Impact of radiation oncology practice on pain: A cross-sectional survey

Breakthrough cancer pain in the radiotherapy setting: a systematic and critical review

INTRODUCTION

Breakthrough pain (BP) is a complex phenomenon that has been reported to have a relevant role in the global management of cancer pain. Radiotherapy (RT) has a fundamental part in the treatment of many pain conditions, particularly oral mucositis and painful bone metastases.

AREAS COVERED

The literature regarding the phenomenon of BP in the radiotherapy setting was reviewed. Three areas were assessed, including epidemiology, pharmacokinetics, and clinical data.

EXPERT OPINION

Qualitative and quantitative data regarding BP in the RT setting are poor in terms of scientific evidence. Most papers assessed fentanyl products, particularly fentanyl pectin nasal spray, to resolve possible problems with transmucosal absorption of fentanyl due to mucositis of the oral cavity in patients with head and neck cancer or to prevent and treat procedural pain during RT sessions. According to the lack of clinical studies with large number of patients, BP should be included in the agenda of radiation oncologists.

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.

Identifying Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Routine Surveillance of Physical and Emotional Symptoms in Head and Neck Cancer Populations: A Systematic Review

The aims of this review were to identify symptoms experienced by head and neck cancer (HNC) patients and their prevalence, as well as to compare symptom coverage identified in HNC specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Searches of Ovid Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, and CINAHL were conducted to identify studies. The search revealed 4569 unique articles and identified 115 eligible studies. The prevalence of reported symptoms was highly variable among included studies. Variability in sample size, timing of the assessments, and the use of different measures was noted across studies. Content mapping of commonly used PROMs showed variability and poor capture of prevalent symptoms, even though validation studies confirmed satisfactory reliability and validity. This suggests limitations of some of the tools in providing an accurate and comprehensive picture of the patient's symptoms and problems.

Cancer-Related Pain Is an Independent Predictor of In-Hospital Opioid Overdose: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

About 50% of patients with cancer who have undergone surgery suffer from cancer-related pain (CP). The use of opioids for postoperative pain management presents the potential for overdose, especially among these patients.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to determine the association between CP and postoperative opioid overdose among inpatients who had undergone major elective procedures. The secondary objective was to assess the relationship between CP and inpatient mortality, total hospital charge, and length of stay in this population.

METHODS

Data of adults 18 years and older from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) were analyzed. Variables were identified using ICD-9 codes. Propensity-matched regression models were employed in evaluating the association between CP and outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Among 4,085,355 selected patients, 0.8% (N = 2,665) had CP, whereas 99.92% (N = 4,082,690) had no diagnosis of CP. We matched patients with CP (N = 2,665) and no CP (N = 13,325) in a 1:5 ratio. We found higher odds of opioid overdose (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 4.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.68-8.67, P < 0.0001) and inpatient mortality (aOR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.11-1.74, P = 0.0043) in patients with CP vs no CP. Also, patients with CP were more likely to stay longer in the hospital (12.76 days vs 7.88 days) with higher total hospital charges ($140,220 vs $88,316).

CONCLUSIONS

CP is an independent risk factor for opioid overdose, increased length of stay, and increased total hospital charges.

Improving workflow control in radiotherapy using discrete-event simulation

Background

In radiotherapy, minimizing the time between referral and start of treatment (waiting time) is important to possibly mitigate tumor growth and avoid psychological distress in cancer patients. Radiotherapy pre-treatment workflow is driven by the scheduling of the first irradiation session, which is usually set right after consultation (pull strategy) or can alternatively be set after the pre-treatment workflow has been completed (push strategy). The objective of this study is to assess the impact of using pull and push strategies and explore alternative interventions for improving timeliness in radiotherapy.

Methods

Discrete-event simulation is used to model the patient flow of a large radiotherapy department of a Dutch hospital. A staff survey, interviews with managers, and historical data from 2017 are used to generate model inputs, in which fluctuations in patient inflow and resource availability are considered.

Results

A hybrid (40% pull / 60% push) strategy representing the current practice (baseline case) leads to 12% lower average waiting times and 48% fewer first appointment rebooks when compared to a full pull strategy, which in turn leads to 41% fewer patients breaching the waiting time targets.

An additional scenario analysis performed on the baseline case showed that spreading consultation slots evenly throughout the week can provide a 21% reduction in waiting times.

Conclusions

A 100% pull strategy allows for more patients starting treatment within the waiting time targets than a hybrid strategy, in spite of slightly longer waiting times and more first appointment rebooks. Our algorithm can be used by radiotherapy policy makers to identify the optimal balance between push and pull strategies to ensure timely treatments while providing patient-centered care adapted to their specific conditions.

Radiation Therapy Pain Management: Prevalence of Symptoms and Effectiveness of Treatment Options

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of pain among patients undergoing radiation therapy (RT) is not well described.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence and management of pain in patients undergoing RT.

METHODS

94 patients undergoing RT were surveyed at two time points during the course of their treatment. Patients reported on pain, fatigue, nausea, headache, and depressive symptoms, as well as on the use of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic or alternative methods for symptom management.

FINDINGS

The mean severity of pain did not change significantly between the first week of RT and the final week. Severity of pain was associated with worse fatigue, nausea, headaches, and depressive symptoms, providing opportunities for providers to address multiple co-occurring symptoms. Rates of opioid and marijuana use remained similar between the two time points. More than half of the patients reported use of at least one nonpharmacologic method for pain management, with use increasing during the course of RT.

Radiation for Palliation: Role of Palliative Radiotherapy in Allevieating Pain/Symptoms in a Prospective Observational Study at Two Tertiary Care Centers

Purpose

Approximately one-third of patients attending the tertiary care center require palliative management. The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of palliative radiation in alleviating the pain and symptoms and improvement in quality of life (QOL).

Methods

This was a prospective study aimed to evaluate patients attending two oncology centers and those who require palliative radiation. During 3 years, 1365 patients attended radiation oncology center for various malignancies. Of these patients, 304 patients were treated with palliative radiation for various indications. These patients were followed up for a period of up to 6 months for symptom relief and improved QOL.

Results

About 22% of patients received palliative radiation primarily for carcinoma lung, breast, and prostate malignancy. Analysis revealed elderly patients in the age group of 50-70 being the most commonly affected and most common presentation was pain, swelling, and headache. The most common site of metastases was bone including the spine and brain. Most commonly employed schedule of palliative radiation was 30 Gy in 10 fractions and 20 Gy in 5 fractions. Patients responded well to palliative radiation and had improved pain relief and QOL.

Conclusions

Palliative radiation is an important part of the management of cancer care and when given improves QOL, and significant pain relief.

Procedural pain management in patients with cancer

Pain has been identified as one of the most significant factors in patients' experience of cancer and its treatment. Pain experienced during cancer treatment procedures such as radiotherapy can be unpleasant and distressing for the patient, as well as for their family and carers. Nurses have an important role in assessing and managing any pain associated with such procedures. This article explores the procedural pain that may be experienced by patients in general, and by those with cancer specifically, and details the pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies that nurses can use to manage this challenging complication.

The use of fentanyl in pain management in head and neck cancer patients: a narrative review

Background

Head and neck (H&N) cancers account for about 5% of all malignant tumours. Pain is one of the most feared consequences of H&N neoplasms and is experienced by up to 80% of patients and worsens their quality of life inhibiting speaking, eating, drinking or swallowing. Nevertheless, pain is still often underestimated and undertreated.

Objectives

The role of opioids in cancer pain has been well established but evidences about the role and the relative effectiveness of opioids such as fentanyl in the context of H&N cancer pain remains unclear.

Methods

A literature review based on the guidance of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination was conducted. An iterative approach was used starting with an electronic search in the MEDLINE database. The search terms (('Neoplasms'[Mesh]) AND 'Head and Neck Neoplasms'[Mesh]) AND 'Fentanyl'[Mesh] were used.

Results

A total of 18 publications were found by the first performed search on PubMed. Other publications concordant with our aim were found by cross-reference. Considering inclusion and exclusion criteria for our review, eight papers resulted eligible for analysis.

Conclusion

Fentanyl transdermal therapeutic system (TTS) seems to be an important option, thanks to the way of administration, the good safety and tolerability profiles to control baseline pain. For breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP), several formulations of transmucosal fentanyl are available. All the formulations seem to be active and safety but we lack head-to-head studies of fentanyl versus other strong opioids, as well as with different formulation of fentanyl, particularly for BTcP where H&N cancer population is very poorly represented.

Assessment and treatment of breakthrough cancer pain: from theory to clinical practice

Breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) is a common condition in oncological patients. However, its management is still suboptimal. Improved knowledge of BTcP and its management in clinical practice may have immediate importance for all physicians involved in the supportive care of cancer patients. This review critically discusses the most important concepts for the correct diagnosis of BTcP and presents some intriguing cases of the management of this condition in clinical practice. Overall, the most appropriate therapeutic choice appears to be a rapid-onset opioid (ROO), and in particular, the nasal route of administration is the quickest and most convenient mode of administration for the management of BTcP, especially when the patient needs rapid resolution of pain. To this end, intranasal fentanyl spray may have a particular relevance in clinical practice. Future research should focus on accepted definitions of BTcP to investigate the optimal management of this highly heterogeneous pain condition. Therapeutic decision-making of patients, clinicians, and payers will likely be driven from results of well-designed clinical trials of ROOs.

Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of Auricular Point Acupressure to Manage Symptom Clusters of Pain, Fatigue, and Disturbed Sleep in Breast Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Current management for a symptom cluster of pain, fatigue, and disturbed sleep in breast cancer patients has limited effects.

OBJECTIVE

The purposes of this prospective, randomized controlled pilot study were to (1) assess the feasibility and tolerability of auricular point acupressure (APA) intervention to manage pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbance in breast cancer patients and (2) provide an initial appraisal of effect size as compared with a control intervention.

METHODS

Thirty-one participants were randomized into either an active APA group (n = 16) or a control APA group (n = 15), which included the sham APA treatment not related to the symptoms. All participants received the APA once a week for 4 weeks. Self-report measures were obtained at baseline, weekly during intervention, at end of intervention, and at a 1-month follow-up.

RESULTS

For the 4-week of APA treatment, the retention rate was 88% for the active APA group and 73% for the control APA group. After 4 weeks of APA, participants in the active APA treatment had reported a reduction of 71% in pain, 44% in fatigue, 31% in sleep disturbance, and 61% in interference with daily activities. The control APA group experienced some moderate reduction in these symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Given that this was a pilot study with a small sample size, results must be interpreted with caution.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Our results suggest that APA may provide an inexpensive and effective complementary approach for the management of symptom clusters for breast cancer patients, and further study is warranted.

Operations research for resource planning and -use in radiotherapy: a literature review

Background

The delivery of radiotherapy (RT) involves the use of rather expensive resources and multi-disciplinary staff. As the number of cancer patients receiving RT increases, timely delivery becomes increasingly difficult due to the complexities related to, among others, variable patient inflow, complex patient routing, and the joint planning of multiple resources. Operations research (OR) methods have been successfully applied to solve many logistics problems through the development of advanced analytical models for improved decision making. This paper presents the state of the art in the application of OR methods for logistics optimization in RT, at various managerial levels.

Methods

A literature search was performed in six databases covering several disciplines, from the medical to the technical field. Papers included in the review were published in peer-reviewed journals from 2000 to 2015. Data extraction includes the subject of research, the OR methods used in the study, the extent of implementation according to a six-stage model and the (potential) impact of the results in practice.

Results

From the 33 papers included in the review, 18 addressed problems related to patient scheduling (of which 12 focus on scheduling patients on linear accelerators), 8 focus on strategic decision making, 5 on resource capacity planning, and 2 on patient prioritization. Although calculating promising results, none of the papers reported a full implementation of the model with at least a thorough pre-post performance evaluation, indicating that, apart from possible reporting bias, implementation rates of OR models in RT are probably low.

Conclusions

The literature on OR applications in RT covers a wide range of approaches from strategic capacity management to operational scheduling levels, and shows that considerable benefits in terms of both waiting times and resource utilization are likely to be achieved. Various fields can be further developed, for instance optimizing the coordination between the available capacity of different imaging devices or developing scheduling models that consider the RT chain of operations as a whole rather than the treatment machines alone.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0390-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effect of systemic injection of heterogenous and homogenous opioids on peripheral cellular immune response in rats with bone cancer pain: A comparative study

Exogenous and endogenous opioids have been shown to modulate the immune system. Morphine-induced immunosuppression has been investigated extensively. However, the immune-regulating function of endogenous opioid peptides is unclear. The present study aimed to evaluate the difference in effects on cellular immune function between recombinant rat β-endorphin (β-EP; 50 µg/kg) and plant source morphine (10 mg/kg) via intraperitoneal injection treatment in a rat model of bone cancer pain. Walker 256 cells were injected into a tibial cavity injection to establish the bone cancer pain model. The paw withdrawal thresholds and body weights were measured prior to surgery, at 6 days after surgery, and following 1, 3,6 and 8 treatments. The spleen cells were harvested for detection of T cell proliferation, natural killer (NK) cell cytotoxicity, and the relative quantities of T cell subtypes (CD3⁺, CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ cells). Plasma levels of interleukin-2 (IL-2) were also determined. It was found that single or multiple treatments with β-EP (a homogenous opioid peptide) and morphine (a heterogenous opioid) had good analgesic effects on bone cancer pain, while the analgesia provided by morphine was stronger than that of β-EP. Treatment with β-EP 3, 6 and 8 times increased the body weight gain in the rat model of bone cancer pain, while morphine treatment had on effect on it. With regard to immunomodulatory functions, β-EP treatment increased T cell proliferation and NK cell cytotoxicity, and increased the relative quantities of T cell subtypes, but no effect on T cell secretion. However, morphine treatment decreased T cell proliferation and the levels of T cell subtypes. These data indicate that opioids from different sources have different effects on cellular immune function in vivo. A small dose of homogenous opioid peptide exhibited positive effects (analgesia and immune enhancement) on cancer pain. These results provide experimental evidence supporting the exploitation of human opioids for the treatment of cancer pain.

Why do patients with cancer access out-of-hours primary care? A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Identifying why patients with cancer seek out-of-hours (OOH) primary medical care could highlight potential gaps in anticipatory cancer care.

AIM

To explore the reasons for contact and the range and prevalence of presenting symptoms in patients with established cancer who presented to a primary care OOH department.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective review of 950 anonymous case records for patients with cancer who contacted the OOH general practice service in Grampian, Scotland between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2011.

METHOD

Subjects were identified by filtering the OOH computer database using the Read Codes 'neoplasm', 'terminal care', and 'terminal illness'. Consultations by patients without cancer and repeated consultations by the same patient were excluded. Data were anonymised. Case records were read independently by two authors who determined the presenting symptom(s).

RESULTS

Anonymous case records were reviewed for 950 individuals. Eight hundred and fifty-two patients made contact because of a symptom. The remaining 97 were mostly administrative and data were missing for one patient. The most frequent symptoms were pain (n = 262/852, 30.8%); nausea/vomiting (n = 102/852, 12.0%); agitation (n = 53/852, 6.2%); breathlessness (n = 51/852, 6.0%); and fatigue (n = 48/852, 5.6%). Of the 262 patients who presented with pain, at least 127 (48.5%) had metastatic disease and 141 (53.8%) were already prescribed strong opiate medication.

CONCLUSION

Almost one-third of patients with cancer seeking OOH primary medical care did so because of poorly controlled pain. Pain management should specifically be addressed during routine anticipatory care planning.

Auricular point acupressure as an adjunct analgesic treatment for cancer patients: a feasibility study

This study aimed (1) to examine the feasibility of an auricular point acupressure (APA) research protocol in terms of recruitment and for the assessment and management of pain and (2) to examine the potential APA analgesic effects for cancer patients. This study was a repeated-measures one-group design. Participants were recruited from the cancer center follow-up clinic affiliated with a large university hospital in the northeastern United States. Participants included 50 patients aged 55-87 years with a diagnosis of cancer. Participants received 7 days of APA treatment for their pain. After appropriate acupoints were identified, vaccaria seeds were carefully taped onto each selected auricular point on each ear. The study recruitment and retention rates were 92% and 91%, respectively. Importantly, the study found preliminary evidence for the analgesic effects of APA for cancer pain management. For example, by the end of the 7-day study, APA reduced pain intensity more than 55% for "worst pain" and about 57% for "average pain" and "pain intensity." Moreover, the use of pain medication was reduced during the APA treatment (e.g., 78% of patients [n = 39] took less pain medication than before the treatment). APA appears to be highly acceptable to patients with cancer-related pain. However, without a placebo control, we cannot draw conclusive evidence for the analgesic effect of APA for cancer patients. A sham group must be added to future studies to differentiate the true effects of APA from the possible psychological effects of the APA treatment.

Under- or Overtreatment of Pain in the Patient With Cancer: How to Achieve Proper Balance

Achieving balance in the appropriate use of opioids for the treatment of cancer pain is complex. The definition of “balance” is continually being modified. Palliative care professionals, pain specialists, and oncologists have long been advocating for the aggressive management of pain for patients with advanced cancer. Some progress has been made in this arena but barriers persist. Fear of addiction by patients, family members, and oncology professionals presents a serious obstacle to the provision of adequate pain control. This is further complicated by societal factors that receive extensive media coverage, such as diversion of prescribed opioids for recreational use and increasing deaths as a result of this inappropriate use of prescription opioids. This growing concern has led to more opioid regulation, which increases obstacles to pain management in this population. Another evolving concern is whether the long-term use of opioids is safe and effective. Data from the chronic nonmalignant pain literature suggest that toxicities may result and misuse has been underestimated, yet little information is available in the cancer population. These issues lead to serious questions regarding how balance might be successfully achieved for patients in an oncology setting. Can pain relief be provided while reducing negative consequences of treatment? Which patient should be prescribed what medications, in what situations, for what kind of pain, and who should be managing the pain?

Management of predictable pain using fentanyl pectin nasal spray in patients undergoing radiotherapy

Background

Studies report the need for improved pain management in the radiation oncology setting. Many patients with well controlled background pain experience breakthrough pain in cancer (BTPc) that can interrupt their treatment schedule with a potentially negative impact on outcomes. BTPc can be unpredictable and predictable; both types of pain can be managed with fast-acting analgesics, but predictable pain lends itself to anticipatory management.

Methods

Five consecutive cases are described in which fentanyl pectin nasal spray (FPNS) was used to manage BTPc, with an emphasis on the anticipatory management of predictable pain in cancer patients receiving radiotherapy.

Results

Patients (four men, one woman), age range 32–84 years, were diagnosed with various cancers. All patients were receiving opioid treatment for chronic pain, and experienced predictable pain with radiotherapy which included pain associated with lying on a treatment table for a sustained time during an average of 29 radiotherapy treatments; pain associated with radiation simulation and radiotherapy; pain associated with odynophagia related to increasing mucositis during treatment, resulting in decreased nutritional intake; pain associated with the customized immobilization mask for head and neck cancer patients; and pain associated with defecation. Some patients also reported pain awakening them randomly at night (eg, sleep interruption). All patients attained lower pain intensity scores (2/10 to 3/10), reduced from approximately 7/10, when they were treated with FPNS 20 minutes before a predictable pain event. No patient experienced any pain-related interruptions to their course of radiotherapy. The average number of radiotherapy sessions was 29 per patient, excluding one short-course treatment for one patient.

Conclusion

FPNS offers a good solution to the management of BTPc because its fast onset of action makes it very suitable for the anticipatory treatment of predictable pain, which is likely to minimize interruptions to the radiotherapy schedule.

Cancer patient attitudes toward analgesic usage and pain intervention

OBJECTIVES

Although pain is commonly experienced by cancer patients, many receive inadequate pain management. Little data exist quantifying analgesic usage among oncology patients. This study evaluates perceived causes of pain and investigates reasons why oncology patients fail to receive optimal pain management.

METHODS

An institutional review board-approved questionnaire assessing pain control and analgesic usage was posted on OncoLink. Between November 2005 and July 2008, 1107 patients responded. Respondents were female (73%), white (74%), educated beyond high school (64%), and had surgery (69%), chemotherapy (64%), and radiation (47%). Most had breast (30%), gastrointestinal (12%), gynecologic (11%), and lung (8%) malignancies.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven percent of respondents reported pain, with 48% reporting pain directly from their cancer and 47% reporting pain from their cancer treatment. Among patients in pain, 25% did not use analgesics. Analgesic usage was significantly less in men (44% vs. 52%, P=0.023), minorities (42% vs. 53%, P=0.001), and patients with lower education levels (45% vs. 53%, P=0.013). Usage varied by cancer diagnosis and was higher among patients who received chemotherapy (56% vs. 40%, P<0.001) and radiation (53% vs. 47%, P=0.058). Reasons for not taking analgesics included: health care provider not recommending medications (85%), fearing addiction/dependence (80%), and inability to pay (76%). Many patients reporting pain, not taking analgesics, pursued alternative therapies (94%).

DISCUSSION

Most cancer patients perceive pain from their disease or treatment, regardless of therapy received. Many, however, did not use analgesics due to concerns of addiction, cost, or lack of health care provider endorsement. Providers should regularly discuss pain symptoms and management with cancer patients.

A simple and effective daily pain management method for patients receiving radiation therapy for painful bone metastases

PURPOSE

The incidence of painful bone metastases increases with longer survival times. Although external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is an effective palliative treatment, it often requires several days from the start of treatment to produce a measurable reduction in pain scores and a qualitative amelioration of patient pain levels. Meanwhile, the use of analgesics remains the best approach early on in the treatment course. We investigated the role of radiation therapists as key personnel for collecting daily pain scores to supplement assessments by physician and oncology nursing staff and manage pain more effectively during radiation treatment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Daily pain scores were obtained by the radiation therapists for 89 patients undertaking a total of 124 courses of EBRT for bone metastases and compared with pretreatment pain scores. The majority of patients (71%) were treated to 30 Gy (range, 20-37.5) in 10 fractions (range, 8-15 fractions).

RESULTS

One hundred nineteen treatment courses (96%) were completed. Pain scores declined rapidly to 37.5%, 50%, and 75% of the pretreatment levels by Days 2, 4, and 10, respectively. Pain was improved in 91% of patients with only 4% of worse pain at the end of treatment. Improved pain scores were maintained in 83% of patients at 1-month follow-up, but in 35% of them, the pain was worse than at the end of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Collection of daily pain scores by radiation therapists was associated with an effective reduction in pain scores early on during EBRT of painful osseous metastases.

Core aspects of satisfaction with pain management: cancer patients' perspectives

CONTEXT

The coexistence of high levels of satisfaction and high levels of pain has been perplexing.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to 1) describe patient expectations related to the experience of cancer-related pain, 2) explore the cognitive processes and meaning that underlie patient judgments about satisfaction and dissatisfaction with pain management, and 3) explore the discrepancies between ratings of high satisfaction with pain management with high pain intensity.

METHODS

The sample included 33 patients: 18 with advanced cancer and 15 experiencing pain after a surgery for a cancer diagnosis. All patients had experienced "worst pain" of at least moderate intensity and were interviewed using standard pain measures from the American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire and open-ended questions about the underlying meaning of their answers. We systematically analyzed the transcribed qualitative data using NVivo software.

RESULTS

Fifty-five percent of patients were females and were aged 25-78 years. Most (75%) were satisfied or very satisfied with their overall pain management. Key findings indicate that for some, the worst pain rating was often brief, even momentary. Most patients expected pain relief. Four key themes were important to the quality of pain management: being treated right, having a safety net, being in a partnership with their health care team, and having pain treatment that was efficacious. Key aspects of the patient-provider relationship that mattered were how the nurses and doctors behaved toward them and how quickly they responded to reports of pain. For some, an important factor was whether they had control of the amount of pain they experienced.

CONCLUSION

The findings inform measurement of patient satisfaction with the quality of pain management.

High prevalence of pain in patients with cancer in a large population-based study in The Netherlands

At present, no definite conclusions can be drawn about the real extent of the pain suffered by cancer patients. A population-based study was conducted to obtain reliable information about the prevalence and severity of pain in cancer patients (all phases) and about predictors of pain. A representative sample of cancer patients was recruited in the area from a cancer registry. Pain was assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Adequacy of pain treatment was assessed with the Pain Management Index (PMI). We found that 55% of the 1429 respondents had experienced pain past week; in 44% (n=351), the pain was moderate to severe (BPI score>or= 4). Total prevalence of pain/moderate to severe pain was present in 49%/41% in patients with curative treatment >or=6 months ago, 57%/43% in patients with current curative treatment or treatment <6 months ago, 56%/43% in patients with current palliative anti-cancer treatment and in 75%/70% in patients for whom treatment was no longer feasible. Positive predictors of the prevalence of pain were lower education level, more advanced disease and haematological (excluding (non)-Hodgkin lymphoma), gastro-intestinal, lung, or breast malignancies. According to the PMI, analgesic treatment was inadequate in 42% of the patients. Negative predictors of adequate treatment were current curative anti-cancer treatment and low education level.

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of cancer patients does suffer from moderate to severe pain and does not receive adequate pain treatment.

Prevalence of pain in patients with cancer: a systematic review of the past 40 years

BACKGROUND

Despite the abundant literature on this topic, accurate prevalence estimates of pain in cancer patients are not available. We investigated the prevalence of pain in cancer patients according to the different disease stages and types of cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted. An instrument especially designed for judging prevalence studies on their methodological quality was used. Methodologically acceptable articles were used in the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies were used in the meta-analysis. Pooled prevalence rates of pain were calculated for four subgroups: (i) studies including patients after curative treatment, 33% [95% confidence interval (CI) 21% to 46%]; (ii) studies including patients under anticancer treatment: 59% (CI 44% to 73%); (iii) studies including patients characterised as advanced/metastatic/terminal disease, 64% (CI 58% to 69%) and (iii) studies including patients at all disease stages, 53% (CI 43% to 63%). Of the patients with pain more than one-third graded their pain as moderate or severe. Pooled prevalence of pain was >50% in all cancer types with the highest prevalence in head/neck cancer patients (70%; 95% CI 51% to 88%).

CONCLUSION

Despite the clear World Health Organisation recommendations, cancer pain still is a major problem.