Cancer pain management and the opioid crisis in America: How to preserve hard-earned gains in improving the quality of cancer pain management

Perceptions of prescription opioids among marginalized patients with hematologic malignancies in the context of the opioid epidemic: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

Opioids are essential for treating pain in hematologic malignancies (HM), yet are heavily stigmatized in the era of the opioid epidemic. Stigma and negative attitudes towards opioids may contribute to poorly managed cancer pain. We aimed to understand patient attitudes towards opioids for HM pain management, particularly among historically marginalized populations.

METHODS

We interviewed a convenience sample of 20 adult patients with HM during outpatient visits at an urban academic medical center. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and qualitatively analyzed using the framework method.

RESULTS

Among 20 participants, 12 were female and half were Black. Median age was 62 (interquartile range = 54-68). HM diagnoses included multiple myeloma (n = 10), leukemia (n = 5), lymphoma (n = 4), and myelofibrosis (n = 1). Eight themes emerged from interviews that seemed to influence HM-related pain self-management, including (1) fear of opioid-related harms, (2) opioid side effects and harms to health, (3) fatalism and stoicism, (4) perceived value of opioids for HM-related pain, (5) low perceived susceptibility to opioid-related harms and externalizing blame, (6) preferences for non-opioid pain management approaches, (7) trust in providers and opioid accessibility, and (8) external sources of pain management support and information.

CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative study demonstrates that fears and stigmatized views of opioids can conflict with marginalized patients' needs to manage debilitating HM-related pain. Negative attitudes towards opioids were shaped by the opioid epidemic and reduced willingness to seek out or use analgesics.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

These findings help expose patient-level barriers to optimal HM pain management, revealing attitudes, and knowledge to be targeted by future pain management interventions in HM.

Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation and Thermal Ablation in Patients with Spinal Metastases

Vertebral augmentation and thermal ablation offer radiologists a robust minimally invasive option for treatment of patients with spinal metastases. Such interventions are commonly combined and have proved safe and effective in the management of selected patients with vertebral metastases with durable treatment effects. Special attention to procedure techniques including choice of vertebral augmentation technique, choice of ablation modality, and thermal protection is essential for improved patient outcomes. This article provides a review of the most recent advances in vertebral augmentation and thermal ablation for the treatment of spinal metastases.

Essentials of Spinal Tumor Ablation

Recent advances in percutaneous minimally invasive thermal ablation and vertebral augmentation provide radiologists with important arsenal for treatment of selected patients with spinal metastases. These interventions have proven to be safe, effective, and durable in treatment of selected patients with vertebral metastases. Attention to procedure techniques, including choice of ablation modality, vertebral augmentation technique, and thermal protection, is essential for improved patient outcomes. A detailed knowledge of such interventions and implementation of procedural safety measures will further heighten radiologists' role in the management of patients with spinal metastases.

Association of Race/Ethnicity, Persistent Poverty, and Opioid Access Among Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer Near the End of Life

BACKGROUND

Social determinants of health (SDoH) can impact access to healthcare. We sought to assess the association between persistent poverty (PP), race/ethnicity, and opioid access among patients with gastrointestinal cancer near the end-of-life (EOL).

METHODS

SEER-Medicare patients with gastric, liver, pancreatic, biliary, colon, and rectal cancer were identified between 2008 and 2016 near EOL, defined as 30 days before death or hospice enrolment. Data were linked with county-level poverty from the American Community Survey and the US Department of Agriculture (2000-2015). Counties were categorized as never high-poverty (NHP), intermittent high-poverty (IHP) and persistent poverty (PP). Trends in opioid prescription fills and daily dosages (morphine milligram equivalents per day) were examined.

RESULTS

Among 48,631 Medicare beneficiaries (liver: n = 6551, 13.5%; pancreas: n = 13,559, 27.9%; gastric: n = 5486, 1.3%; colorectal: n = 23,035, 47.4%), there was a steady decrease in opioid prescriptions near EOL. Black, Asian, Hispanic, and other racial groups had markedly decreased odds of filling an opioid prescription near EOL (Black: OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.79-0.90; Asian: OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79-0.94; Hispanic: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.95; Other: OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.93; all p < 0.05). Even after filling an opioid prescription, this subset of patients received lower daily doses versus White patients (Black: -16.5 percentage points, 95% CI -21.2 to -11.6; Asian: -11.9 percentage points, 95% CI -18.5 to -4.9; Hispanic: -19.1 percentage points, 95%CI -23.5 to -14.6; all p < 0.05). The disparity in opioid access and average daily doses among was attenuated in IHP/PP areas for Asian, Hispanic, and other racial groups, yet exacerbated among Black patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Race/ethnicity-based disparities in EOL pain management persist with SDoH-based variations in EOL opioid use. In particular, PP impacted EOL opioid access and utilization.

Repurposing EGFR Inhibitors for Oral Cancer Pain and Opioid Tolerance

Oral cancer pain remains a significant public health concern. Despite the development of improved treatments, pain continues to be a debilitating clinical feature of the disease, leading to reduced oral mobility and diminished quality of life. Opioids are the gold standard treatment for moderate-to-severe oral cancer pain; however, chronic opioid administration leads to hyperalgesia, tolerance, and dependence. The aim of this review is to present accumulating evidence that epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling, often dysregulated in cancer, is also an emerging signaling pathway critically involved in pain and opioid tolerance. We presented preclinical and clinical data to demonstrate how repurposing EGFR inhibitors typically used for cancer treatment could be an effective pharmacological strategy to treat oral cancer pain and to prevent or delay the development of opioid tolerance. We also propose that EGFR interaction with the µ-opioid receptor and glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor could be two novel downstream mechanisms contributing to pain and morphine tolerance. Most data presented here support that repurposing EGFR inhibitors as non-opioid analgesics in oral cancer pain is promising and warrants further research.

Spine metastases: thermal ablation and augmentation

Substantial advances in percutaneous minimally invasive musculoskeletal oncologic interventions including thermal ablation and vertebral augmentation offer a robust armamentarium for interventional radiologists for management of patients with spinal metastases. Such interventions have proved safe and effective in management of selected patients with vertebral metastases. Special attention to procedure techniques including choice of ablation modality, vertebral augmentation technique, and thermal protection is essential for improved patient outcomes. Familiarity with the described interventions and implementation of procedural safety measures will further enhance the role of radiologists in the management of patients with spinal metastases. This article provides a review of the most recent advances in thermal ablation and vertebral augmentation as well as the role of radiologists for treatment of spinal metastases.

Percutaneous Treatment of Spinal Metastases

Percutaneous image-guided minimally invasive thermal ablation and vertebral augmentation are robust techniques, part of the available armamentarium used by radiologists for the management of patients with spinal metastases. Such interventions have been established to be safe and effective in treatment of selected patients with vertebral metastases. Special attention to procedure techniques including choice of ablation modality, vertebral augmentation technique, and thermal protection is essential for improved patient outcomes.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Opioid Access and Urine Drug Screening Among Older Patients With Poor-Prognosis Cancer Near the End of Life

PURPOSE

To characterize racial and ethnic disparities and trends in opioid access and urine drug screening (UDS) among patients dying of cancer, and to explore potential mechanisms.

METHODS

Among 318,549 non-Hispanic White (White), Black, and Hispanic Medicare decedents older than 65 years with poor-prognosis cancers, we examined 2007-2019 trends in opioid prescription fills and potency (morphine milligram equivalents [MMEs] per day [MMEDs]) near the end of life (EOL), defined as 30 days before death or hospice enrollment. We estimated the effects of race and ethnicity on opioid access, controlling for demographic and clinical factors. Models were further adjusted for socioeconomic factors including dual-eligibility status, community-level deprivation, and rurality. We similarly explored disparities in UDS.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2019, White, Black, and Hispanic decedents experienced steady declines in EOL opioid access and rapid expansion of UDS. Compared with White patients, Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to receive any opioid (Black, -4.3 percentage points, 95% CI, -4.8 to -3.6; Hispanic, -3.6 percentage points, 95% CI, -4.4 to -2.9) and long-acting opioids (Black, -3.1 percentage points, 95% CI, -3.6 to -2.8; Hispanic, -2.2 percentage points, 95% CI, -2.7 to -1.7). They also received lower daily doses (Black, -10.5 MMED, 95% CI, -12.8 to -8.2; Hispanic, -9.1 MMED, 95% CI, -12.1 to -6.1) and lower total doses (Black, -210 MMEs, 95% CI, -293 to -207; Hispanic, -179 MMEs, 95% CI, -217 to -142); Black patients were also more likely to undergo UDS (0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.3 to 0.8). Disparities in EOL opioid access and UDS disproportionately affected Black men. Adjustment for socioeconomic factors did not attenuate the EOL opioid access disparities.

CONCLUSION

There are substantial and persistent racial and ethnic inequities in opioid access among older patients dying of cancer, which are not mediated by socioeconomic variables.

Opioid-prescribing considerations in patients with cancer and substance misuse or substance use disorder: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims to describe factors in the existing literature that may inform opioid-prescribing decisions for patients with a past or present history of cancer and past or present substance misuse or substance use disorder.

INTRODUCTION

Opioids and opioid-related decisions are critical components of cancer care. Most individuals with cancer will experience pain during cancer care, and over half of patients will receive an opioid prescription. Opioid-prescribing decisions require weighing the benefits and harms. The presence of substance misuse or substance use disorder may elevate the risk of opioid-related harms, but there is a lack of consensus on managing patients at this intersection.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review will consider studies that include adult patients with a past or present history of cancer who also have pain and current or historical substance misuse or substance use disorder. The pain may be cancer-related or non-cancer-related. Studies of patients with all types of cancer will be eligible for inclusion, with the exception of non-melanoma skin cancers. Eligible studies will explore factors that inform opioid-prescribing decisions in this patient population.

METHODS

The review will be conducted according to JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Studies written in English since database inception will be included. The databases to be searched include MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase, APA PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies will undergo data extraction by 2 independent reviewers using a data extraction tool created by the authors. A narrative summary will describe study characteristics, population details, and strategies used to determine appropriate pain management in the patient population.

Moxibustion as an Adjuvant Therapy for Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

Pain is one of the most common and feared symptoms among cancer patients. Unrelieved pain denies patients comfort and greatly affects their overall quality of life. Moxibustion is commonly used to manage chronic pain. However, its efficacy on cancer pain remains inconclusive. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of moxibustion for cancer pain.

Methods

We searched seven databases to obtain articles about moxibustion combined with pharmacotherapy for cancer pain published before November 2022. All data extraction was carried out independently by two investigators. RevMan 5.4 software was used for data analysis.

Results

A total of ten trials involving 999 cases were included. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that moxibustion combined with pharmacotherapy was significantly better than drug therapy alone in improving pain relief rate (RR =1.16, 95% CI = [1.04, 1.30], P = 0.01), reducing pain scores (SMD = -1.43, 95% CI = [-2.09, -0.77], P < 0.0001), Shortening the onset of analgesia (MD = -12.07, 95% CI = [-12.91, -11.22], P < 0.00001), prolonging the duration of analgesia (MD = 3.69, 95% CI = [3.21, 4.18], P < 0.00001), and improving quality of life (SMD = 2.48, 95% CI = [0.67, 4.29], P = 0.007). In addition, moxibustion combined with pharmacotherapy can effectively reduce adverse reactions of drugs (RR =0.35, 95% CI = [0.21, 0.57], P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The evidence in this review supports moxibustion as an effective adjuvant therapy for cancer pain management. However, high-quality RCTs are needed to further confirm these findings.

Registration Number

PROSPERO CRD42022370942.

Biological Correlates of the Effects of Auricular Point Acupressure on Pain

BACKGROUND

To identify candidate inflammatory biomarkers for the underlying mechanism of auricular point acupressure (APA) on pain relief and examine the correlations among pain intensity, interference, and inflammatory biomarkers.

DESIGN

This is a secondary data analysis.

METHODS

Data on inflammatory biomarkers collected via blood samples and patient self-reported pain intensity and interference from three pilot studies (chronic low back pain, n = 61; arthralgia related to aromatase inhibitors, n = 20; and chemotherapy-induced neuropathy, n = 15) were integrated and analyzed. This paper reports the results based on within-subject treatment effects (change in scores from pre- to post-APA intervention) for each study group (chronic low back pain, cancer pain), between-group differences (changes in scores from pre- to post-intervention between targeted-point APA [T-APA] and non-targeted-point APA [NT-APA]), and correlations among pain intensity, interference, and biomarkers.

RESULTS

Within-group analysis (the change score from pre- to post-APA) revealed statistically significant changes in three biomarkers: TNF-α (cancer pain in the APA group, p = .03), β-endorphin (back pain in the APA group, p = .04), and IL-2 (back pain in the NT-APA group, p = .002). Based on between-group analysis in patients with chronic low back pain (T-APA vs NT-APA), IL-4 had the largest effect size (0.35), followed by TNF-α (0.29). A strong positive monotonic relationship between IL-1β and IL-2 was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The current findings further support the potential role of inflammatory biomarkers in the analgesic effects of APA. More work is needed to gain a comprehensive understanding of the underlying mechanisms of APA on chronic pain. Because it is simple, inexpensive, and has no negative side effects, APA can be widely disseminated as an alternative to opioids.

Use of Opioids for Adults With Pain From Cancer or Cancer Treatment: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide guidance on the use of opioids to manage pain from cancer or cancer treatment in adults.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature identified systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials of the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics in people with cancer, approaches to opioid initiation and titration, and the prevention and management of opioid adverse events. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2010, to February 17, 2022. American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

The evidence base consisted of 31 systematic reviews and 16 randomized controlled trials. Opioids have primarily been evaluated in patients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain, and they effectively reduce pain in this population, with well-characterized adverse effects. Evidence was limited for several of the questions of interest, and the Expert Panel relied on consensus for these recommendations or noted that no recommendation could be made at this time.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Opioids should be offered to patients with moderate-to-severe pain related to cancer or active cancer treatment unless contraindicated. Opioids should be initiated PRN (as needed) at the lowest possible dose to achieve acceptable analgesia and patient goals, with early assessment and frequent titration. For patients with a substance use disorder, clinicians should collaborate with a palliative care, pain, and/or substance use disorder specialist to determine the optimal approach to pain management. Opioid adverse effects should be monitored, and strategies are provided for prevention and management.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Feasibility and potential effects of breathing exercise for chronic pain management in breast cancer survivors: study protocol of a phase II randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pain is a common symptom significantly affecting the quality of life of breast cancer survivors. Despite the achievement of pharmacological interventions, the barriers associated with this approach such as inaccessibility, misuse and side effects drive research into effective non-pharmacological interventions to improve chronic pain management, quality of life, anxiety and depression. Breathing exercise (BE) can be a promising option, but research evidence is sparse. This pilot study aims to examine the feasibility and preliminary effect of using an evidence-based BE intervention for chronic pain management in breast cancer survivors.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

This study will be a two-parallel-arm, open-labelled, phase II randomised controlled trial with 1:1 allocation. Seventy-two participants will be recruited from a tertiary hospital in China and randomly allocated to either a BE intervention group (n=36) or a control group (n=36). The participants in the intervention group will receive the usual care, a pain information booklet and a 4-week self-administered BE intervention; the participants in the control group will receive the usual care and the pain information booklet only. The assessment will be conducted at three time points: baseline (week 0), immediately after the intervention completion (week 5) and 4 weeks after the intervention completion (week 9). The primary outcomes will be the acceptability and feasibility assessment of the study protocol and methodological procedures. The secondary outcomes will be the effects of BE on pain, quality of life, anxiety and depression in breast cancer survivors. Descriptive statistics will be applied to present the primary outcomes and the Generalised Estimating Equation Model will be utilised to analyse the clinical outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has received ethical approvals from the Human Research Ethics Committee at Charles Darwin University (H21089) and the Clinical Trial Ethics Committee at the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University (KY2022107). Findings from this study will be presented at academic conferences and submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05257876.

Patient outcomes following implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for patients with metastatic spine tumors

BACKGROUND

Metastatic spine tumor surgery consists of palliative operations performed on frail patients with multiple medical comorbidities. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs involve an evidence-based, multidisciplinary approach to improve perioperative outcomes. This study presents clinical outcomes of a metastatic spine tumor ERAS pathway implemented at a tertiary cancer center.

METHODS

The metastatic spine tumor ERAS program launched in April 2019, and data from January 2018 to May 2020 were reviewed. Measured outcomes included the following: hospital length of stay (LOS), time to ambulation, urinary catheter duration, time to resumption of diet, intraoperative fluid intake, estimated blood loss (EBL), and intraoperative and postoperative day 0-5 cumulative opioid use (morphine milligram equivalent [MME]).

RESULTS

A total of 390 patients were included in the final analysis: 177 consecutive patients undergoing metastatic spine tumor surgery enrolled in the ERAS program and 213 consecutive pre-ERAS patients. Although the mean case durations were similar in the ERAS and pre-ERAS cohorts (265 vs. 274 min; p = .22), the ERAS cohort had decreased EBL (157 vs. 215 ml; p = .003), decreased postoperative day 0-5 cumulative mean opioid use (178 vs. 396 MME; p < .0001), earlier ambulation (mean, 34 vs. 57 h; p = .0001), earlier discontinuation of urinary catheters (mean, 36 vs. 56 h; p < .001), and shorter LOS (5.4 vs. 7.5 days; p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a multidisciplinary ERAS program designed for metastatic spine tumor surgery led to improved clinical quality metrics, including shorter hospitalizations and significant reductions in opioid consumption.

Manifestations of Opioid Stigma in Patients With Advanced Cancer: Perspectives From Patients and Their Support Providers

PURPOSE

Stigma surrounding prescription opioids, or opioid stigma, is increasingly recognized as a barrier to effective and guideline-concordant cancer pain management. Patients with advanced cancer report high rates of pain and prescription opioid exposure, yet little is known about how opioid stigma may manifest in this population.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 20 patients with advanced cancer and 11 support providers between March 2020, and May 2021. We took a rigorous inductive, qualitative descriptive approach to characterize how opioid stigma manifests in the lives of patients with advanced cancer.

RESULTS

Patients and their support providers described three primary manifestations of opioid stigma: (1) direct experiences with opioid stigma and discrimination in health care settings (eg, negative, stigmatizing interactions in pharmacies or a pain clinic); (2) concerns about opioid stigma affecting patient care in the future, or anticipated stigma; and (3) opioid-restricting attitudes and behaviors that may reflect internalized stigma and fear of addiction (eg, feelings of guilt).

CONCLUSION

This qualitative study advances our understanding of opioid stigma manifestations in patients with advanced cancer, as well as coping strategies that patients may use to alleviate their unease (eg, minimizing prescription opioid use, changing clinicians, and distancing from perceptions of addiction). In recognition of the costs of undermanaged cancer pain, it is important to consider innovative treatment strategies to address opioid stigma and improve pain management for patients with advanced cancer. Future research should examine opportunities to build an effective, multilevel opioid stigma intervention targeting patients, clinicians, and health care systems.

Practical Considerations for the Use of Cannabis in Cancer Pain Management—What a Medical Oncologist Should Know

Pain is a highly debilitating emotional and sensory experience that significantly affects quality of life (QoL). Numerous chronic conditions, including cancer, are associated with chronic pain. In the setting of malignancy, pain can be a consequence of the tumor itself or of life-saving interventions, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Despite significant pharmacological advances and awareness campaigns, pain remains undertreated in one-third of patients. To date, opioids have been the mainstay of cancer pain management. The problematic side effects and unsatisfactory pain relief of opioids have revived patients’ and physicians’ interest in finding new solutions, including cannabis and cannabinoids. The medical use of cannabis has been prohibited for decades, and it remains in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations. Currently, the legal context for its usage has become more permissive. Various preclinical and observational studies have aimed to prove that cannabinoids could be effective in cancer pain management. However, their clinical utility must be further supported by high-quality clinical trials.

Trends in opioid and non-opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain among privately insured adults in the United States, 2012–2019

Recent clinical guidelines have emphasized non-opioid treatments in lieu of prescription opioids for chronic non-cancer pain, exempting cancer patients from these recommendations. In this study, we determine trends in opioid and non-opioid treatment among privately insured adults with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) or cancer. Using administrative claims data from IBM MarketScan Research Databases, we identified privately-insured adults who were continuously enrolled in insurance for at least one calendar year from 2012 to 2019. We identified individuals with CNCP diagnosis, defined as a diagnosis of arthritis, headache, low back pain, and/or neuropathic pain, and a individuals with cancer diagnosis in a calendar year. Outcomes included receipt of any opioid, non-opioid medication, or non-pharmacologic CNCP therapy and opioid prescribing volume, MME-per-day, and days’ supply. Estimates were regression-adjusted for age, sex, and region. Between 2012 and 2019, the proportion of patients who received any opioid decreased across both groups (CNCP: 49.7 to 30.5%, p<0.01; cancer: 86.0 to 78.7%, p<0.01). Non-opioid pain medication receipt remained steady for individuals with CNCP (66.7 to 66.4%, p<0.01) and increased for individuals with cancer (74.4 to 78.8%, p<0.01), while non-pharmacologic therapy use rose among individuals with CNCP (62.4 to 66.1%, p<0.01). Among those prescribed opioids, there was a decrease in the receipt of at least one prescription with >90 MME/day (CNCP: 13.9% in 2012 to 4.9% in 2019, p<0.01; Cancer: 26.2% to 7.6%, p<0.01); >7 days of supply (CNCP: 56.3% to 30.7%, p <0.01; Cancer: 47.5% to 22.7%, p<0.01), the mean number of opioid prescriptions (CNCP: 5.2 to 3.9, p<0.01; Cancer: 4.0 to 2.7, p<0.01) and mean MME/day (CNCP: 49.9 to 38.0, p<0.01; Cancer: 62.4 to 44.7, p<0.01). Overall, from 2012–2019, opioid prescribing declined for CNCP and cancer, with larger reductions for patients with CNCP. For both groups, reductions in prescribed opioids outpaced increases in non-opioid alternatives.

Cancer pain during an epidemic and a pandemic

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As our global population ages, cancer has become more prevalent. Thankfully, oncologic treatments are highly effective, leading to significantly improved rates of long-term survival. However, many of these therapies are associated with persistent pain syndromes. Clinicians caring for people with cancer must understand how the influence of the current epidemic of opioid misuse and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have complicated cancer pain management. Creative solutions can emerge from this knowledge.

RECENT FINDINGS

Persistent pain due to cancer and its treatment can be managed through multimodal care, although efforts to mitigate the opioid misuse epidemic have created challenges in access to appropriate treatment. Isolation measures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic have limited access to nonpharmacologic therapies, such as physical therapy, and have exacerbated mental health disorders, including anxiety and depression.

SUMMARY

Cancer pain treatment requires more nuanced assessment and treatment decisions as patients live longer. Societal factors multiply existing challenges to cancer pain relief. Research is needed to support safe and effective therapies.

Interventional Palliation of Painful Extraspinal Musculoskeletal Metastases

The musculoskeletal system is commonly involved by metastases, and skeletal-related events such as intractable pain due to direct osseous tumor involvement, pathologic fracture, and neurologic deficits as a result of nerve compression often adversely affect patient's quality of life. There have been substantial advances in percutaneous minimally invasive musculoskeletal oncologic interventions for the management of patients with musculoskeletal metastases including thermal ablations, cementation with or without osseous reinforcement via implants, osteosynthesis, neurolysis, and palliative injections which are progressively incorporated in clinical practice. These interventions are performed, in conjunction with or supplemented by adjuvant radiation therapy, systemic therapy, surgery, or analgesics, to achieve durable pain palliation, local tumor control, or cure. This article reviews minimally invasive percutaneous image-guided musculoskeletal oncologic interventions for the management of patients with extraspinal musculoskeletal metastases.

Patterns and Trends in Receipt of Opioids Among Patients Receiving Treatment for Cancer in a Large Health System

BACKGROUND

Given limited evidence on opioid prescribing among patients receiving treatment for cancer during the ongoing opioid epidemic, our objective was to assess predictors of and trends in opioid receipt during cancer treatment, including how patterns differ by type of cancer.

METHODS

Using cancer registry data, we identified patients with a first lifetime primary diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or lung cancer from 2013 to 2017 who underwent treatment within a large cancer center network. Cancer registry data were linked to electronic health record information on opioid prescriptions. We examined predictors of and trends in receipt of any opioid prescription within 12 months of cancer diagnosis.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients receiving opioids varied by cancer type: breast cancer, 35% (1,996/5,649); colorectal, 37% (776/2,083); lung, 47% (1,259/2,654). In multivariable analysis, opioid use in the year before cancer diagnosis was the factor most strongly associated with receipt of opioids after cancer diagnosis, with 4.90 (95% CI, 4.10-5.86), 5.09 (95% CI, 3.88-6.69), and 3.31 (95% CI, 2.68-4.10) higher odds for breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, respectively. We did not observe a consistent decline in opioid prescribing over time, and trends differed by cancer type.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that prescription of opioids to patients with cancer varies by cancer type and other factors. In particular, patients are more likely to receive opioids after cancer diagnosis if they were previously exposed before diagnosis, suggesting that pain among patients with cancer may commonly include non-cancer-related pain. Heterogeneity and complexity among patients with cancer must be accounted for in developing policies and guidelines aimed at addressing pain management while minimizing the risk of opioid misuse.

Nonopioid drug combinations for cancer pain: a systematic review

Pain is highly prevalent in patients with cancer-nearly 40% report moderate-severe pain, which is commonly treated with opioids. Increasing cancer survivorship, opioid epidemics in some regions of the world, and limited opioid access in other regions have focused attention on nonopioid treatments. Given the limitations of monotherapy, combining nonopioids-such as antiepileptics and antidepressants-have shown promise in noncancer pain. This review seeks to evaluate efficacy of nonopioid combinations for cancer-related pain. Systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were conducted for double-blind, randomized, controlled trials comparing a nonopioid combination with at least one of its components and/or placebo. This search yielded 4 randomized controlled trials, published between 1998 and 2019 involving studies of (1) imipramine + diclofenac; (2) mitoxantrone + prednisone + clodronate; (3) pentoxifylline + tocopherol + clodronate; and (4) duloxetine + pregabalin + opioid. In the first 3 of these trials, trends favouring combination efficacy failed to reach statistical significance. However, in the fourth trial, duloxetine + pregabalin + opioid was superior to pregabalin + opioid. This review illustrates recognition for the need to evaluate nonopioid drug combinations in cancer pain, although few trials have been published to date. Given the growing practice of prescribing more than 1 nonopioid for cancer pain and the need to expand the evidence base for rational combination therapy, more high-quality trials in this area are needed.

Framework for opioid stigma in cancer pain

ABSTRACT

Millions of patients with cancer pain are treated with prescription opioids each year. However, efforts to mitigate the ongoing opioid crisis result in unintended consequences with opioid pain management, including opioid stigma. Emerging research indicates that opioid stigma is problematic in patients with cancer, but few studies have examined contributors to and impacts of opioid stigma in this population. To guide future research in this area, we propose a conceptual framework-the opioid stigma framework (OSF)-with which to understand and improve opioid stigma in patients with cancer pain. Development of the OSF was guided by a literature review of stigma in health-related conditions, adaptation of the existing Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework, a topical review of challenges related to opioid cancer pain management, and author expertise in cancer, pain, and opioid prescribing. The proposed OSF highlights 5 domains: (1) contributors to opioid stigma, or factors that increase the likelihood that a patient will experience opioid stigma; (2) intersecting stigmas, or the convergence of multiple stigmatized identities within a patient; (3) stigma manifestations, or the ways opioid stigma is manifested in patients, clinicians, and the community; (4) proximal outcomes, or the immediate consequences of opioid stigma in patients; and (5) long-term impacts in patients. The OSF provides 2 main avenues to facilitate future research: (1) providing a framework to explore the mechanisms that underlie opioid stigma and its impact on cancer pain management and (2) supporting the development of targeted, tailored interventions to eliminate opioid stigma.

Impacts of an Opioid Safety Initiative on US Veterans Undergoing Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

There is limited research on how the opioid epidemic and consequent risk reduction policies have affected pain management among cancer patients. The purpose of this study was to analyze how the Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) implemented at the Veterans Health Administration affected opioid prescribing patterns and opioid-related toxicity.

METHODS

We performed an interrupted time series analysis of 42 064 opioid-naïve patients treated at the Veterans Health Administration for prostate, lung, breast, and colorectal cancer from 2011 to 2016. Segmented regression was used to evaluate the impact of the OSI on the incidence of any new opioid prescriptions, high-risk prescriptions, persistent use, and pain-related emergency department (ED) visits. We compared the cumulative incidence of adverse opioid events including an opioid-related admission or diagnosis of misuse before and after the OSI. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

The incidence of new opioid prescriptions was 26.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 25.0% to 28.4%) in 2011 and increased to 50.6% (95% CI = 48.3% to 53.0%) by 2013 before OSI implementation (monthly rate of change: +3.3%, 95% CI = 1.3% to 4.2%, P < .001). After the OSI, there was a decrease in the monthly rate of change for new prescriptions (-3.4%, 95% CI = -3.9 to -2.9%, P < .001). The implementation of the OSI was associated with a decrease in the monthly rate of change of concomitant benzodiazepines and opioid prescriptions (-2.5%, 95% CI = -3.2% to -1.8%, P < .001), no statistically significant change in high-dose opioids (-1.2%, 95% CI = -3.2% to 0.9%, P = .26), a decrease in persistent opioid use (-5.7%, 95% CI = -6.8% to -4.7%, P < .001), and an increase in pain-related ED visits (+3.0%, 95% CI = 1.0% to 5.0%, P = .003). The OSI was associated with a decreased incidence of opioid-related admissions (3-year cumulative incidence: 0.9% [95% CI = 0.7% to 1.0%] vs 0.5% [95% CI = 0.4% to 0.6%], P < .001) and no statistically significant change in the incidence of opioid misuse (3-year cumulative incidence: 1.2% [95% CI = 1.0% to 1.3%] vs 1.2% [95% CI = 1.1% to 1.4%], P = .77).

CONCLUSIONS

The OSI was associated with a relative decline in the rate of new, persistent, and certain high-risk opioid prescribing as well as a slight increase in the rate of pain-related ED visits. Further research on patient-centered outcomes is required to optimize opioid prescribing policies for patients with cancer.

OUP accepted manuscript

Aim

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and adverse effects of methadone when used as first-line therapy in patients that are either receiving low doses of opioids or none.

Methods

Patients with advanced cancer were prospectively assessed. Opioid-naive patients (L-group) were started with methadone at 6 mg/day. Patients receiving weak or other opioids in doses of <60 mg/day of OME (H-group) were started with methadone at 9 mg/day. Methadone doses were changed according to the clinical needs to obtain the most favorable balance between analgesia and adverse effects. Edmonton Symptom Asssement Score (ESAS), Memorial Delirium Assessment Score (MDAS), doses of methadone, and the use of adjuvant drugs were recorded before starting the study treatment (T0), 1 week after (T7), 2 weeks after (T14), 1 month after (T30), and 2 months after (T60). Methadone escalation index percent (MEI%) and in mg (MEImg) were calculated at T30 and T60.

Results

Eighty-two patients were assessed. In both groups H and L, there were significant changes in pain and symptom intensity at the different times during the study. Adverse effects as causes of drop-out were minimal. Mean MEImg was 0.09 (SD 0.28) and 0.02 (SD 0.07) at T30 and T60, respectively. MEI% was 1.01 (SD 3.08) and 0.27 (SD 0.86) at T30 and T60, respectively.

Conclusion

Methadone used as a first-line opioid therapy provided good analgesia with limited adverse effects and a minimal opioid-induced tolerance.

A Survey of Knowledge and Barriers of Healthcare Professionals toward Opioid Analgesics in Cancer Pain Management

PURPOSE

Pain is among the most frequent and troubling symptoms in cancer patients. Despite the availability of updated treatment guidelines and effective pharmacological therapies, undertreatment of cancer pain remains a global problem. Opioids are the mainstay analgesics to treat moderate-to-severe cancer pain. The goal of this study was to assess the knowledge and barriers towards opioid analgesics for cancer pain management among healthcare professionals in Oncology Units in Jordan.

METHODS

A structured questionnaire was administered to healthcare professionals (consultant doctors, resident doctors, pharmacists, and nurses) at three Oncology Units in a cross-sectional study design.

RESULTS

A total of 201 healthcare professionals completed the questionnaire. The average age was 34.8 ± 8.1 years (range 23-58) and 49.3% of respondents were nurses. The mean score for the knowledge of opioids was 12.5 ± 3.2 out of 24 points (range 2-20). An acceptable level of knowledge was observed in 50.7% of participants, while 49.3% had poor knowledge. Knowledge items mostly answered incorrectly were related to opioid administration, pharmacology, dosing, adverse events, rotation, and toxicity. Knowledge scores were significantly higher for consultant doctors compared to pharmacists and nurses (p=0.016 and p < 0.001, respectively). Healthcare professionals who handled opioid analgesics had significantly higher mean knowledge scores than those who did not (p=0.012). Linear regression analysis revealed that being a consultant physician has an independent, statistically significant association with higher knowledge scores. Among perceived barriers to using opioids, fear of addiction by patients was the most frequently reported barrier by respondents (79.6%). Other highly recognized barriers were fear of adverse effects by patients (67.2%) and lack of training programs on opioid dosing and monitoring (63.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed major gaps in the knowledge of opioids and pain management among healthcare professionals. There is an urgent need for developing innovative interventions to improve the knowledge of opioid analgesics and the understanding of pain management guidelines among healthcare professionals in Jordan.

Nurses' Perceived Barriers to and Facilitators of Pain Assessment and Management in Critical Care Patients: A Systematic Review

Aim

This review aims to examine nurses’ perceived barriers to and facilitators of pain assessment and management in adult critical care patients.

Background

Pain is one of the worst memories among critically ill patients. However, pain among those patients is still undertreated due to several barriers that impede effective management. Therefore, addressing the perceived barriers and facilitators to pain assessment management among critical care nurses is crucial.

Methods

A systematic search of pain assessment and management in critical care patient-relevant literature from four databases was done, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Results

The barriers and facilitators were categorized into four groups: nurse-related, patient-related, physician-related, and system-related. The most frequently reported barriers in this study included nurses’ lack of knowledge regarding the use of pain assessment tools, patients’ inability to communicate, physicians’ prescription of analgesics being independent of pain scores evaluation, and absence of standardized guidelines and protocols for pain evaluation and control. For the facilitators, the most reported ones include ongoing education and professional training related to pain assessment and management, patients’ ability to self-report pain, effective collaboration between physicians and nurses, and productive discussion of patients’ pain scores during nurse-to-nurse handovers.

Conclusion

Various barriers and facilitators to pain assessment and management were identified and examined in this review. However, future research is still needed to further investigate these barriers and facilitators and examine any other potential associated factors among critical care nurses.

Relevance to Clinical Practice

The findings of our study could help hospital managers in developing continuous education and staff development training programs on assessing and managing pain for critical care patients. Also, our findings could be used to develop an evidence-based standard pain management protocol tailored to effectively assess and promptly treat pain in critical care patients.

Opioids and Breast Cancer Recurrence: A Systematic Review

Breast cancer has the greatest epidemiological impact in women. Opioids represent the most prescribed analgesics, both in surgical time and in immediate postoperative period, as well as in chronic pain management as palliative care. We made a systematic review analyzing the literature's evidence about the safety of opioids in breast cancer treatment, focusing our attention on the link between opioid administration and increased relapses. The research has been conducted using the PubMed database. Preclinical studies, retrospective and prospective clinical studies, review articles and original articles were analyzed. In the literature, there are several preclinical in vitro and in vivo studies, suggesting a possible linkage between opioids administration and progression of cancer disease. Nevertheless, these results are not confirmed by clinical studies. The most recent evidence reassures the safety of opioids during surgical time as analgesic associated with anesthetics drugs, during postoperative period for optimal cancer-related pain management and in chronic use. Currently, there is controversial evidence suggesting a possible impact of opioids on breast cancer progression, but to date, it remains an unresolved issue. Although there is no conclusive evidence, we hope to arouse interest in the scientific community to always ensure the best standards of care for these patients.

Temporal Trends in Opioid Prescribing Patterns Among Oncologists in the Medicare Population

BACKGROUND

In the wake of the US opioid epidemic, there have been efforts to curb opioid prescribing. However, it is unknown whether these efforts have affected prescribing among oncologists, whose patients often require opioids for symptom management. We investigated temporal patterns in opioid prescribing for Medicare beneficiaries among oncologists and nononcologists.

METHODS

We queried the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Part D prescriber dataset for all physicians between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017. We used population-averaged multivariable negative binomial regression to estimate the association between time and per-provider opioid and gabapentinoid prescribing rate, defined as the annual number of drug claims (original prescriptions and refills) per beneficiary, among oncologists and nononcologists on a national and state level.

RESULTS

From 2013 to 2017, the national opioid-prescribing rate declined by 20.7% (P < .001) among oncologists and 22.8% (P < .001) among non oncologists. During this time frame, prescribing of gabapentin increased by 5.9% (P < .001) and 23.1% (P < .001) among oncologists and nononcologists, respectively. Among palliative care providers, opioid prescribe increased by 15.3% (P < .001). During the 5-year period, 43 states experienced a decrease (P < .05) in opioid prescribing among oncologists, and in 5 states, opioid prescribing decreased more among oncologists than nononcologists (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Between 2013 and 2017, the opioid-prescribing rate statistically significantly decreased nationwide among oncologists and nononcologists, respectively. Given similar declines in opioid prescribing among oncologists and nononcologists, there is concern that opioid-prescribing guidelines intended for the noncancer population are being applied inappropriately to patients with cancer and cancer survivors.

Opioid Use Disorder and Overdose in Older Adults With Breast, Colorectal, or Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite high rates of opioid therapy, evidence about the risk of preventable opioid harms among cancer survivors is underdeveloped. Our objective was to estimate the odds of opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose following breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer diagnosis among Medicare beneficiaries.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using 2007-2014 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data for cancer survivors with a first cancer diagnosis of stage 0-III breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer at age 66-89 years between 2008 and 2013. Cancer survivors were matched to up to 2 noncancer controls on age, sex, and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results region. Using Firth logistic regression, we estimated adjusted 1-year odds of OUD or nonfatal opioid overdose associated with a cancer diagnosis. We also estimated adjusted odds of OUD and overdose separately and by cancer stage, prior opioid use, and follow-up time.

RESULTS

Among 69 889 cancer survivors and 125 007 controls, the unadjusted rates of OUD or nonfatal overdose were 25.2, 27.1, 38.9, and 12.4 events per 10 000 patients in the noncancer, breast, colorectal, and prostate samples, respectively. There was no association between cancer and OUD. Colorectal survivors had 2.3 times higher odds of opioid overdose compared with matched controls (adjusted odds ratio = 2.33, 95% confidence interval  = 1.49 to 3.67). Additionally, overdose risk was greater in those with more advanced disease, no prior opioid use, and preexisting mental health conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid overdose was a rare, but statistically significant, outcome following stage II-III colorectal cancer diagnosis, particularly among previously opioid-naïve patients. These patients may require heightened screening and intervention to prevent inadvertent adverse opioid harms.

Bone Metastases: State of the Art in Minimally Invasive Interventional Oncology

Bone is the third most common site involved by cancer metastases, and skeleton-related events such as intractable pain due to direct osseous tumor involvement, pathologic fracture, and neurologic deficits as a consequence of nerve or spinal cord compression often affect patients' functional independence and quality of life unfavorably. The annual medical-economic burden related to bone metastases is a substantial component of the total direct medical cost estimated by the National Institutes of Health. There have been substantial recent advances in percutaneous image-guided minimally invasive musculoskeletal oncologic interventions for the management of patients with osseous metastatic disease. These advances include thermal ablation, cementation with or without osseous reinforcement with implants, osteosynthesis, thermal and chemical neurolyses, and palliative injections, which are progressively incorporated into the management paradigm for such patients. These interventions are performed in conjunction with or are supplemented by adjuvant radiation therapy, systemic therapy, surgery, or analgesic agents to achieve durable pain palliation, local tumor control, or cure, and they provide a robust armamentarium for interventional radiologists to achieve safe and effective treatment in a multidisciplinary setting. In addition, these procedures are shifting the patient management paradigm in modern-era practice. The authors detail the state of the art in minimally invasive percutaneous image-guided musculoskeletal oncologic interventions and the role of radiologists in managing patients with skeletal metastases. ^©RSNA, 2021.

Addressing distress management challenges: Recommendations from the consensus panel of the American Psychosocial Oncology Society and the Association of Oncology Social Work

Distress management (DM) (screening and response) is an essential component of cancer care across the treatment trajectory. Effective DM has many benefits, including improving patients' quality of life; reducing distress, anxiety, and depression; contributing to medical cost offsets; and reducing emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Unfortunately, many distressed patients do not receive needed services. There are several multilevel barriers that represent key challenges to DM and affect its implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as an organizational structure to outline the barriers and facilitators to implementation of DM, including: 1) individual characteristics (individual patient characteristics with a focus on groups who may face unique barriers to distress screening and linkage to services), 2) intervention (unique aspects of DM intervention, including specific challenges in screening and psychosocial intervention, with recommendations for resolving these challenges), 3) processes for implementation of DM (modality and timing of screening, the challenge of triage for urgent needs, and incorporation of patient-reported outcomes and quality measures), 4) organization-inner setting (the context of the clinic, hospital, or health care system); and 5) organization-outer setting (including reimbursement strategies and health-care policy). Specific recommendations for evidence-based strategies and interventions for each of the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research are also included to address barriers and challenges.

US Trends in Opioid Access Among Patients With Poor Prognosis Cancer Near the End-of-Life

PURPOSE

Heightened regulations have decreased opioid prescribing across the United States, yet little is known about trends in opioid access among patients dying of cancer.

METHODS

Among 270,632 Medicare fee-for-service decedents with poor prognosis cancers, we used part D data to examine trends from 2007 to 2017 in opioid prescription fills and opioid potency (morphine milligram equivalents per day [MMED]) near the end-of-life (EOL), defined as the 30 days before death or hospice enrollment. We used administrative claims to evaluate trends in pain-related emergency department (ED) visits near EOL.

RESULTS

Between 2007 and 2017, the proportion of decedents with poor prognosis cancers receiving ≥ 1 opioid prescription near EOL declined 15.5% (relative percent difference [RPD]), from 42.0% (95% CI, 41.4 to 42.7) to 35.5% (95% CI, 34.9 to 36.0) and the proportion receiving ≥ 1 long-acting opioid prescription declined 36.5% (RPD), from 18.1% (95% CI, 17.6 to 18.6) to 11.5% (95% CI, 11.1 to 11.9). Among decedents receiving opioids near EOL, the mean daily dose fell 24.5%, from 85.6 MMED (95% CI, 82.9 to 88.3) to 64.6 (95% CI, 62.7 to 66.6) MMED. Overall, the total amount of opioids prescribed per decedent near EOL (averaged across those who did and did not receive an opioid) fell 38.0%, from 1,075 morphine milligram equivalents per decedent (95% CI, 1,042 to 1,109) to 666 morphine milligram equivalents per decedent (95% CI, 646 to 686). Simultaneously, the proportion of patients with pain-related ED visits increased 50.8% (RPD), from 13.2% (95% CI, 12.7 to 13.6) to 19.9% (95% CI, 19.4 to 20.4). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated similar declines in opioid utilization in the 60 and 90 days before death or hospice, and suggested that trends in opioid access were not confounded by secular trends in hospice utilization.

CONCLUSION

Opioid use among patients dying of cancer has declined substantially from 2007 to 2017. Rising pain-related ED visits suggests that EOL cancer pain management may be worsening.

Chinese Version of the Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale for Cancer Patients Reporting Chronic Pain

Background

Cancer-related chronic pain is reported by many patients during treatment. There are very few Chinese tools for measuring psychological inflexibility caused by cancer pain, particularly with regard to psychological processes that might influence pain severity and function disorder during cancer treatment.

Objective

To culturally adapt the Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS) to Chinese cancer patients experiencing chronic pain, including the determination of psychometric properties of the translated PIPS.

Methods

This cross-sectional study included 2 phases: (1) translation and cultural adaptation and (2) determination of psychometric properties of the translated PIPS. In total, 389 cancer patients with several types of cancer experiencing chronic pain enrolled from May to September 2018 at a tertiary cancer hospital in Yuelu District of Hunan Province, China.

Results

The Chinese PIPS version was semantically equivalent to the original. It had a 2-factor structure with satisfactory content validity (content validity index = 0.78–1.00), convergent and discriminant validity (composite reliability and average variance extracted at 0.41–0.89, P < .001), criterion-related validity (r = 0.54 and 0.41, P < .001), Cronbach’s α coefficients (α = .87), and test-retest reliability (0.9 ≤ r ≤ 0.98).

Conclusions

The Chinese PIPS version has been culturally adapted and has strong psychometric properties. The scale is a psychometrically sound assessment of psychological inflexibility that can be used for future studies of pain and pain management for cancer patients.

Implications for Practice

The study provides a vital tool for the psychological management of cancer patients with chronic pain.

Comparing the Effect of Gabapentin, Ketamine, Dexmedetomidine, and Entonox on Pain Control in Burn Wound Dressing

This study aimed to evaluate differences in the experience of pain, nausea, and vomiting, as well as the hemodynamic parameters including heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) in burn patients across four pain treatment groups-i.e., gabapentin, ketamine, dexmedetomidine, and entonox. In a single blinded randomized comparative study, 25 burn patients with second- or third-degree burns between 20% and 50% of their body surface were assigned to different treatment groups by using block randomization, while keeping the investigator blind to the size of the block. We recorded demographics, the hemodynamics, adverse effects, and pain levels before the treatment and again 5, 10, 15, 30, 60, 120, 240, and 360 minutes postadministration of pain medication (after-treatment). Gabapentin ketamine, dexmedetomidine, and entonox had significant effects in treatment of pain in burn patients. Entonox had the best analgesic effect with the least adverse effects and hemodynamic changes. Gabapentin also had good pain management effects; however, it showed less desirable effects on hemodynamic variables. Entonox caused the least amount of hemodynamic changes and the least adverse reactions, but since the medication is delivered by a facemask it limited its application with our patients. Gabapentin offered good benefits but caused a gradual drop in BP and HR and had some unfavorable reactions. However, since it is administered orally and often is cheaper, it could be considered as the drug of choice.

Cross Disciplinary Role Agreement is Needed When Coordinating Long-Term Opioid Prescribing for Cancer: a Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Cancer pain is highly prevalent and often managed in primary care or by oncology providers in combination with primary care providers.

OBJECTIVES

To understand interdisciplinary provider experiences coordinating opioid pain management for patients with chronic cancer-related pain in a large integrated healthcare system.

DESIGN

Qualitative research.

PARTICIPANTS

We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with interdisciplinary providers in two large academically affiliated VA Medical Centers and their associated community-based outpatient clinics. Participants included primary care providers (PCPs) and oncology-based personnel (OBPs).

APPROACH

We deductively identified 94 examples of care coordination for cancer pain in the 20 interviews. We secondarily used an inductive open coding approach and identified themes through constant comparison coming to research team consensus.

RESULTS

Theme 1: PCPs and OBPs generally believed one provider should handle all opioid prescribing for a specific patient, but did not always agree on who that prescriber should be in the context of cancer pain. Theme 2: There are special circumstances where having multiple prescribers is appropriate (e.g., a pain crisis). Theme 3: A collaborative process to opioid cancer pain management would include real-time communication and negotiation between PCPs and oncology around who will handle opioid prescribing. Theme 4: Providers identified multiple barriers in coordinating cancer pain management across disciplines.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight how real-time negotiation about roles in opioid pain management is needed between interdisciplinary clinicians. Lack of cross-disciplinary role agreement may result in delays in clinically appropriate cancer pain management.

Query mandates in prescription drug monitoring programs reduce opioid use among commercially insured patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs) have been shown to reduce opioid use in the general and noncancer populations. However, evidence of PDMP impacts on patients with cancer remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to examine the impact of PDMP mandates on individual-level opioid use among patients with cancer.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed cancer aged 18-65 years in the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database (IQVIA Inc; nationally representative data of the U.S. commercially insured population in 49 states) between 2013 and 2015. The primary exposure was PDMP rigor (ranked from highest to lowest rigor): provider query + registration, query only, registration only, and unexposed. The study outcomes included (1) prevalent use among all individuals; and among opioid users (2) total days supplied, (3) daily morphine equivalent dose (MED), and (4) cumulative MED.

RESULTS

Of the eligible cohort (n=28,353), 37.5% (10,656) received opioids after a cancer diagnosis. The individuals exposed to these mandates were as follows: query + registration: 3899 (13.8%); query only: 3459 (12.2%); registration only: 2764 (9.7%); and no mandates: 18,231 (64.3%). The PDMP mandates had no effect on prevalent opioid use. Compared with unexposed patients, those subject to query mandates-alone or with registration mandates-experienced 12 fewer opioid days supplied and a lower mean cumulative MED (-662 mg and -702 mg, respectively), P < 0.01. Registration-only mandates were associated with 21 days more (P < 0.01) total days supplied and lower daily MED (1.1 mg; P < 0.05) but had no statistically significant effect on cumulative MED (-46 mg, P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Query mandates are a stronger PDMP tool than registration mandates in reducing opioid days supplied and cumulative MED. Initiatives should target PDMP mandates toward intended patient groups to reduce high-risk opioid use without compromising adequate pain treatment.

Opioid-Sparing Multimodal Analgesia Protocol for Lumpectomy Patients Results in Superior Postoperative Pain Control

Background

We sought to determine if lumpectomy patients who received perioperative opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia reported less pain when compared with those who received traditional opioid-based care.

Study Design

A prospective cohort of patients undergoing lumpectomy who received an opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia protocol [no opioids group (NOP)] was compared with a large cohort of patients who received traditional care [opioids group (OG)]. In-hospital and discharge opioids were compared using oral morphine equivalents (OMEs). Postoperative day one and week one pain scores were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test.

Results

Overall, 1153 patients underwent lumpectomy: 634 patients received the protocol (NOP), and 519 patients did not (OG). Median pain scores were significantly lower in the NOP cohort when compared with the OG cohort the day after surgery (2 vs. 0, p < 0.001) and the week after surgery (1 vs. 0, p < 0.001). NOP patients were significantly less likely to report severe pain (7–10 on a 10-point scale) the day after surgery compared with OG patients (15.7% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.004). Patients in the NOP cohort were discharged with a median of zero OMEs (range 0–150), while patients in the OG were discharged with a median of 90 OMEs (range 0–360; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Implementation of an opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia protocol for lumpectomy patients resulted in superior pain control without a routine opioid prescription. Surgeons can improve their own patients’ outcomes while addressing the larger societal issue of the opioid crisis by adopting similar protocols that decrease the quantity of opioids available for diversion.

Access to Cancer Care Resources in a Federally Qualified Health Center: a Mixed Methods Study to Increase the Understanding of Met and Unmet Needs of Cancer Survivors

Assessing the met and unmet needs of cancer survivors is critical in optimizing access to cancer services especially in underserved populations. The purpose of this study is to expand our understanding of the priority needs for cancer survivorship within racial/ethnic and underserved populations that speak either English or Spanish and seek health care in a federally qualified health center (FQHC). A convergent mixed methods design integrating survey and focus group data was utilized for this study. A total of 17 participants were enrolled in the study. The meta-inferences were drawn by looking across the top ten matched survey and focus group met and unmet needs including psychological, informational, and health system as well as patient care and support. The preferred languages of participants were Spanish 53% (n = 9) and English 47% (n = 8), and the survival breakdown was 65% (n = 11) within 0-5 years with 17.5% (n = 3), 6-10 years and 17.5% (n = 3), and 17.5% (n = 3) > 11 years. The most frequently met needs included health care providers and hospital staff being attentive to their physical and emotional needs and feeling they were treated with respect. Unmet needs were often related to physical and daily living needs such as pain, fatigue, sadness, depression, and not being able to work. Providing a needs-based approach of cancer health services in a FQHC or similar community-based health center is critical to meet the needs of cancer survivors to improve health outcomes and quality of life.

Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Discrepancies in Opioid Prescriptions Among Older Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE

Minority race and lower socioeconomic status are associated with lower rates of opioid prescription and undertreatment of pain in multiple noncancer healthcare settings. It is not known whether these differences in opioid prescribing exist among patients undergoing cancer treatment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This observational cohort study involved 33,872 opioid-naive patients of age > 65 years undergoing definitive cancer treatment. We compared rates of new opioid prescriptions by race or ethnicity and socioeconomic status controlling for differences in baseline patient, cancer, and treatment factors. To evaluate downstream impacts of opioid prescribing and pain management, we also compared rates of persistent opioid use and pain-related emergency department (ED) visits.

RESULTS

Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, the covariate-adjusted odds of receiving an opioid prescription were 24.9% (95% CI, 16.0 to 33.9, P < .001) lower for non-Hispanic Blacks, 115.0% (84.7 to 150.3, P < .001) higher for Asian-Pacific Islanders, and not statistically different for Hispanics (-1.0 to 14.0, P = .06). There was no significant association between race or ethnicity and persistent opioid use or pain-related ED visits. Patients living in a high-poverty area had higher odds (53.9% [25.4 to 88.8, P < .001]) of developing persistent use and having a pain-related ED visit (39.4% [16.4 to 66.9, P < .001]).

CONCLUSION

For older patients with cancer, rates of opioid prescriptions and pain-related outcomes significantly differed by race and area-level poverty. Non-Hispanic Black patients were associated with a significantly decreased likelihood of receiving an opioid prescription. Patients from high-poverty areas were more likely to develop persistent opioid use and have a pain-related ED visit.

Exemptions to state laws regulating opioid prescribing for patients with cancer-related pain: A summary

BACKGROUND

Cancer-related pain is highly prevalent and is commonly treated with prescription opioids. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now encourages conservative opioid prescribing in recognition of potential opioid-related risks. However, CDC guidelines have been misapplied to patients with cancer. Recent laws at the state level reflect the CDC's guidance by limiting opioid prescribing. It is unclear whether states exempt cancer-related pain, which may affect cancer pain management. Thus, the objective of this study was to summarize current state-level opioid prescribing laws and exemptions for patients with cancer.

METHODS

Two study authors reviewed publicly available state records to identify the most recent opioid prescribing laws and cancer-related exemptions. Documents were required to have the force of law and be enacted at the time of the search (November 2020).

RESULTS

Results indicated that 36 states had enacted formal legislation limiting the duration and/or dosage of opioid prescriptions, and this was largely focused on acute pain and/or initial prescriptions. Of these states, 32 (89%) explicitly exempted patients with cancer-related pain from opioid prescribing laws. Exemptions were broadly applied, with few states providing specific guidance for cancer-related pain prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that most states recognize the importance of prescription opioids in cancer-related pain management. However, drafting nuanced and clinically relevant opioid legislation is challenging for a heterogenous population. Additionally, current attempts to regulate opioid prescribing by state law may unintentionally undermine patient-centered approaches to pain management. Additional resources are needed to facilitate clarity at the intersection of opioid-related legislation and clinical management for cancer-related pain.

LAY SUMMARY

In this review of state-level legislation, current limitations on opioid prescribing are summarized and detailed information is provided on exemptions for patients with cancer. The majority of states have enacted specific dosage and/or duration limitations on opioid prescribing while including broad exemptions for cancer-related pain. Cancer-related pain exemptions are important to include, as is consistent with national and professional guidelines (eg, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). However, these exemptions may also unintentionally undermine patient-centered approaches to pain management. Additional resources, including specific guidance for patients with cancer, are needed to facilitate clarity at the intersection of opioid-related legislation and clinical pain management. ​.

Chronic Opioid Therapy in Cancer Survivors at a Specialty Oncology Pain Clinic: Opioid Dosing, Efficacy, and Safety During Five Years of Pain Management

There are limited data regarding long-term safety and efficacy in cancer survivors receiving chronic opioid therapy. With conflicting recommendations on opioid-prescribing practices and lack of available outcome data, this study aimed to provide a longitudinal perspective on opioid prescribing in cancer survivors. A retrospective chart review at a comprehensive cancer care center pain clinic used data from pain clinic provider notes from 2013 to 2018. Inclusion criteria were patients in clinical remission not receiving active chemotherapy or immunotherapy and receiving opioids during the study period. Opioid dosing changes and outcomes between zero and five years were evaluated by standard statistical analysis. Thirty-two patients met inclusion criteria. Solid malignancies were more common than hematologic malignancies (72% vs. 28%). Common pain complaints were related to postsurgical changes (43%), postradiation (32%), and chemotherapy-induced pain syndromes (25%). There were no serious adverse events. One patient exhibited possible aberrant behavior. At the initial visit, the median morphine milligram equivalent per day (MME/day) was 130. Median MME/day at Year 0 (study start) and Year 5 was 135 and 159, respectively (P = 0.475). Functional status was satisfactory in 58% at Year 0 and increased to 91% of patients meeting their functional goals at Year 5. In a carefully monitored group of cancer survivors with persistent pain, chronic opioid therapy was safely managed during extended periods without significant opioid escalation or evidence of serious adverse events including aberrant behaviors. This population benefited when opioid therapy was managed with a focus on function rather than reduction of pain intensity scores.

Postoperative duration of opioid use and acute healthcare services use in cancer patients hospitalized for thoracic surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain control is an important cancer care component. However, opioid consumption has resulted in a surge of adverse events, with thoracic surgery patients having the highest rate of persistent use. The effect of opioid duration post-discharge and the risk of increased acute healthcare use in this population remains unclear.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of non-metastatic cancer patients was assembled from an academic health center in Montreal (Canada). Clinical data linked to administrative claims from the universal healthcare program was used to determine the association between time-varying opioid patterns and emergency department (ED) visits/re-admissions/death 3 months following thoracic surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 610 patients, 77% had at least one opioid dispensed post-discharge. Compared to non-opioid users, <15 days of use was associated with a 42% decreased risk of acute healthcare events, adjusted HR 0.58, 95% CI (0.40-0.85); longer durations were not associated with an increased risk. Compared to short-term use (<15 days), use of >30 days was associated with a 72% increased risk of the outcome, aHR: 1.72, 95% CI (1.01-2.93).

CONCLUSION

There was a variation in the risk of acute healthcare use associated with postsurgical opioid use. Findings from this study may be used to inform postoperative prescribing practices.

This Is a Different Patient Population: Opioid Prescribing Challenges for Patients With Cancer-Related Pain

PURPOSE

Responses to the opioid epidemic in the United States, including efforts to monitor and limit prescriptions for noncancer pain, may be affecting patients with cancer. Oncologists' views on how the opioid epidemic may be influencing treatment of cancer-related pain are not well understood.

METHODS

We conducted a multisite qualitative interview study with 26 oncologists from a mix of urban and rural practices in Western Pennsylvania. The interview guide asked about oncologists' views of and experiences in treating cancer-related pain in the context of the opioid epidemic. A multidisciplinary team conducted thematic analysis of interview transcripts to identify and refine themes related to challenges to safe and effective opioid prescribing for cancer-related pain and recommendations for improvement.

RESULTS

Oncologists described three main challenges: (1) patients who receive opioids for cancer-related pain feel stigmatized by clinicians, pharmacists, and society; (2) patients with cancer-related pain fear becoming addicted, which affects their willingness to accept prescription opioids; and (3) guidelines for safe and effective opioid prescribing are often misinterpreted, leading to access issues. Suggested improvements included educational materials for patients and families, efforts to better inform prescribers and the public about safe and appropriate uses of opioids for cancer-related pain, and additional support from pain and/or palliative care specialists.

CONCLUSION

Challenges to safe and effective opioid prescribing for cancer-related pain include opioid stigma and access barriers. Interventions that address opioid stigma and provide additional resources for clinicians navigating complex opioid prescribing guidelines may help to optimize cancer pain treatment.

Monitoring Equianalgesic Opioid Dosing

This series on palliative care is developed in collaboration with the Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association (HPNA; https://advancingexpertcare.org). The HPNA aims to guide nurses in preventing and relieving suffering and in giving the best possible care to patients and families, regardless of the stage of disease or the need for other therapies. The HPNA offers education, certification, advocacy, leadership, and research.

Cancer pain management in the emergency department: a multicenter prospective observational trial of the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network (CONCERN)

PURPOSE

Many patients with cancer seek care for pain in the emergency department (ED). Prospective research on cancer pain in this setting has historically been insufficient. We conducted this study to describe the reported pain among cancer patients presenting to the ED, how pain is managed, and how pain may be associated with clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter cohort study on adult patients with active cancer presenting to 18 EDs in the USA. We reported pain scores, response to medication, and analgesic utilization. We estimated the associations between pain severity, medication utilization, and the following outcomes: 30-day mortality, 30-day hospital readmission, and ED disposition.

RESULTS

The study population included 1075 participants. Those who received an opioid in the ED were more likely to be admitted to the hospital and were more likely to be readmitted within 30 days (OR 1.4 (95% CI: 1.11, 1.88) and OR 1.56 (95% CI: 1.17, 2.07)), respectively. Severe pain at ED presentation was associated with increased 30-day mortality (OR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.05, 5.02), though this risk was attenuated when adjusting for clinical factors (most notably functional status).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with severe pain had a higher risk of mortality, which was attenuated when correcting for clinical characteristics. Those patients who required opioid analgesics in the ED were more likely to require admission and were more at risk of 30-day hospital readmission. Future efforts should focus on these at-risk groups, who may benefit from additional services including palliative care, hospice, or home-health services.

A Scoping Review of Nursing's Contribution to the Management of Patients with Pain and Opioid Misuse

BACKGROUND

Nursing brings a unique lens to care of patients with pain and opioid misuse.

AIMS

This scoping review describes nursing's contribution to the literature on the management of patients with pain and opioid misuse, generating evidence to guide clinical care.

DESIGN

The scoping review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guideline.

DATA SOURCES

Using combined key terms ("opioid misuse," "pain," "nursing") in systematic searches in PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) electronic databases, snowball technique, and personal knowledge resulted in 108 relevant articles, reports, and websites.

ANALYSIS METHOD

Summative approach to content analysis was used to quantify and describe nursing's contribution to the literature.

RESULTS

Contributions of nurses emerged in the areas of research, clinical practice, policy, and education. The highest number of publications addressed research (50%, 54 of 108), whereas the fewest number of publications involved education (7%, 8 of 108).

CONCLUSION

Results provide a picture of the breadth of expertise and crucial leadership that nurses contribute to influence management of patients with pain and opioid misuse.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

This scoping review indicates the importance of continued support from key stakeholders, including training and interprofessional collaboration opportunities supported by the National Institutes of Health, to sustain nursing's contribution to quality care of patients with pain and opioid misuse. Ultimately, all health care professionals must collaborate to conduct rigorous research and construct evidence-based guidelines to inform policy initiatives and education strategies to solve the complex co-occurring epidemics of pain and opioid misuse.

Managing pain in seriously ill patients with substance use disorders

ABSTRACT

Managing pain can be challenging, especially in patients with serious illnesses and a history of substance use disorders. This article discusses the challenges of addressing pain in these patients and offers perspectives regarding their clinical management.

Palliative Care's Role Managing Cancer Pain During the Opioid Crisis: A Qualitative Study of Patients, Caregivers, and Clinicians

CONTEXT

Patients with cancer face symptoms because of disease and treatment, and pain is common and complex. The opioid crisis may complicate patients' and clinicians' experiences of managing pain in cancer care.

OBJECTIVES

In our study of perceptions and experiences with palliative care (PC) at an outpatient cancer center, we examined communication around symptom management throughout cancer care, and pain and its management emerged as particularly salient. The objective of this article is to describe, from the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and oncology health care professionals, the role of PC in navigating the complicated dynamics of pain management amidst the opioid crisis.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive study with grounded theory components was designed to investigate experiences with and perceptions of specialist PC and symptom management, including pain. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed, and focused coding identified themes related to pain and pain management from all three perspectives.

RESULTS

About 44 patients, caregivers, and non-PC health care professionals completed interviews. Patients with cancer and their caregivers had many concerns about pain management and were specifically concerned about opioid use and stigma. For patients, PC improved pain management and helped to destigmatize appropriate pain management. Oncology clinicians reported that partnering with PC facilitated complex pain management and also provided moral support around difficult opioid recommendations for patients.

CONCLUSION

PC offers the potential to uniquely support both patients and other oncology professionals in optimally navigating the complexity around pain management for cancer care in the midst of the opioid crisis.

Genetic implications in quality palliative care and preventing opioid crisis in cancer-related pain management

The prevalence of cancer-related pain is 64% among patients with metastatic, advanced, or terminal cancer, 59% among patients undergoing anticancer treatment, and 33% among patients who completed curative treatment. According to the World Health Organization cancer pain relief guidelines, opioid analgesics are the mainstay analgesic therapy in addition to conventional first-step analgesics, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen. The indications for strong opioids have recently been expanded to include mild-to-moderate pain in addition to moderate-to-severe pain. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines emphasize that realistic expectations should be weighed against potential serious harm from opioids, rather than relying on the unrealized long-term benefits of these drugs. Therefore, treatment strategies for both cancer-related chronic or acute pain have been unfortunately deviated from opioid analgesics. The barriers hindering adequate cancer-related pain management with opioid analgesics are related to the inadequate knowledge of opioid analgesics (e.g., effective dose, adverse effects, and likelihood of addiction or tolerance). To achieve adequate opioid availability, these barriers should be overcome in a clinically suitable manner. Genetic assessments could play an important role in overcoming challenges in opioid management. To balance the improvement in opioid availability and the prevention of opioid misuse and addiction, the following two considerations concerning opioids and genetic polymorphisms warrant attention: (A) pain severity, opioid sensitivity, and opioid tolerance; and (B) vulnerability to opioid dependence and addiction.