The WHO analgesic ladder for cancer pain control, twenty years of use. How much pain relief does one get from using it?

Transcranial direct current stimulation in the management of pain in oncology patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in pain management in subjects with oncologic process.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Several databases were searched in December 2023. Randomized Controlled Trials that evaluated the application of tDCS on pain in adults with oncologic process were selected. Random-effects meta-analysis with 95%CI were used to quantify the change scores in pain between tDCS and control groups.

RESULTS

Six trials with 482 participants were included. There were significant differences in favor of tDCS in pain intensity in surgical oncology patients compared to sham stimulation (p < 0.001). Non-surgical patients showed no significant effect. Meta-regression analysis in this group of patients showed that the timing of the evaluation moderated the effect of tDCS on pain (p= .042), with longer time after tDCS being associated with greater pain reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of a-tDCS for at least 20 min, with a current density higher than 0.057 mA/cm2, applied over M1, left DLPFC, or the insula area, between 2-5 sessions appears to be an effective and safe treatment of pain in surgical oncology patients compared to sham. The tDCS appears to be more effective for high-intensity pain, and in the long term.

The WHO guidelines: the new and the old

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

The original World Health Organisation (WHO) cancer pain guidelines were published in 1986 and used globally. Updated guidance was released in 2018. This review compares the 'old' with the 'new' with a closer look at the relevance of the WHO analgesic ladder in the current climate.

RECENT FINDINGS

The new guidelines provide a more evidence based, rigorously developed document including recommendations relating to radiotherapeutic management. There is a more detailed focus on safe opioid prescribing, opioid stewardship and the importance of integrating pain management expertise early on in the cancer journey. There remains a lack of evidence for certain therapies despite their widespread use particularly in relation to adjuvants. The pitfalls of the original renowned analgesic ladder are highlighted including a recognition that omitting 'step 2' is safe, feasible and cost effective.

SUMMARY

The new guidelines offer more detailed recommendations relevant to clinical practice with a strong focus on safety of opioid prescribing making it relevant in the current climate. The original WHO analgesic ladder is no longer recommended as a strict protocol for cancer pain management.

Assessment of the prevalence of pain, adequacy of pain management and influencing factors in patients undergoing radiotherapy

Pain is prevalent among patients with cancer who are being treated with radiotherapy. However, the prevalence of pain varies across regions, and pain management is affected by several factors. This cross-sectional study aims to determine the prevalence of pain, assess the adequacy of pain management and identify factors affecting pain in patients undergoing radiotherapy. A total of 94 patients were included in the study. The prevalence of pain was determined through the Brief Pain Inventory tool, while the adequacy of pain management was assessed through the Pain Management Index. Demographic, clinical and treatment-related factors were obtained and analysed for association with the presence of pain and the adequacy of pain management. Of the 94 patients, 59 (62.8%) experienced pain while 35 (47.2%) did not. The mean pain intensity score of patients was 3.6 (standard deviation: 2.3). Most patients (67.8%) experienced mild pain with low pain interference (67.8%) on daily functions. Of the 59 patients who experienced pain, 34 (57.6%) had inadequate pain relief while 25 (42.2%) had adequate pain control. Being admitted at the hospital during radiotherapy was significantly associated with adequate pain relief. Use of analgesic was also significantly associated with pain management, with a higher rate of weak and strong opioid use in those with adequately treated pain. In this single-institution study, the prevalence of pain was high. Pain management was inadequate in more than half of the patients experiencing pain. A disparity in the prescription of analgesics, particularly opioids, was observed. Patients with inadequate pain management were less likely to receive opioids, which likely reflects the presence of several barriers that limit its access to patients.

Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Nerve Blocks: A Practical Review for Acute Cancer-Related Pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ultrasound-guided regional techniques, including catheter-based approaches, are a subset of interventional therapies that have gained interest as an option for managing acute cancer-related pain. The authors sought to review the available published evidence and to discuss practical recommendations for expanding access to such therapies.

RECENT FINDINGS

In a MEDLINE/Pubmed search of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks and peripheral nerve catheters for specific anatomic targets, a total of 28 case reports and case series were identified. Included studies described improved analgesia and reduced opioid requirements with highly variable duration of effect. Current level of evidence remains limited. Pain is a symptom that markedly impacts the quality of life of cancer patients and ultrasound-guided regional techniques are a promising therapeutic option albeit with a limited evidence base. Practical recommendations offered for coordinating access to such therapies in the inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient settings may expand interest and facilitate higher quality research.

Availability of and factors related to interventional procedures for refractory pain in patients with cancer: a nationwide survey

Background

Cancer pain may be refractory to standard pharmacological treatment. Interventional procedures are important for quality of analgesia. The aim of the present study was to clarify the availability of four interventional procedures (celiac plexus neurolysis/splanchnic nerve neurolysis, phenol saddle block, epidural analgesia, and intrathecal analgesia), the number of procedures performed by specialists, and their associated factors. In addition, we aimed to establish how familiar home hospice physicians and oncologists are with the different interventional procedures available to manage cancer pain.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey using a self-administered questionnaire was conducted. Subjects were certified pain specialists, interventional radiologists, home hospice physicians, and clinical oncologists.

Results

The numbers of valid responses/mails were 545/1,112 for pain specialists, 554/1,087 for interventional radiology specialists, 144/308 for home hospice physicians, and 412/800 for oncologists. Among pain specialists, depending on intervention, 40.9-75.2% indicated that they perform each procedure by themselves, and 47.5-79.8% had not performed any of the procedures in the past 3 years. Pain specialists had performed the four procedures 4,591 times in the past 3 years. Among interventional radiology specialists, 18.1% indicated that they conduct celiac plexus neurolysis/splanchnic nerve neurolysis by themselves. Interventional radiology specialists had performed celiac plexus neurolysis/splanchnic nerve neurolysis 202 times in the past 3 years. Multivariate analysis revealed that the number of patients seen for cancer pain and the perceived difficulty in gaining experience correlated with the implementation of procedures among pain specialists. Among home hospice physicians and oncologists, depending on intervention, 3.5-27.1% responded that they were unfamiliar with each procedure.

Conclusions

Although pain specialists responded that the implementation of each intervention was possible, the actual number of the interventions used was limited. As interventional procedures are well known, it is important to take measures to ensure that pain specialists and interventional radiology physicians are sufficiently utilized to manage refractory cancer pain.

Cancer Pain Management-New Therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the rapid advance in anti-cancer treatment in recent years, the treatment to cancer-related pain remains largely unchanged. One systemic review has shown that approximately 32% of patient with cancer-related pain were undertreated. While in patients responding to strong opioids, long-term use of opioids will lead to many undesired side effects such as constipation, tolerance, and addiction. The goals of this review are to re visit the current algorism of cancer pain management and bring attention to the emerging interventional pain management techniques.

RECENT FINDINGS

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been successfully used to treat certain types of chronic non-cancer pain with long-term analgesic effect. PNS has also brought some promising results in treating localized cancer-related pain in a pilot study. More studies are needed to advance the novel and safe treatment of cancer-related pain. Incorporating interventional techniques such as PNS properly can optimize the current treatment strategy and improve outcomes.

Extraoral photobiomodulation for prevention of oral and oropharyngeal mucositis in head and neck cancer patients: interim analysis of a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial

Purpose

To assess the safety and efficacy of prophylactic extraoral photobiomodulation (PBM) for the prevention of oral and oropharyngeal mucositis (OM) on clinical outcomes and survival in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OOPSCC).

Methods

OOPSCC patients who received radiotherapy (RT) were prospectively randomized to two groups: prophylactic extraoral PBM and placebo. OM grade (NCI), pain (VAS), analgesia, and anti-inflammatory prescriptions were assessed weekly. Quality of life questionnaires (QoL) were performed at the first and last day of RT. Following RT, participants were evaluated quarterly for oncological outcomes follow-up.

Results

Fifty-five patients met the inclusion criteria. The first occurrence of OM was observed at week 1, for the placebo group (p = 0.014). Later, OM onset and severity was observed for the PBM group, with first occurrence at week 2 (p = 0.009). No difference in severe OM incidence was observed (p > 0.05). Lower mean pain score was noted at week 7 for the PBM group (2.1) compared to placebo group (4.5) (p = 0.009). Less analgesics (week 3; p = 0.009/week 7; p = 0.02) and anti-inflammatory prescription (week 5; p = 0.0346) were observed for the PBM group. Better QoL scores were observed for the PBM group at last day of RT (p = 0.0034). No difference in overall survival among groups was observed in 1 year of follow-up (p = 0.889).

Conclusion

Prophylactic extraoral PBM can delay OM onset, reduce pain, and reduce analgesic and anti-inflammatory prescription requirements. Extraoral PBM was associated with better QoL. There was no evidence of PBM impact on oncological outcomes.

Trial registration

TRN:RBR-4w4swx (date of registration: 01/20/2020).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-021-06625-8.

Neurolytic Splanchnic Nerve Block and Pain Relief, Survival, and Quality of Life in Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Neurolytic splanchnic nerve block is used to manage pancreatic cancer pain. However, its impact on survival and quality of life remains controversial. The authors' primary hypothesis was that pain relief would be better with a nerve block. Secondarily, they hypothesized that analgesic use, survival, and quality of life might be affected.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, parallel-armed trial was conducted in five Chinese centers. Eligible patients suffering from moderate to severe pain conditions were randomly assigned to receive splanchnic nerve block with either absolute alcohol (neurolysis) or normal saline (control). The primary outcome was pain relief measured on a visual analogue scale. Opioid consumption, survival, quality of life, and adverse effects were also documented. Analgesics were managed using a protocol common to all centers. Patients were followed up for 8 months or until death.

RESULTS

Ninety-six patients (48 for each group) were included in the analysis. Pain relief with neurolysis was greater for the first 3 months (largest at the first month; mean difference, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.0]; adjusted P < 0.001) compared with placebo injection. Opioid consumption with neurolysis was lower for the first 5 months (largest at the first month; mean difference, 95.8 [95% CI, 67.4 to 124.1]; adjusted P < 0.001) compared with placebo injection. There was a significant difference in survival (hazard ratio, 1.56 [95% CI, 1.03 to 2.35]; P = 0.036) between groups. A significant reduction in survival in neurolysis was found for stage IV patients (hazard ratio, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.29 to 2.93]; P = 0.001), but not for stage III patients (hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.97]; P = 0.809). No differences in quality of life were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurolytic splanchnic nerve block appears to be an effective option for controlling pain and reducing opioid requirements in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Assessment tools for problematic opioid use in palliative care: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Screening for problematic opioid use is increasingly recommended in patients receiving palliative care.

AIM

To identify tools used to assess for the presence or risk of problematic opioid use in palliative care.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic databases (inception to January 31, 2020), reference lists, and grey literature were searched to find primary studies reporting on adults receiving palliative care and prescription opioids to manage symptoms from advanced cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, or end-stage organ diseases; and included tools to assess for problematic opioid use. There were no restrictions based on study design, location, or language.

RESULTS

We identified 42 observational studies (total 14,431 participants) published between 2009 and 2020 that used questionnaires (n = 32) and urine drug tests (n = 21) to assess for problematic opioid use in palliative care, primarily in US (n = 38) and outpatient palliative care settings (n = 36). The questionnaires were Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE, n = 8), CAGE-Adapted to Include Drugs (CAGE-AID, n = 6), Opioid Risk Tool (n = 9), Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP; n = 3), SOAPP-Revised (n = 2), and SOAPP-Short Form (n = 5). Only two studies' primary objectives were to evaluate a questionnaire's psychometric properties in patients receiving palliative care. There was wide variation in how urine drug tests were incorporated into palliative care; frequency of abnormal urine drug test results ranged from 8.6% to 70%.

CONCLUSION

Given the dearth of studies using tools developed or validated specifically for patients receiving palliative care, further research is needed to inform clinical practice and policy regarding problematic opioid use in palliative care.

Stereotactic Radiofrequency Thalamotomy for Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review

Pain is a common occurrence in patients with cancer, which, in some cases, is not adequately controlled with medical analgesia. Thalamotomy is a treatment option in such circumstances, but synthesis of historical evidence and thalamic stratified data are lacking. We therefore sought to systematically review evidence supporting radiofrequency thalamotomy for intractable cancer pain. This review was performed using multiple electronic databases and a (PICO) patient/problem, intervention, comparison, outcome search with the terms "radiofrequency thalamotomy" and "cancer pain." Of 22 full-text studies assessed for eligibility, 14 were included for review. Articles were excluded in which radiofrequency ablation was not used, chronic implantation was used, or the study did not include patients with cancer pain. Thirteen case series and 1 case report were included. Thalamic targets included ventral posterior, central lateral, dorsomedial, centromedian, centromedian/parafascicular, centromedian and anterior pulvinar, pulvinar, limitans, suprageniculate and posterior nuclei. Patient characteristics, operative methods, lesioning parameters, patient follow-up, and outcomes were variably reported across the studies. Where relevant outcome data were available, 97% of patients experienced initial pain relief and 79% experienced significant lasting relief. Adverse events were typically transient. We conclude that radiofrequency thalamotomy for cancer pain is well tolerated and can produce significant relief from intractable cancer pain. No superiority of thalamic target could be determined.

Salivary alpha-1-antitrypsin and macrophage migration inhibitory factor may be potential prognostic biomarkers for oncologic treatment-induced severe oral mucositis

AIMS

Evaluate the abundance of the selected targets, alpha-1-antitrypsin (A1AT) and macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF), and correlate these findings with the risk of developing severe oral mucositis (OM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients submitted to radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) were assessed. OM grade and pain were evaluated daily during treatment. Two protein targets, A1AT and MIF, were evaluated, using selected reaction monitoring-mass spectrometry (SRM-MS), in whole saliva, collected prior to oncologic treatment. The results obtained from the targeted proteomic analysis were correlated with OM clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients were included, of whom 21 (77.8%) had locally advanced disease (clinical stage III or IV). Most patients (70.4%) received CRT. OM grades 2 (40.8%) and 3 (33.3%) were the most prevalent during RT with a mean highest reported OM-related pain of 3.22 through the visual analogue scale (VAS). The abundance of A1AT and MIF correlated significantly with severe (grades 3 or 4, p < 0.02) compared with moderate-low (grades 1 or 2, p < 0.04) OM grade.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a correlation between the abundance of salivary A1AT and MIF and oncologic treatment-induced OM. The correlation of MIF expression with severe OM appears to be compatible with its physiological pro-inflammatory role. These results open up great possibilities for the use of salivary MIF and A1AT levels as prognostic markers for effective therapeutic interventions, such as photobiomodulation therapy, patient-controlled analgesia, or personalized medicaments.

Solving the deficit of cancer pain management skills by education programs

BACKGROUND

Suboptimal cancer pain management is a worldwide problem. We examined whether an educational program on cancer pain management implemented during training could benefit primary care physicians.

METHODS

We enrolled all the primary care physicians who visited the oncology ward at a medical center for the first time. Educational classes on cancer pain management were conducted. The participants' abilities in cancer pain management were measured in a pretest before the classes and approximately 2 weeks later in the first posttest. The second posttest was conducted on participants who visited the oncology ward again. All 3 tests had the same set of questions and were scored on a scale of 0 to 100.

RESULTS

In total, 247 participants were enrolled. Less than 10% of them considered their previous education on cancer pain management adequate. The test scores increased significantly from the pretest to the first posttest (mean 65.6 vs. 89.7, p < 0.001). The participants' self-reported cancer pain management abilities, on a scale of 0 to 100, also improved significantly (mean 57.8 vs. 75.5, p < 0.001). The pretest scores were not associated with the participants' self-reported abilities or their perceptions about the adequacy of previous training on cancer pain management. The mean score on the second posttest, conducted 234.5 days after the program, on an average, remained similar to that of the first posttest (p = 0.254).

CONCLUSION

A specific educational program on cancer pain management provided to primary care physicians improved their pain management skills substantially, with persistent effects.

Patterns of oral mucositis in advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma patients managed with prophylactic photobiomodulation therapy-insights for future protocol development

To characterize oral sites affected by radiation-induced oral mucositis (OM) and related clinical outcomes in oral cancer patients subjected to prophylactic photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT). This study included advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) patients treated with prophylactic PBMT for OM. The site distribution of OM, OM grading (CTCAE NCI, Version 4.0, 2010), OM-related pain (VAS), analgesic protocol (WHO Analgesic Ladder), and use of enteral nutrition were evaluated weekly during treatment. Data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics expressed as median values and percentages. A total of 145 OSCC patients were included. OM most frequently affected the lateral border of the tongue (44.1%), buccal mucosa (37.2%), and labial mucosa (33.8%). Keratinized oral mucosa sites, including the tongue dorsum (6.21%), retromolar trigone (8.3%), and hard palate (2.76%), were less frequently affected. Peak OM scores were observed at weeks 5, 6, and 7, with severe OM (NCI grades 3 and 4) rates of 11%, 20%, and 25%, respectively. The cumulative occurrence of severe OM was 23%, which developed as early as week 3 and as late as week 7. The highest mean value of OM-related pain (2.7) was observed at the sixth week, and 13.8% of the patients required feeding support. This study showed, compared with studies that did not provide PBMT, reduced severity of mucositis, reduced pain and analgesic use, and reduced tube feeding in patients treated with PBMT. OM involving keratinized and non-keratinized surfaces should be included in the prophylactic PBMT to reduce severe OM in future studies.

Pain Management in Patients with Serious Illness

Managing pain in patients with serious illness can be complex. However, pain is often a prominent symptom in patients with malignant and nonmalignant serious illness and providers have to be adept at balancing effective pain management and safety. Clinicians should start with a standard pain assessment that lays important groundwork for developing a tailored multimodal approach to pain management. It is important to identify physical causes of pain and also existential causes. Opioids are not always appropriate but are still an important tool for managing pain. Basic opioid management and safe practices are essential when managing this population.

Alveolar Osteitis: A Review of Current Concepts

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present review was to explore the pathogenesis and etiology of alveolar osteitis (AO) to obtain a more intuitive understanding of the clinical prevention and management of the condition. The different treatment modalities were discussed through both the mechanistic understanding of AO and the evidence regarding the different modes of prevention and management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Ovid Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register online databases were used to complete an advanced search using the MeSH term "dry socket," generating 756 results.

RESULTS

A total of 8 studies on the prevention of AO were included, with 66 studies included for review of the reported data overall. The information was categorized into incidence, etiology and pathogenesis, prevention, and management. The relevant background information and evidence for each category were summarized.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding of the pathogenesis and etiology of AO has improved in recent years, which has been helpful for developing effective evidence-based treatment and prevention of the condition. Clinicians should be aware of the complexity and multifactorial nature of the etiology of AO and the current concepts regarding the prevention and treatment of AO.

Percutaneous cervical cordotomy for cancer-related pain: national data

Objectives

Percutaneous cervical cordotomy (PCC) is an interventional ablative procedure in the armamentarium for cancer pain treatment, but there is limited evidence to support its use. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of PCC.

Methods

Analysis was undertaken of the first national (UK) prospective data repository of adult patients with cancer undergoing PCC for pain treatment. The relationship between pain and other outcomes before and after PCC was examined using appropriate statistical methods.

Results

Data on 159 patients’ PCCs (performed from 1 January 2012 to 6 June 2017 in three centres) were assessed: median (IQR) age was 66 (58–71) years, 47 (30%) were female. Mesothelioma was the most common primary malignancy (57%). The median (IQR) time from cancer diagnosis to PCC assessment was 13.3 (6.2–23.2) months; PCC to follow-up was 9 (8–25) days; and survival after PCC was 1.3 (0.6–2.8) months. The mean (SD) for ‘average pain’ using a numerical rating scale was 6 (2) before PCC and 2 (2) at follow-up, and for ‘worst pain’ 9 (1) and 3 (3), respectively. The median (IQR) reduction in strong opioid dose at follow-up was 50% (34–50). With the exception of ‘activity’, all health-related quality of life scores (5-level version of EuroQol-5 Dimension) either improved or were stable after PCC. Six patients (4%) had PCC-related adverse events.

Conclusions

PCC is an effective treatment for cancer pain; however, findings in this study suggest PCC referrals tended to be late in patients’ disease trajectories. Further study into earlier treatment and seeking international consensus on PCC outcomes will further enhance opportunities to improve patient care.

Celiac Plexus Neurolysis for the Treatment of Patients with Terminal Cancer at a Tertiary University Hospital in Korea

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) for the treatment of cancerous upper abdominal pain in a tertiary university hospital in Korea.

Methods

At the tertiary university hospital in Korea, electronic medical records of cancer patients who underwent CPN and died in the hospital from November 2009 to June 2018 were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

The total number of subjects was 51. The 17 patients were from the Department of Gastroenterology (33.0%), followed by 11 patients from the Department of Hemato-oncology (21.6%), 11 patients from the Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (21.6%), 9 patients from the Department of General Surgery (17.6%). The diagnosis was pancreatic cancer in 15 patients (29.4%), stomach cancer in 8 patients (15.7%), hepatobiliary cancer in 20 patients (39.2%), colon cancer in 1 patient (2.0%), esophageal cancer in 2 patient (3.9%) and intra-abdominal metastasis in 5 patients (9.8%). The mean survival time after the surgery was 66.4±55.0 days. The pain intensity before and 1 week after the procedure significantly decreased, but the amounts of opioids consumed before and 1 week after the procedure were not statistically significant. Side effects occurred after the procedure including temporary localized pain in 24 patients (47.0%), hypotension in 12 (23.5%), and diarrhea in 6 (11.8%).

Conclusion

CPN is an effective and safe procedure for reducing upper abdominal pain caused by cancer, and it is necessary to perform CPN within the appropriate time by establishing a system of interdepartmental cooperation.

Law, Culture, and Fear: A Qualitative Study of Health Professionals' Perceptions of Narcotic Use Related to Cancer Pain

Studies have shown barriers to appropriate narcotic use in the Middle East have negatively impacted patient outcomes. This study aimed to explore health professionals' perspectives regarding opioid use for cancer patients in Qatar. Eight focus groups were conducted with physicians, pharmacists, and nurses. An eight-question topic guide framed discussions and targeted contextual barriers and cultural beliefs. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was used to identify the following themes: narcotic use process, patient-related factors, and healthcare professional-related factors. Laws and regulations were identified as major barriers to appropriate narcotic access, prescribing, and administration. Government-imposed restrictions on permitted dispensed quantities and associated paperwork impeded continuity of patient care and pain relief. The influence of a patient's culture underpinned patient-related barriers, including fear of addiction and family members discouraging opioid use. Fear of prescribing for patient addiction and accusation of inappropriate prescribing by authorities were identified as health professional-related barriers. Facilitators included patient and provider education, as well as the availability of specialized teams to assess and treat cancer-related pain. Findings show narcotic utilization is not simply influenced by a single factor or subset of factors but by a multitude of factors that can be both independent and interrelated.

Association of Opioid Use in the Week Before Death Among Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer Having Sepsis

Opioid use can induce immunosuppression; however, it is unclear whether opioid use increases infections in patients with advanced cancers. This study assessed the association between opioid use in the week before death and mortality among patients with advanced lung cancer having sepsis. Data on opioid usage in the week before death, general information, and clinical information of the patients were collected retrospectively. The primary outcome was the association between opioid use in the week before death and mortality after sepsis. The study included 980 patients who died of advanced lung cancer between January 2003 and June 2017 (sepsis related: 413, unrelated to sepsis: 567). The average morphine equivalent daily dose in the final week was higher in the sepsis group (313.5 ± 510.5 mg) than in the nonsepsis group (125.2 ± 246.9 mg, P < .001). A significant association was found between the average morphine equivalent daily dose in the final week and mortality due to sepsis (odds ratio: 1.02, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.02, P < .001). This was especially evident when the dose was increased by 10 mg in the final week. Furthermore, older age, male sex, and a lower body mass index were associated with an increased risk of mortality after developing sepsis. Opioid use in the week before death may be associated with mortality for patients with advanced lung cancer having sepsis.

Interventional anesthesia and palliative care collaboration to manage cancer pain: a narrative review

Pain is a common symptom associated with advanced cancer. An estimated 66.4% of people with advanced cancer experience pain from their disease or treatment. Pain management is an essential component of palliative care. Opioids and adjuvant therapies are the mainstay of cancer pain management. Nevertheless, a proportion of patients may experience complex pain that is not responsive to conventional analgesia. Interventional analgesia procedures may be appropriate and necessary to manage complex, cancer-related pain. This narrative review uses a theoretical case to highlight core principles of palliative care and interventional anesthesia, and the importance of collaborative, interdisciplinary care. An overview and discussion of pragmatic considerations of peripheral nervous system interventional analgesic procedures and neuraxial analgesia infusions are provided.

Young head and neck cancer patients are at increased risk of developing oral mucositis and trismus

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate cancer treatment-related toxicities in young head and neck cancer (HNC) patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 44 patients were included in the present retrospective cohort study, which was designed to access oral toxicities of cancer treatment in young (< 45 years of age, Group I, n = 22) and old (> 58 years of age, Group II, n = 22) HNC patients with similar tumor stage and treatment protocols. Oral mucositis (OM), xerostomia, dysphagia, dysgeusia, trismus, and radiodermatitis were assessed during days 7th, 21st, and 35th of head and neck radiotherapy (HNRT) according to previously validated scales (World Health Organization criteria and the National Cancer Institute and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0).

RESULTS

Patients from both groups showed high incidence and severity of oral toxicities by the end of the HNRT with OM (81.9% (Group I); 63.6% (Group II)) and xerostomia (72.6% (Group I); 77.2% (Group II)) being the most prevalent toxicities. No differences regarding xerostomia, dysphagia, dysgeusia, and radiodermatitis incidences or severity could be observed between groups. However, higher incidences and severity of OM at 21st and 35th fractions (odds ratio = 2.22 and 5.71, respectively) and trismus at 21st and 35th fractions (odds ratio = 6.17 and 14.5, respectively) were observed throughout the treatment in young patients when compared to older patients (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Young HNC patients are more affected by cancer treatment-related OM and trismus despite the similarities in clinical staging and treatment protocols with elderly patients.

Indian Society for Study of Pain, Cancer Pain Special Interest Group Guidelines on Pharmacological Management of Cancer Pain (Part I)

The Indian Society for Study of Pain (ISSP), Cancer Pain Special Interest Group guidelines on pharmacological management of cancer pain in adults provides a structured, step-wise approach which will help to improve the management of cancer pain and to provide the patients with a minimally acceptable quality of life. The guidelines have been developed based on the available literature and evidence, to suit the needs, patient population, and situations in India. A questionnaire based on the key elements of each sub drafts addressing certain inconclusive areas where evidence was lacking, was made available on the ISSP website, and circulated by E-mail to all the ISSP and Indian Association of Palliative Care (IAPC) members. We recommend that analgesics for cancer pain management should follow the World Health Organization three-step analgesic ladder appropriate for the severity of pain. The use of paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with opioids for mild-to-moderate pain should be used. For mild-to-moderate pain, weak opioids such as tramadol, tapentadol, and codeine can be given in combination with nonopioid analgesics. We recommend morphine as the opioid of first choice for moderate-to-severe cancer pain.

Dying With Unrelieved Pain-Prescription of Opioids Is Not Enough

CONTEXT

Fear of pain resonates with most people, in particular, in relation to dying. Despite this, there are still people dying with unrelieved pain.

OBJECTIVES

We quantified the risk, and investigated risk factors, for dying with unrelieved pain in a nationwide observational cohort study.

METHODS

Using data from Swedish Register of Palliative Care, we analyzed 161,762 expected deaths during 2011-2015. The investigated risk factors included cause of death, place of death, absence of an end-of-life (EoL) conversation, and lack of contact with pain management expertise. Modified Poisson regression models were fitted to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dying with unrelieved pain.

RESULTS

Unrelieved pain during the final week of life was reported for 25% of the patients with pain, despite prescription of opioids PRN in 97% of cases. Unrelieved pain was common both among patients dying of cancer and of nonmalignant chronic diseases. Statistically significant risk factors for unrelieved pain included hospital death (RR = 1.84, 95% CI 1.79-1.88) compared with dying in specialist palliative care, absence of an EoL conversation (RR = 1.42, 95% CI 1.38-1.45), and dying of cancer in the bones (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.08-1.18) or lung (RR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.13) compared with nonmalignant causes.

CONCLUSION

Despite almost complete prescription of opioids PRN for patients with pain, patients die with unrelieved pain. Health care providers, hospitals in particular, need to focus more on pain in dying patients. An EoL conversation is one achievable intervention.

Towards an Effective and Safe Treatment of Inflammatory Pain: A Delphi-Guided Expert Consensus

OBJECTIVE

The clinical management of inflammatory pain requires an optimal balance between effective analgesia and associated safety risks. To date, mechanisms associated with inflammatory pain are not completely understood because of their complex nature and the involvement of both peripheral and central mechanisms. This Expert Consensus document is intended to update clinicians about evolving areas of clinical practice and/or available treatment options for the management of patients with inflammatory pain.

METHOD

An international group of experts in pain management covering the pharmacology, neurology and rheumatology fields carried out an independent qualitative systematic literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

RESULTS

Existing guidelines for pain management provide recommendations that do not satisfactorily address the complex nature of pain. To achieve optimal outcomes, drug choices should be individualized to guarantee the best match between the characteristics of the patient and the properties of the medication. NSAIDs represent an important prescribing choice in the management of inflammatory pain, and the recent results on paracetamol question its appropriate use in clinical practice, raising the need for re-evaluation of the recommendations in the clinical practice guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing clinicians' knowledge of the available pharmacologic options to treat different pain mechanisms offers the potential for safe, individualized treatment decisions. We hope that it will help implement the needed changes in the management of inflammatory pain by providing the best strategies and new insights to achieve the ultimate goal of managing the disease and obtaining optimal benefits for patients.

FUNDING

Dompé Farmaceutici SPA and Paolo Procacci Foundation.

Minimally Invasive Cordotomy for Refractory Cancer Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Up to 30% of patients with cancer continue to suffer from pain despite aggressive supportive care. The present study aimed to determine whether cordotomy can improve cancer pain refractory to interdisciplinary palliative care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, we recruited patients with refractory unilateral somatic pain, defined as a pain intensity (PI) ≥4, after more than three palliative care evaluations. Patients were randomized to percutaneous computed tomography-guided cordotomy or continued interdisciplinary palliative care. The primary outcome was 33% improvement in PI at 1 week after cordotomy or study enrollment as measured by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients were enrolled (nine female, median age 58 years). Six of seven patients (85.7%) randomized to cordotomy experienced >33% reduction in PI (median preprocedure PI = 7, range 6-10; 1 week after cordotomy median PI = 1, range 0-6; p = .022). Zero of nine patients randomized to palliative care achieved a 33% reduction in PI. Seven patients (77.8%) randomized to palliative care elected to undergo cordotomy after 1 week. All of these patients experienced >33% reduction in PI (median preprocedure PI = 8, range 4-10; 1 week after cordotomy median PI = 0, range 0-1; p = .022). No patients were withdrawn from the study because of adverse effects of the intervention.

CONCLUSION

These data support the use of cordotomy for pain refractory to optimal palliative care. The findings of this study justify a large-scale randomized controlled trial of percutaneous cordotomy.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This prospective clinical trial was designed to determine the improvement in pain intensity in patients randomized to either undergo cordotomy or comprehensive palliative care for medically refractory cancer pain. This study shows that cordotomy is effective in reducing pain for medically refractory cancer pain, and these results can be used to design a large-scale comparative randomized controlled trial that could provide the evidence needed to include cordotomy as a treatment modality in the guidelines for cancer pain management.

Pharmacist educational interventions for cancer pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Educational interventions by pharmacists for patients with cancer pain aim to improve pain management, but little is known about the different components of interventions and their effectiveness. Our aim was to assess the benefit of pharmacist delivered educational interventions for patients with cancer pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental trials testing pharmacist delivered educational interventions for cancer pain was carried out to identify the components of interventions and effectiveness at improving pain-related outcomes for patients with cancer. A literature review was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA, Web of Science and CENTRAL from inception until January 2018 searching for educational interventions involving a pharmacist for patients with cancer pain. Four studies were included involving 944 patients. Meta-analysis was carried out where possible.

KEY FINDINGS

Meta-analysis of three of the four studies found that mean pain intensity in the intervention group was reduced by 0.76 on a 0-10 scale (95% confidence interval), although only two of the studies used validated measures of pain. Improvements in knowledge, side effects and patient satisfaction were seen although with less reliable measures.

SUMMARY

Pharmacist educational interventions for patients with cancer pain have been found to show promise in reducing pain intensity. Studies were few and of varying quality. Further, good quality studies should be carried out in this area and these should be comprehensively reported. Trials measuring patient self-efficacy and patient satisfaction are needed before the impact of the pharmacist delivered interventions on these outcomes can be established.

Association Between Opioid Use and Survival Time in Patients With Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: 10 Years of Clinical Experience

OBJECTIVES

Patients with pancreatic cancer generally experience increasing pain as their disease progresses, making the titration of opioids difficult. This study aimed to determine a correlation between prescribed opioid doses and survival time in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective observational cohort study in a tertiary care institution reviewed the medical records of patients diagnosed with unresectable pancreatic cancer and treated over a 10-year period.

RESULTS

We screened 1152 patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer, and 566 were eligible for inclusion in this study. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between initial opioid dose and survival time from initial opioid dose (correlation coefficient, -0.184; P < 0.01) and survival time from initial pancreatic cancer diagnosis (correlation coefficient, -0.177; P < 0.01). In addition, there were 0.8% and 0.6% increases in initial opioid dosage (morphine equivalent daily dose) and rate of increasing opioid dose (morphine equivalent daily dose per month), respectively, associated with the risk of early death (≤180 days, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Correlations between patient survival, initial opioid dose, final opioid dose, and the rate of increase of opioid dosage could provide useful information for clinicians treating unresectable pancreatic cancer patients.

Long-term low-dose morphine for patients with moderate cancer pain is predominant factor effecting clinically meaningful pain reduction

PURPOSE

Patients with cancer often experience pain that affects their daily activities and quality of life. The analgesic ladder recommended by the World Health Organization has proved insufficient for many, and its scientific basis has been questioned. This retrospective study investigated factors related to adherence to long-term opioid therapy for patients with moderate cancer pain, including an evaluation of low-dose morphine relative to tramadol.

METHODS

Clinical data were collected of patients with moderate cancer pain (n = 353) who received either low-dose morphine or tramadol and were followed for ≥ 27 weeks. Factors related to regime adherence were investigated, including the analgesia type, cancer therapy (antitumor therapy or palliative care), pain type (nociceptive, neuropathic, or mixed), and living distance to the hospital. Factors related to clinically meaningful pain reduction (≥ 30% reduction in pain from baseline) were also investigated.

RESULTS

Patients taking tramadol, receiving antitumor therapy, experiencing neuropathic pain, and living far from the hospital were more likely to change analgesic strategy compared with, respectively, patients receiving low-dose morphine, palliative care, experiencing nociceptive pain, and living nearby. Factors that increased the likelihood of adherence to the analgesic regime were also associated with the likelihood of clinically meaningful pain reduction. Among adverse effects, a significantly higher percentage of patients experienced constipation in the tramadol group compared with those given morphine.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with moderate cancer pain, long-term low-dose morphine was safe and more effective than tramadol for clinically meaningful pain reduction, and patients were less likely to change the analgesic strategy.

A survey of perceptions, attitudes, knowledge and practices of medical oncologists about cancer pain management in Spain

PURPOSE

To monitor oncologists' perspective on cancer pain management.

METHODS

An anonymized survey was conducted in two waves. First, over a convenience sample of oncologists known to be particularly concerned with the management of pain. Second, using a random sample of oncologists.

RESULTS

In total, 73 and 82 oncologists participated in the first and second wave, respectively. Many oncologists reported to have good knowledge of analgesic drugs (95.9%), the mechanism of action of opioids (79.5%), and good skills to manage opioid-related bowel dysfunction (76.7%). Appropriate adjustment of background medication to manage breakthrough pain was reported by 95.5% of oncologists. Additionally, 87.7% (68.3% in the second wave, p = 0.035) of oncologists reported suitable opioid titration practices, and 90.4% reported to use co-adjuvant medications for neuropathic pain confidently. On the other hand, just 9.6% of oncologists participated in multidisciplinary pain management teams, and merely 30.3 and 27.1% reported to routinely collaborate with the Pain Clinics or involve other staff, respectively. Only 26.4% of the oncologists of the second wave gave priority to pain pathophysiology to decide therapies, and up to 75.6% reported difficulties in treating neuropathic pain. Significantly less oncologists of the second wave (82.9 vs. 94.5%, p = 0.001) used opioid rotation routinely.

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike in previous surveys, medical oncologists reported in general good knowledge and few perceived limitations and barriers for pain management. However, multi-disciplinary management and collaboration with other specialists are still uncommon. Oncologists' commitment to optimize pain management seems important to improve and maintain good practices.

Ultrasound-Guided Real-Time Pterygopalatine Block for Analgesia in an Oral Cancer Patient

Oral cancers are one of the most common cancers in India. These patients have pain during the course of the disease. Various drugs including opioid and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug have been used to manage pain. However, these are associated with side effects such as constipation and vomiting. An early interventional block may decrease the requirement for analgesics and improve the overall quality of life. We describe a case of oral carcinoma successfully managed with ultrasound-guided pterygopalatine block.

Celiac Plexus Block and Neurolysis in the Management of Chronic Upper Abdominal Pain

Chronic upper abdominal pain occurs as a complication of various malignant and benign diseases including pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis, and when present may contribute to lower quality of life and higher mortality. Though various pain management strategies are available as part of a multimodal approach, they are often incompletely effective and accompanied by side effects. Pain originating in upper abdominal viscera is transmitted through the celiac plexus, which is an autonomic plexus located in the retroperitoneum at the root of the celiac trunk. Direct intervention at the level of the plexus, referred to as celiac plexus block or neurolysis depending on the injectate, is a minimally invasive therapeutic strategy which has been demonstrated to decrease pain, improve function, and reduce opiate dependence. Various percutaneous techniques have been reported, but, with appropriate preprocedural planning, use of image guidance (usually computed tomography), and postprocedural care, the frequency and severity of complications is low and the success rate high regardless of approach. The main benefit of the intervention may be in reduced opiate dependence and opiate-associated side effects, which in turn improves quality of life. Celiac plexus block and neurolysis are safe and effective treatments for chronic upper abdominal pain and should be considered early in patients experiencing such symptoms.

Tramadol prescription patterns in patients followed by general practitioners and orthopedists in Germany in the year 2015

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to analyze tramadol prescription patterns in acute pain patients followed by general practitioners and orthopedists in Germany.

METHODS

This study included patients ≥18 years diagnosed with acute pain who received at least one tramadol prescription each in one of 1,129 general or 179 orthopedic practices in Germany between January and December 2015 (index date). Patients were excluded if they had received a prescription for another analgesic in the year prior to the index date, had a follow-up of less than 15 months after the index date, or were prescribed tramadol for a period of more than three months. The main outcome of this retrospective study was the share of patients receiving tramadol in combination therapy. Combination therapy was defined as the prescription of tramadol in conjunction with at least one other analgesic during the same medical visit.

RESULTS

The present study included a total of 8,766 individuals. Overall, 1,492 (22.0%) of tramadol patients seen by general practitioners and 370 (18.7%) of those seen by orthopedists received tramadol in combination with other analgesics. Although this proportion was similar throughout the different subgroups in orthopedic practices, it was considerably higher in patients >80 years and in those with private health insurance coverage in general practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one of five tramadol patients was prescribed tramadol in combination therapy. Further research is needed to gain a better understanding of the demographic and clinical factors that have an effect on tramadol prescription patterns in Germany.

The Influence of Physical and Psychosocial Factors on Disruptive Pain Among Seriously Ill Home Care Patients

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the prevalence and correlates of disruptive pain in a sample of seriously ill home care patients in the Canadian province of Ontario.

METHODS

The design was a cross-sectional analysis of secondary data from 2757 patients aged 65+.

RESULTS

Overall, 69.0% (n = 1902) had any level of pain and 41.6% (n = 1146) indicated that their pain disrupted their usual activities. In the univariate analysis of demographics, the risk of disruptive pain decreased significantly with increasing age ( P < .0001) and was significantly less common among men ( P = .0015). Multivariate analysis showed that unsteady gait (relative risk [RR] = 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.59), arthritis (RR = 1.35; 95% CI, 1.23-1.49), symptoms of depression (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.13-1.37), and declines in social activity that the patient rated as distressing (RR = 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.31) were independently associated with disruptive pain.

CONCLUSION

Disruptive pain is highly prevalent in this group, and the key factors associated with this outcome represent physical as well as psychosocial domain areas.

Oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat mild to moderate cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the WHO cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on NSAIDs, updates the evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain in adults and children, and the adverse events reported during its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to March 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing paracetamol alone with placebo, or paracetamol in combination with an opioid compared with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any intensity. Single-blind and open studies were also eligible for inclusion. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies in adults satisfied the inclusion criteria, lasting up to one week; 122 participants were randomised initially, and 95 completed treatment. We found no studies in children. One study was parallel-group, and two had a cross-over design. All used paracetamol as an add-on to established treatment with strong opioids (median daily morphine equivalent doses of 60 mg, 70 mg, and 225 mg, with some participants taking several hundred mg of oral morphine equivalents daily). Other non-paracetamol medication included non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tricyclic antidepressants, or neuroleptics. All studies were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.None of the studies reported any of our primary outcomes: participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with pain no worse than mild at the end of the treatment period; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). What pain reports there were indicated no difference between paracetamol and placebo when added to another treatment. There was no convincing evidence of paracetamol being different from placebo with regards to quality of life, use of rescue medication, or participant satisfaction or preference. Measures of harm (serious adverse events, other adverse events, and withdrawal due to lack of efficacy) were inconsistently reported and provided no clear evidence of difference.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because studies were at high risk of bias from several sources.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of paracetamol alone or in combination with opioids for the first two steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. It is not clear whether any additional analgesic benefit of paracetamol could be detected in the available studies, in view of the doses of opioids used.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for cancer pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on paracetamol, updates the evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of oral NSAIDs for cancer pain in adults, and the adverse events reported during their use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to April 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, single-blind, or open-label studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID alone with placebo or another NSAID, or a combination of NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any pain intensity. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies satisfied inclusion criteria, lasting one week or longer; 949 participants with mostly moderate or severe pain were randomised initially, but fewer completed treatment or had results of treatment. Eight studies were double-blind, two single-blind, and one open-label. None had a placebo only control; eight compared different NSAIDs, three an NSAID with opioid or opioid combination, and one both. None compared an NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of opioid alone. Most studies were at high risk of bias for blinding, incomplete outcome data, or small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.It was not possible to compare NSAIDs as a group with another treatment, or one NSAID with another NSAID. Results for all NSAIDs are reported as a randomised cohort. We judged results for all outcomes as very low-quality evidence.None of the studies reported our primary outcomes of participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). With NSAID, initially moderate or severe pain was reduced to no worse than mild pain after one or two weeks in four studies (415 participants in total), with a range of estimates between 26% and 51% in individual studies.Adverse event and withdrawal reporting was inconsistent. Two serious adverse events were reported with NSAIDs, and 22 deaths, but these were not clearly related to any pain treatment. Common adverse events were thirst/dry mouth (15%), loss of appetite (14%), somnolence (11%), and dyspepsia (11%). Withdrawals were common, mostly because of lack of efficacy (24%) or adverse events (5%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of NSAIDs alone or in combination with opioids for the three steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. There is very low-quality evidence that some people with moderate or severe cancer pain can obtain substantial levels of benefit within one or two weeks.

Opioids for cancer pain - an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) drugs are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. The most commonly-used opioid drugs are buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, tramadol, and tapentadol.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy of opioids in cancer pain, and to report on adverse events associated with their use.

METHODS

We identified systematic reviews examining any opioid for cancer pain published to 4 May 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were no or mild pain within 14 days of starting treatment, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine reviews with 152 included studies and 13,524 participants, but because some studies appeared in more than one review the number of unique studies and participants was smaller than this. Most participants had moderate or severe pain associated with a range of different types of cancer. Studies in the reviews typically compared one type of opioid or formulation with either a different formulation of the same opioid, or a different opioid; few included a placebo control. Typically the reviews titrated dose to effect, a balance between pain relief and adverse events. Various routes of administration of opioids were considered in the reviews; oral with most opioids, but transdermal administration with fentanyl, and buprenorphine. No review included studies of subcutaneous opioid administration. Pain outcomes reported were varied and inconsistent. The average size of included studies varied considerably between reviews: studies of older opioids, such as codeine, morphine, and methadone, had low average study sizes while those involving newer drugs tended to have larger study sizes.Six reviews reported a GRADE assessment (buprenorphine, codeine, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, and tramadol), but not necessarily for all comparisons or outcomes. No comparative analyses were possible because there was no consistent placebo or active control. Cohort outcomes for opioids are therefore reported, as absolute numbers or percentages, or both.Reviews on buprenorphine, codeine with or without paracetamol, hydromorphone, methadone, tramadol with or without paracetamol, tapentadol, and oxycodone did not have information about the primary outcome of mild or no pain at 14 days, although that on oxycodone indicated that average pain scores were within that range. Two reviews, on oral morphine and transdermal fentanyl, reported that 96% of 850 participants achieved that goal.Adverse event withdrawal was reported by five reviews, at rates of between 6% and 19%. Participants with at least one adverse event were reported by three reviews, at rates of between 11% and 77%.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because many studies in the reviews were at high risk of bias from several sources, including small study size.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The amount and quality of evidence around the use of opioids for treating cancer pain is disappointingly low, although the evidence we have indicates that around 19 out of 20 people with moderate or severe pain who are given opioids and can tolerate them should have that pain reduced to mild or no pain within 14 days. This accords with the clinical experience in treating many people with cancer pain, but overstates to some extent the effectiveness found for the WHO pain ladder. Most people will experience adverse events, and help may be needed to manage the more common undesirable adverse effects such as constipation and nausea. Perhaps between 1 in 10 and 2 in 10 people treated with opioids will find these adverse events intolerable, leading to a change in treatment.

Integration of Specialized Pain Control Services in Palliative Care: A Nationwide Web-based Survey

Introduction:

Pain control is an important part of palliative care (PC), and conventional analgesics do not provide adequate pain relief to all patients. Many patients present with complex pain syndromes that require interventional pain control measures usually deployed by pain specialists. There is adequate integration of specialized pain control services with PC elsewhere, but information about the same in our country is lacking.

Materials and Methods:

An internet survey was conducted among palliative specialists regarding the need and availability of pain specialists for their patients suffering from complex pain syndromes. Their attitude toward integrating specialized pain control services in their practice was also explored.

Results:

Majority of palliative physicians came across situations where specialists in pain would control the patients’ pain better. There was a poor availability of such services, and when available, the cost was significant. It is heartening to note that though there is poor integration of specialized pain control services with palliation, palliative physicians acknowledge the need for pain specialists and their techniques for providing pain relief for their patients.

Conclusions:

Effective pain control is needed in palliation, barriers however exist, and there is a need to make pain specialists and interventional techniques more freely available.

New Cancer Pain Treatment Options

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cancer pain is often incapacitating and discouraging to patients; is demoralizing to family members and care takers; and is taxing and difficult to subdue for the pain specialists. The consequences of implementing suboptimal treatment are far-reaching; therefore, effective treatment methods are in a great demand. The face of cancer pain management has changed in considerable ways, and interventional procedures have become an integral part of providing multimodal analgesia in cancer pain treatment. The goals of this review are to draw attention to the critical role that regional anesthetic nerve blocks and interventional pain management techniques play in treating malignancy-related pain and emphasize the benefits provided by the aforementioned treatment strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

A large proportion of cancer patients continues to struggle with an inadequately treated pain despite a strict adherence to the WHO analgesic step ladder. The previous pain treatment algorithm has been modified to include peripheral neural blockade, neuro-destructive techniques, neuromodulatory device use, and intrathecal drug delivery systems. The accumulated evidence highlights the opioid-sparing qualities and other benefits afforded by these modalities: decreasing medication-induced side effects, reducing economic burden of poor analgesia, and overall improvement in quality of life of the patients afflicted with a painful neoplastic disease. The rising prevalence of cancer-related pain syndromes is paralleled by an unmatched growth of innovative treatment strategies. Modified WHO analgesic ladder represents one of the greatest paradigm shifts within the domain of oncologic pain treatment. The cancer patient population requires a prompt and liberal, albeit judicious, delivery of unorthodox pain treatment options freed from the rigid bonds of conventional guidelines and standard practices.

Effectiveness of the World Health Organization cancer pain relief guidelines: an integrative review

Inadequate cancer pain relief has been documented extensively across historical records. In response, in 1986, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed guidelines for cancer pain treatment. The purpose of this paper is to disseminate the results of a comprehensive, integrative review of studies that evaluate the effectiveness of the WHO guidelines. Studies were included if they: 1) identified patients treated with the guidelines, 2) evaluated self-reported pain, 3) identified instruments used, 4) provided data documenting pain relief, and 5) were written in English. Studies were coded for duration of treatment, definition of pain relief, instruments used, findings related to pain intensity or relief, and whether measures were used other than the WHO analgesic ladder. Twenty-five studies published since 1987 met the inclusion criteria. Evidence indicates 20%-100% of patients with cancer pain can be provided pain relief with the use of the WHO guidelines - while considering their status of treatment or end-of-life care. Due to multiple limitations in included studies, analysis was limited to descriptions. Future research to examine the effectiveness of the WHO guidelines needs to consider recommendations to facilitate study comparisons by standardizing outcome measures. Recent studies have reported that patients with cancer experience pain at moderate or greater levels. The WHO guidelines reflect the knowledge and effectual methods to relieve most cancer pain, but the guidelines are not being adequately employed. Part of the explanation for the lack of adoption of the WHO guidelines is that they may be considered outdated by many because they are not specific to the pharmacological and interventional options used in contemporary pain management practices. The conundrum of updating the WHO guidelines is to encompass the latest pharmacological and interventional innovations while maintaining its original simplicity.

Assessment of Adequacy of Pain Management and Analgesic Use in Patients With Advanced Cancer Using the Brief Pain Inventory and Pain Management Index Calculation

Purpose

The objective of this cross-sectional, noninterventional, 6-month observational study was to assess the adequacy of pain management in patients with cancer admitted to the Oncology Department of Guru Gobind Singh Medical College in Faridkot, India.

Methods and Materials

A total of 348 patients with cancer were recruited for evaluation of the prevalence of inadequate cancer pain management using the Brief Pain Inventory Pain Management Index.

Results

The current study included 127 males (36.5%) and 221 females (63.5%). The most prevalent cancer type was genitourinary; 268 patients (77%) had inadequately managed pain. A significant correlation was observed between poorly managed pain and age groups, analgesic used, and body mass index.

Conclusion

Our observation of inadequate pain management among 77% of patients indicates that pain management was insufficient in three quarters of the patients in this study. Accumulating data regarding the inadequacy of cancer pain management is crucial to improve symptom management. Better management of pain not only alleviates pain symptoms but also increases the quality of life for patients with cancer.

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.