51 patients.

Conclusions

Approximately one-third of adults with cancer experiencing chronic pain attending outpatient clinics as part of routine care were considered to have CRNP in the opinion of the physicians after considering scores on the PD-Q. While physicians did not consider the PD-Q to be a useful tool for all patients, shifts in diagnosis before and after the use of this tool indicate that it may help physicians identify CRNP, especially where there is initial uncertainty.

Supportive and palliative care for metastatic breast cancer: resource allocations in low- and middle-income countries. A Breast Health Global Initiative 2013 consensus statement

Many women diagnosed with breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) present with advanced-stage disease. While cure is not a realistic outcome, site-specific interventions, supportive care, and palliative care can achieve meaningful outcomes and improve quality of life. As part of the 5th Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) Global Summit, an expert international panel identified thirteen key resource recommendations for supportive and palliative care for metastatic breast cancer. The recommendations are presented in three resource-stratified tables: health system resource allocations, resource allocations for organ-based metastatic breast cancer, and resource allocations for palliative care. These tables illustrate how health systems can provide supportive and palliative care services for patients at a basic level of available resources, and incrementally add services as more resources become available. The health systems table includes health professional education, patient and family education, palliative care models, and diagnostic testing. The metastatic disease management table provides recommendations for supportive care for bone, brain, liver, lung, and skin metastases as well as bowel obstruction. The third table includes the palliative care recommendations: pain management, and psychosocial and spiritual aspects of care. The panel considered pain management a priority at a basic level of resource allocation and emphasized the need for morphine to be easily available in LMICs. Regular pain assessments and the proper use of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions are recommended. Basic-level resources for psychosocial and spiritual aspects of care include health professional and patient and family education, as well as patient support, including community-based peer support.