Neuropathic pain: clinical classification and assessment in patients with pain due to cancer

Exploration on pharmacological mechanisms of YZP against neuropathic pain via inhibiting spinal inflammation and the rationality of its compatibility

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

Yuanhu Zhitong Prescription (YZP) is a well-known traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) formula for neuropathic pain (NP) therapy with a satisfying clinical efficacy. However, the underlying pharmacological mechanism and its compatibility principle remain unclear.

AIM OF THE STUDY

This study aims to investigate the analgesic and compatibility mechanisms of YZP on neuropathic pain (NP) at the gene and biological process levels.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The chronic constriction injury (CCI) rats were intragastrically administrated with extracts of YZP, YH and BZ separately, and then mechanical hypersensitivity were measured to evaluate the analgesic effects between YH and BZ before and after compatibility. Then, RNA-seq and bioinformatics analyses were performed to elucidate the potential mechanisms underlying YZP's analgesia and compatibility. Finally, the expression levels and significant differences of key genes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Behaviorally, both YZP and YH effectively alleviated mechanical allodynia in CCI rats, with YZP being superior to YH. In contrast, we did not observe an analgesic effect of BZ. Genetically, YZP, YH, and BZ reversed the expression levels of 52, 34, and 42 aberrant genes in the spinal cord of CCI rats, respectively. Mechanically, YZP was revealed to alleviate NP mainly by modulating the inflammatory response and neuropeptide signaling pathway, which are the dominant effective processes of YH. Interestingly, the effective targets of YZP were especially enriched in leukocyte activation and cytokine-mediated signaling pathways. Moreover, BZ was found to exert an adjunctive effect in enhancing the analgesic effect of YH by promoting skeletal muscle tissue regeneration and modulating calcium ion transport.

CONCLUSIONS

YH, as the monarch drug, plays a dominant role in the analgesic effect of YZP that effectively relieves NP by inhibiting the spinal inflammation and neuropeptide signaling pathway. BZ, as the minister drug, not only synergistically enhances analgesic processes of YH but also helps to alleviate the accompanying symptoms of NP. Consequently, YZP exerted a more potent analgesic effect than YH and BZ alone. In conclusion, our findings offer new insights into understanding the pharmacological mechanism and compatibility principle of YZP, which may support its clinical application in NP therapy.

The Impact of Pain on Mobility in Patients with Cancer

OBJECTIVES

Provide an overview of how pain impacts mobility in patients with cancer.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in PubMed and on Google Scholar using search terms, cancer pain with mobility, acute and chronic pain syndromes, enhanced recovery after surgery, nursing care, and rehabilitation. Peer-reviewed research studies, review articles, and pain guidelines and position papers were reviewed to provide an overview on cancer pain, its impact on mobility, and the nurse's role in managing pain and optimizing mobility and functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Firty-two references were included in this overview. This body of literature is replete with studies on the management of pain; however, the tie between pain and mobility has not been well described aside from the breakthrough pain literature. This manuscript weaves these two important concepts together to better inform nurses and other clinicians regarding the importance of managing pain to even begin mobilizing patients, especially following surgery and for other painful conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncology nurses play an integral role in assessing and managing cancer pain. It is important for nurses to recognize how their pain management interventions lead to improved mobility and functioning in patients with cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses comprise the largest workforce around the globe and are well-equipped to assess and manage cancer pain in all cancer care settings. As leaders within the healthcare team, making recommendations to better control pain and communicating with other team members regarding the pain plan is essential in improving mobility in patients with cancer.

Opioid initiation timing and palliative care referrals in advanced cancer: retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

Early opioid initiation is recommended for advanced cancer pain, however the timing of opioid commencement in relation to diagnosis has not been described, and the role of palliative care prescribers is unclear. This study aims to determine the timing of opioid initiation by prescriber and cancer type in relation to key timepoints in the cancer illness course (diagnosis, palliative care referral and death).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients at a quaternary cancer centre with incurable advanced cancer of five different subtype groups. Demographics, clinical characteristics, health service use and details of first slow and immediate release opioid prescription are reported.

RESULTS

Among 200 patients, median time to first immediate release opioid prescription was 23 days (IQR 1-82) and to slow release opioid prescription was 47 days (IQR 14-155). Most patients (95%, (n=190) were referred to palliative care (median time to referral 54 days (IQR 18-190)). Non-palliative care prescribers initiated slow release opioids for half the cohort (49%, n=97) prior to referral. Patients with pancreatic cancer had the shortest time to slow/immediate release opioid prescription (median 10 days (IQR 0-39) and 26 days (IQR 1-43) respectively) and shortest survival (median 136 days (IQR 82-214)).

CONCLUSIONS

Median time to opioid commencement was approximately 3 weeks after diagnosis. Despite early palliative care involvement, opioid initiation by non-palliative care clinicians was common and remains important. Timely palliative care referral for those with pancreatic cancer may include consideration of earlier complex pain presentations and shorter prognosis.

Application and accuracy of the EAPC/IASP diagnostic algorithm for neuropathic cancer pain and quantitative sensory testing profile in patients with pain due to cancer

Introduction

Better diagnosis and treatment of neuropathic cancer pain (NcP) remains an unmet clinical need. The EAPC/IASP algorithm was specifically designed for NcP diagnosis; yet, to date, there is no information on its application and accuracy.

Objectives

Our aim was to determine the accuracy of the EAPC/IASP algorithm compared with the Neuropathic Special Interest Group grading system (gold standard) and to describe patients' sensory profile with quantitative sensory testing (QST).

Methods

This is a cross-sectional observational study conducted in a palliative care and pain outpatient clinic. Patients with cancer pain intensity ≥3 (numerical rating scale 0-10) were eligible. The palliative care physician applied the EAPC/IASP algorithm as a grading system to diagnose probable or definite NcP, and an independent investigator applied the gold standard and performed the QST. Sensitivity and specificity of the EAPC/IASP algorithm were measured in comparison with the gold standard results. Kruskal-Wallis and unequal variance independent-samples t tests were used to compare the QST parameters in patients with and without NcP.

Results

Ninety-eight patients were enrolled from August 2020 to March 2023. Sensitivity and specificity for the EAPC/IASP algorithm were 85% (95% CI 70.2-94.3) and 98.3% (95% CI 90.8-100), respectively. Patients with NcP in contrast to patients without NcP showed cold hypoesthesia (P = 0.0032), warm hypoesthesia (P = 0.0018), pressure hyperalgesia (P = 0.02), and the presence of allodynia (P = 0.0001).

Conclusion

The results indicate a good performance of the EAPC/IASP algorithm in diagnosing NcP and the QST discriminated well between patients with and without NcP.

Metabolic underpinnings of cancer-related fatigue

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most prevalent and detrimental complications of cancer. Emerging evidence suggests that obesity and insulin resistance are associated with CRF occurrence and severity in cancer patients and survivors. In this narrative review, we analyzed recent studies including both preclinical and clinical research on the relationship between obesity and/or insulin resistance and CRF. We also describe potential mechanisms for these relationships, though with the caveat that because the mechanisms underlying CRF are incompletely understood, the mechanisms mediating the association between obesity/insulin resistance and CRF are similarly incompletely delineated. The data suggest that, in addition to their effects to worsen CRF by directly promoting tumor growth and metastasis, obesity and insulin resistance may also contribute to CRF by inducing chronic inflammation, neuroendocrinological disturbance, and metabolic alterations. Furthermore, studies suggest that patients with obesity and insulin resistance experience more cancer-induced pain and are at more risk of emotional and behavioral disruptions correlated with CRF. However, other studies implied a potentially paradoxical impact of obesity and insulin resistance to reduce CRF symptoms. Despite the need for further investigation utilizing interventions to directly elucidate the mechanisms of cancer-related fatigue, current evidence demonstrates a correlation between obesity and/or insulin resistance and CRF, and suggests potential therapeutics for CRF by targeting obesity and/or obesity-related mediators.

Assessment of neuropathic pain following cancer treatment

Neuropathic cancer pain (NCP) is prevalent affecting up to 58% of those with persistent pain following cancer treatment. Neuropathic pain can develop from malignancy, after neural tissue insult during surgery and/or exposure to radiation or neurotoxic agents used as part of cancer treatment regimens. Pain following cancer treatment is commonly under-treated and one barrier identified is poor recognition of pain and inadequate assessment. Recognition of the presence of NCP is important to inform pain management, which is challenging to treat and warrants the use of specific treatments to target neuropathic mechanisms. In this review, approaches for screening and classifying NCP are described. These include screening questionnaires and the application of the updated neuropathic pain grading system in a cancer context. The evidence from neuropathic pain related assessments in cancer populations is provided and highlighted under different neuropathic pain grades. Recommendations for assessment in practice are provided.

Levo-tetrahydropalmatine ameliorates neuropathic pain by inhibiting the activation of the Clec7a-MAPK/NF-κB-NLRP3 inflammasome axis

BACKGROUND

Because of the complex pathogenesis of neuropathic pain (NP), the therapeutic efficacy of existing drugs is not satisfactory. Accumulating studies have indicated that neuroinflammation may play a key role in NP onset and progression. Levo-tetrahydropalmatine (l-THP) has been extensively used for relieving chronic pain for decades. However, its potential mechanisms against NP have not yet been fully elucidated.

PURPOSE

Exploring and elucidating the therapeutic effect and pharmacological mechanism of l-THP in treating NP.

METHODS

RNA-seq and bioinformatics analyses were carried out to identify effective target profiling of I-THP in chronic constrictive injury (CCI) rats. The I-THP related hub targets and signaling pathways were obtained via bioinformatics analysis, then subjected to in-depth analyses through experiments in vivo. A gain-of-function study further confirmed the role of Clec7a in l-THP-mediated pain relief. Finally, the interaction between l-THP and Clec7a was verified through molecular docking and surface plasmon resonance (SPR).

RESULTS

l-THP treatment effectively alleviated mechanical and thermal allodynia in NP model rats. Functionally, the I-THP effective targets were mainly enriched in inflammatory response-related pathways. Furthermore, Clec7a-MAPK/NF-κB-NLRP3 inflammasome axis was selected as one of the potential pathways of l-THP against NP. Mechanically, l-THP markedly reduced CCI-induced Clec7a overexpression, significantly inhibited the Clec7a-triggered phosphorylation of MAPK and NF-κB-p65, and decreased the expression of pyroptosis-related protein NLRP3 and Caspase-1-p20. The analgesic effect of l-THP on NP was partly eliminated when transfecting the overexpression vector virus pLVSO5Clec7a. Importantly, molecular docking and SPR data revealed that l-THP directly binds with the Clec7a protein.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first to indicate that l-THP may exert an analgesic effect through inhibiting neuroinflammation via the Clec7a-MAPK/NF-κB-NLRP3 inflammasome axis, supporting the clinical utility of l-THP in NP therapy.

Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain: Comparison of Pain Classification Features and Pain Intensity across Diverse Palliative Care Settings in Canada

Background: The goal of the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain (ECS-CP) is to create an international classification system for cancer pain. Previous studies reinforce the need for standardized training to ensure consistency across assessors. There is no universally accepted classification for neuropathic pain. Objectives: Our primary objective was to describe the prevalence of ECS-CP features in a diverse sample of advanced cancer patients, using assessors with standardized training. The secondary objectives were to: (1) determine the prevalence of neuropathic pain using the Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group (NeuPSIG) criteria and (2) examine the relationship between specific predictors: ECS-CP features, age, Palliative Performance Scale, Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (MEDD), setting, and pain intensity; and neuropathic pain. Methods: A total of 1050 adult patients with advanced cancer were recruited from 11 Canadian sites. A clinician completed the ECS-CP and NeuPSIG criteria, and collected additional information including demographics and pain intensity (now). All assessors received standardized training. Results: Of 1050 evaluable patients, 910 (87%) had cancer pain: nociceptive (n = 626; 68.8%); neuropathic (n = 227; 24.9%); incident (n = 329; 36.2%); psychological distress (n = 209; 23%); addictive behavior (n = 51; 5.6%); and normal cognition (n = 639; 70.2%). The frequencies of ECS-CP features and pain intensity scores varied across sites and settings, with more acute settings having higher frequencies of complex pain features. The overall frequency of neuropathic pain was 24.9%, ranging from 11% (hospices) to 34.2% (palliative outpatient clinic) across settings. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that age <60 years, MEDD ≥19 mg, pain intensity ≥7/10, and incident pain were significant independent predictors of neuropathic pain (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The ECS-CP was able to detect salient pain features across settings. Furthermore, the frequencies of neuropathic pain utilizing the NeuPSIG criteria fits within the lower-end of literature estimates (13%-40%). Further research is warranted to validate the NeuPSIG criteria in cancer pain.

High-rate breakthrough cancer pain and tumour characteristics - literature review and case series

Cancer pain requires careful comprehensive patient evaluation and an appropriate and personalized clinical approach by a trained multidisciplinary team. The proper assessment of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) is part of an all-inclusive multidimensional evaluation of the patient. The aim of this narrative review is to explore the relationship between high-rate BTcP, which strongly impacts health- related quality of life and tumour characteristics, in the face of novel approaches that should provide guidance for future clinical practice. The presentation of short, emblematic clinical reports also promotes knowledge of BTcP, which, despite the availability of numerous therapeutic approaches, remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. This article is part of the Management of breakthrough cancer pain Special Issue: https://www.drugsincontext.com/special_issues/management-of-breakthrough-cancer-pain.

Possible Neuropathic Pain in Clinical Practice-Review on Selected Diagnostic Tools and Its Further Challenges

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain (NeP) is a wide group of conditions provoked by many different causes and with different patterns. The creation of a grading system was intended to determine the level of certainty that the pain is of neuropathic nature.

METHODS

The aim of this review is to update previously published data on some NeP questionnaires and their measurement properties. The selection of articles is based on the basic neurological units. To assess the usefulness and credibility of the questionnaires, the authors searched for a commonly used measure of reliability, as well as sensitivity and specificity.

RESULTS

Studies regarding the usefulness and credibility of questionnaires used in NeP were realized. Different patient cohorts, etiologies and sample sizes, do not allow for an unambiguous comparison of the presented scales; however, all of these studies found good measures of reliability, specificity and sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

NeP tools seem to be beneficial screening instruments that should be utilized by specialists and general practitioners to improve the recognition of "possible" NeP and to determine the epidemiology of this disorder. They have been developed to distinguish perceived pain into neuropathic and non-neuropathic, and, therefore, patients with a mixed pain can still present a diagnostic challenge. Clinical examination and interview play an essential role in the diagnostic process and monitoring, and cannot be neglected.

Diagnosis, management and impact on patients' lives of cancer-related neuropathic pain (CRNP): A European survey

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the impact of cancer-related neuropathic pain (CRNP) on patients and the importance of the patient-healthcare professional (HCP) relationship in diagnosis and management.

METHODS

A quantitative online survey was conducted involving adult patients from 13 European countries who had been diagnosed with treatable cancer and experienced symptoms of peripheral neuropathy.

RESULTS

Of 24,733 screened respondents, 549 eligible persons met the inclusion criteria and completed the questionnaire. Among individuals still experiencing pain, 75% rated it as 'severe' or 'moderate'. In addition, 61% reported a negative impact on day-to-day activities, and 30% said they had stopped working as a result. A third of respondents had received no diagnosis of CRNP despite reporting painful symptoms to an HCP. HCPs spending enough time discussing pain and understanding the impact on patients' lives were each associated with an increased likelihood of a formal CRNP diagnosis. Compared with individuals currently in active cancer treatment, cancer survivors were less likely to have a diagnosis of CRNP or regular pain conversations with HCPs.

CONCLUSION

CRNP remains under-recognised despite its substantial impact on patients' lives. Clinical practice may be improved by strengthening patient-HCP relationships around pain discussions and increasing the focus on pain management among cancer survivors.

Cancer pain: Results of a prospective study on prognostic indicators of pain intensity including pain syndromes assessment

BACKGROUND

Pain is a prevalent symptom in patients with advanced cancer. Recognition of prognostic factors associated with pain intensity, could help provide better assessment, leading to better pain management.

AIM

identifying prognostic factors which could guide improvements on cancer pain classification.

DESIGN

a prospective observational study on chronic cancer pain, exploring the association between average mean pain intensity during a 28 days study follow-up and patients' clinical and pain-related characteristics, including pain syndromes. To evaluate these associations, a mixed model was built.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Patients attending a Palliative Care and Pain Outpatient Clinic from May 2015 to June 2019 were screened. Patients with moderate to severe cancer pain who were already receiving or needed treatment with third step WHO ladder opioids were enrolled in the study. Data from 342 patients with at least one follow-up visit were analyzed.

RESULTS

Pain intensity decreased significantly for all patients during time (p < 0.001). Age, sex, emotional distress, pain duration and neuropathic pain presence evaluated by the Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) questionnaire were not significantly associated to pain intensity. Breakthrough/episodic pain was associated with higher pain intensity during follow-up (p < 0.001). The diagnosis of pain syndrome was overall significantly associated with mean pain intensity during follow-up (p = 0.016). Particularly, the concurrent presence of visceral and soft (p = 0.026) or soft and nervous tissue pain (p = 0.043) were significantly related to worse outcome, whereas pain due to only soft tissue damage with better outcome (p = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

The recognition of specific pain syndromes may help to better classify cancer pain.

Comprehensive Targeted Treatment for Neuropathic and Nociceptive Pain in Palliative Care Patients

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom in patients with advanced, metastatic, or terminal cancer. Neuropathic pain and psycho-emotional suffering are factors that increase the difficulty of pain management. Pain control in patients with cancer remains a challenge for medical professionals.

STUDY QUESTION

What is the evolution of neuropathic/mixed pain compared with nociceptive pain under standardized treatment in patients with cancer?

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, longitudinal, open-label, nonrandomized study was conducted on patients with cancer pain.

MEASURES AND OUTCOMES

Pain type was assessed at admission using the modified Brief Pain Inventory, and pain intensity was assessed daily using the Numerical Rating Scale for 14 days and on days 21 and 28. Screening of depression was performed on days 1, 7, 14, 21, and 28 using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Patients with pain and depression received analgesics with antidepressants, while patients without depression received analgesics or analgesics with an anticonvulsant depending on the pain subtype.

RESULTS

Of 72 patients, 23 had nociceptive pain and 49 had neuropathic/mixed pain. At admission, pain intensity was higher for patients with neuropathic/mixed pain compared with nociceptive pain (mean values: 7.06 vs. 5.82) with statistical significance (P = 0.001) and remained as such at the end of this study (mean values: 3.77 vs. 2.73). A decrease in the mean pain intensity was observed in all types of pain, but without statistical significance regardless of pain type and treatment protocol used (P = 0.77). If depression was present, antidepressants combined with analgesics decreased pain and depression scores significantly (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with neuropathic/mixed pain have higher levels of pain and lower response to treatment. Identifying psycho-emotional suffering can improve pain control by intervening in the physical and psycho-emotional components of pain.

Cross-Sectional Comparative Study on Central Sensitization-Psychosocial Associated Comorbidities and Psychological Characteristics in Breast Cancer Survivors with Nociceptive Pain and Pain with Neuropathic Features and without Pain

Simple Summary

Persistent pain after breast cancer treatment is still under research due to its complex and multifactorial underlying pathogenesis, including phycological factors. Further research is needed to elucidate more information about the factors that cause and perpetuate this pain. Thus, this study defined the influence of psychosocial and psychological factors on breast cancer survivors who report pain and those who do not. The psychosocial factors assessed were those that are associated with a central sensitization process, and the psychological factors were pain catastrophizing, fear of movement, anxiety and depression. Hence, the psychosocial symptom clusters were identified related to the clinical features of pain or to not reporting pain, which may encourage health clinicians to establish a customized biopsychosocial model focused on the management of pain-catastrophizing thoughts and fear of movement. Furthermore, anxiety and depression should be detected early by health professionals and referred to psychologists to be managed.

Abstract

The frequency of a high Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) total score and the prevalence of pain have already been established among breast cancer survivors (BCS). However, the psychological factors’ influence based on the clinical features of pain is still unknown, as well as BCS characteristics with no pain. Thus, our main aim was to evaluate the presence of a high CSI total score in BCS with pain and compare it with BCS without pain and to evaluate the influence of psychosocial factors. A cross-sectional comparative study was designed to compare BCS with nociceptive pain (n = 19), pain with neuropathic features (n = 19) or no pain (n = 19), classified by the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS). CSI, pain catastrophizing, fear of movement, anxiety and depression symptoms were analyzed and compared among the three groups. The CSI total score was higher in both BCS pain groups compared to BCS without pain, but there were no statistical differences between the pain groups. The same observation was made when comparing pain catastrophizing. The neuropathic feature group showed greater levels of fear of movement, anxiety and depression compared to the no pain group. Thus, CS-psychosocial associated comorbidities and pain-catastrophizing thoughts were more prevalent among BCS with pain, regardless of the clinical features of pain. BCS with neuropathic pain features showed greater psychological disturbances.

Treatment of Neuropathic Pain Directly Due to Cancer: An Update

Simple Summary

This review discusses treatment approaches for providing pain relief to oncological patients affected by pain caused by nerve damage due to the tumor, also known as neuropathic cancer pain. Although being encountered often and causing a relevant burden to these patients, neuropathic cancer pain remains still difficult to diagnose and treat. Strong evidence about the best drugs to be used remain limited, as do therapeutic choices.

Abstract

Neuropathic pain can be defined as pain related to abnormal somatosensory processing in either the peripheral or central nervous system. In this review article, with neuropathic cancer pain (NCP), we refer to pain due to nervous tissue lesions caused by the tumor or its metastases. Nervous tissue damage is the cause of cancer pain in approximately 40% of those experiencing cancer pain. Recognizing a neuropathic pathophysiology in these cases may be difficult and requires specific criteria that are not homogenously applied in clinical practice. The management of this type of pain can be challenging, requiring the use of specific non-opioid adjuvant drugs. The majority of the criteria for NCP diagnosis and management have been based mainly on results from the noncancer population, risking the failure of addressing the specific needs of this population of patients. In this review, we summarize current management options available for NCP and provide some insights on new promising treatments.

Nonopioid drug combinations for cancer pain: a systematic review

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

Improvement of pain management in a comprehensive cancer center: a comparison of two cross-sectional studies 8 years apart

CONTEXT

In 2011, a multidisciplinary palliative team (MPT) was established at Rigshospitalet (DK) and a cross-sectional study in inpatients was carried out at the Departments of Oncology and Hematology. High symptom burden, high prevalence of pain (64%), and insufficient analgesic treatment were demonstrated. In 2019, a similar study was carried out.

OBJECTIVES

This study compares prevalence of symptoms including pain and analyzes analgesic treatment of adult in-patients in a comprehensive cancer center.

METHODS

Two cross-sectional studies (May-Jun 2011; Feb-Sep 2019).

INCLUSION CRITERIA

malignant diseases, age ≥ 18 y, able to understand Danish. EORTC QLQ-C30 and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) were applied.

RESULTS

A total of 134 and 183 inpatients were included in 2011 and 2019, respectively. Differences in the two populations were seen; in 2019 more patients had advanced disease (P = 0.0096), lower performance status (P = 0.0028), and a palliative treatment plan (P = 0.0034). The prevalence of impairments and symptoms was high and similar in the 2 years with exception of severe pain (P = 0.0143) and neuropathic pain (P < 0.0001) which increased in 2019. Moreover, pain relief significantly improved, and significantly fewer patients with pain were left untreated. Significant increase in opioid and adjuvant analgesic prescription in 2019.

CONCLUSION

An overall unchanged high symptom burden was observed. However, improvement of pain management was observed in 2019. The establishment of a MPT may possibly have contributed to improved pain management.

Are mindfulness treatments effective for pain in cancer patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have been recently applied in pain management and cancer care. However, inconsistencies exist concerning the effectiveness of MBIs on pain control among cancer patients. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the efficacy of MBIs on pain in cancer patients via a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched using key terms related to pain, cancer and mindfulness. The primary outcome was pain intensity. Standardized mean difference (SMD) of each outcome with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated. The quality of evidence was assessed by GRADE assessment.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs with 843 participants were included. Significant pooled effects of MBIs on pain intensity were found at both short-term (SMD = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.33 to -0.04]) and long-term (SMD = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.35 to -0.05]) follow-up, whereas no significance was observed for pain interference. In subgroup analyses, significant intervention effects were only seen in clinic-based MBIs compared to remote MBIs, and pooled effects of MBIs in attenuating pain were discovered relative to passive rather than active comparators. GRADE ratings showed moderate certainty of evidence in MBIs for pain intensity but low for pain interference.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of MBIs in reducing pain intensity among cancer patients was revealed in this meta-analysis, albeit with a small effect size. Future research is warranted to optimize mindfulness treatment for pain control in cancer patients with high methodological quality and a large sample size.

SIGNIFICANCE

The effect of MBIs on pain in cancer patients was demonstrated in our analysis, albeit with small effect sizes. High-quality RCTs are needed to verify the efficacy of MBIs on cancer patients or survivors with pain complaints. Future trials should take into account the specific pain outcome measures (pain intensity or pain interference), the approach of intervention provision (clinic-based or remote MBI, group or individual practice), the duration and frequency of interventions and the comparators (passive or active control arms).