Assessment and classification of cancer breakthrough pain: A systematic literature review

Movement-evoked breakthrough cancer pain despite intrathecal analgesia: a prospective series

BACKGROUND

Intrathecal analgesia (ITA) is a valuable treatment option for intractable cancer-related pain. However, the issue of movement-evoked breakthrough pain (BTP) has not been specifically investigated in the ITA setting. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of ITA on spontaneous resting pain intensity (SRPI), doses of non-ITA opioids, and specifically on movement-evoked pain intensity (MEPI).

METHODS

We prospectively studied 28 consecutive patients who graded SRPI and MEPI on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) at the time of ITA procedure, after 1 week, and after 1 month. Mild pain was defined as NRS ≤ 3 and severe pain as NRS ≥ 7. Concomitant doses of opioids were registered.

RESULTS

After 1 week, no patient had severe SRPI compared with 31% before ITA, and the proportion of patients with mild SRPI had increased from 27% to 76%. Meanwhile, the median daily dose of non-ITA opioids decreased from 575 to 120 mg of oral morphine equivalents. The effect on SRPI and on doses of non-ITA opioids remained essentially unchanged during the study month, but the proportion of patients having severe MEPI did not change significantly: 44% still had severe MEPI after 1 week and 40% after 1 month.

CONCLUSION

Movement-evoked BTP was a major clinical problem throughout the study month despite otherwise successful ITA. Improving the quality of life of patients with intractable cancer-related pain should include developing strategies to better deal with movement-evoked BTP.

Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review

CONTEXT

The use of unidimensional pain scales such as the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), or Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) is recommended for assessment of pain intensity (PI). A literature review of studies specifically comparing the NRS, VRS, and/or VAS for unidimensional self-report of PI was performed as part of the work of the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative on pain assessment.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the use and performance of unidimensional pain scales, with specific emphasis on the NRSs.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed, including citations through April 2010. All abstracts were evaluated by two persons according to specified criteria.

RESULTS

Fifty-four of 239 papers were included. Postoperative PI was most frequently studied; six studies were in cancer. Eight versions of the NRS (NRS-6 to NRS-101) were used in 37 studies; a total of 41 NRSs were tested. Twenty-four different descriptors (15 for the NRSs) were used to anchor the extremes. When compared with the VAS and VRS, NRSs had better compliance in 15 of 19 studies reporting this, and were the recommended tool in 11 studies on the basis of higher compliance rates, better responsiveness and ease of use, and good applicability relative to VAS/VRS. Twenty-nine studies gave no preference. Many studies showed wide distributions of NRS scores within each category of the VRSs. Overall, NRS and VAS scores corresponded, with a few exceptions of systematically higher VAS scores.

CONCLUSION

NRSs are applicable for unidimensional assessment of PI in most settings. Whether the variability in anchors and response options directly influences the numerical scores needs to be empirically tested. This will aid in the work toward a consensus-based, standardized measure.

Cancer pain management-current status

Cancer pain is still one of the most feared entities in cancer and about 75% of these patients require treatment with opioids for severe pain.The cancer pain relief is difficult to manage in patients with episodic or incidental pain, neuropathic pain, substance abuse and with impaired cognitive or communication skills. This non-systematic review article aims to discuss reasons for under treatment, tools of pain assessment, cancer pain and anxiety and possibly carve new approaches for cancer pain management in future. The current status of World Health Organization analgesic ladder has also been reviewed. A thorough literature search was carried out from 1998 to 2010 for current status in cancer pain management in MEDLINE, WHO guidelines and published literature and relevant articles have been included.