Episodic Cancer Pain: Patient Reporting, Prevalence, and Clinicodemographic Associations at Initial Cancer Pain Clinic Assessment

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.

Procedural pain in patients with cancer: a Delphi expert management consensus

OBJECTIVES

Diagnosis, treatment and care of cancer often involve procedures that may be distressing and potentially painful for patients. The PROCEDIO Study aimed to generate expert-based recommendations on the management of moderate to severe procedural pain in inpatients and outpatients with cancer.

METHODS

Using a two-round Delphi method, experts from pain and palliative care units, medical and radiation oncology and haematology departments expressed their agreement on 24 statements using a 9-point Likert scale, which were classified as appropriate (median 7-9), uncertain (4-6) or inappropriate (1-3). Consensus was achieved if at least two-thirds of the panel scored within the range containing the median.

RESULTS

With an overall agreement on the current definition of procedural pain, participants suggested a wider description based on evidence and their clinical experience. A strong consensus was achieved regarding the need for a comprehensive pre-procedural pain assessment and experts emphasised that healthcare professionals involved in procedural pain management should be adequately trained. Most panellists (98.2%) agreed that pharmacological treatment should be chosen considering the duration of the procedure. Transmucosal fentanyl (96.5%) and morphine (71.7%) were recommended as the most appropriate drugs. Oral and nasal transmucosal fentanyl were agreed as the most suitable for both outpatients and inpatients, while consensus was reached for intravenous and subcutaneous morphine for inpatients.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide updated expert-based recommendations on the definition, prevention and treatment of moderate to severe procedural pain, which could inform specialists involved in pain management of patients with cancer.

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.

Rapid-Onset Opioids for Management of Breakthrough Cancer Pain: Considerations for Daily Practice

Background and Objective

Rapid-onset opioids (ROOs) are effective treatments for breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) given their rapid onset of action and relatively short duration of analgesia. The aim of this article is to describe specific considerations for the use of ROOs in daily practice, focusing on dose titration and treatment of specific populations.

Type of Review

We conducted a narrative review on the use of ROOs for BTcP. We selected papers according to the following search terms: “breakthrough cancer pain” and “rapid onset opioids”.

Results

ROOs may be considered as the most suitable drugs to treat BTcP and can be used “on-demand”. Several fentanyl formulations are available and have been associated with control of BTcP and with improvement in quality of life. Various titration schemes have been used to optimize ROO dosing; however, a dose-proportional scheme could be considered safe and effective in most patients. Specific formulations may be more suitable for specific patient subgroups; for example, patients with oral mucositis may prefer intranasal to oral formulations. Moreover, elderly patients or those without caregivers should be clearly educated on the use of these formulations. A key element in achieving successful treatment of BTcP is awareness of the barriers to pain management, including poor overall assessment, patient reluctance to take opioids or report pain, and physician reluctance to prescribe opioids.

Conclusion

A personalized approach is fundamental when prescribing a medication for BTcP, and careful attention should be given to drug choice and route of administration, and to the need for alternative therapeutic options.

The Practice of Pain Assessment and Management in a Tertiary Oncology Center

Background

Pain is one of the common and devastating symptoms that affects millions of cancer patients globally. Despite published guidelines and education on the assessment and management of cancer-related pain, underestimated or undertreated pain continues to be a considerable worldwide public health concern among cancer patients. In this study, we aimed to assess physicians’ adherence to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines in the management and assessment of pain in oncology patients based on the available score of pain in the Princess Noorah Oncology Center (PNOC) at the King Abdulaziz Medical City in Jeddah.

Methodology

This cross-sectional, retrospective chart review study studied 451 patients (selected through computerized random sampling) who were admitted to the PNOC during the study period.

Results

The pain was assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory in almost all patients (n = 450, 99.8%). The pain was categorized as mild in 386 (85.6%) patients, moderate in 46 (10.2%) patients, and severe in 19 (4.2%) patients. Opioid prescriptions were significantly higher among patients with moderate (76.1%) and severe pain (89.5%) compared to those with mild pain (39.1%; p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The practice of pain documentation for cancer patients was adequate as indicated by reporting the pain scores of 99.8% of inpatients. Patients with moderate and severe pain were more likely to receive opioids and a combination of opioids plus non-opioid analgesics, whereas the prescription of analgesics was predicted by experiencing moderate cancer pain.

The Prevalence and Characteristics of Breakthrough Cancer Pain in Patients Receiving Low Doses of Opioids for Background Pain

Simple Summary

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and characteristics of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) in patients receiving low doses of opioids for background pain. This prospective study showed that in this population, BTcP prevalence was 69.8%. Many patients did not achieve a sufficient level of satisfaction with BTcP medications, particularly with oral morphine. Data also suggest that better optimization of background analgesia, though apparently acceptable, may limit the number of BTcP episodes.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and characteristics of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) in patients receiving low doses of opioids for background pain. A consecutive sample of advanced cancer patients receiving less than 60 mg/day of oral morphine equivalent (OME) was selected. Epidemiological data, background pain intensity, and current analgesic therapy were recorded. The presence of BTcP was diagnosed according to a standard algorithm. The number of BTcP episodes, intensity of BTcP, its predictability and triggers, onset duration, interference with daily activities, BTcP medications, satisfaction with BTcP medication, and time to meaningful pain relief were collected. A total of 126 patients were screened. The mean intensity of background pain was 2.71 (1.57), and the mean OME was 28.5 mg/day (SD15.8). BTP episodes were recorded in 88 patients (69.8%). The mean number/day of BTP episodes was 4.1 (SD 7.1, range 1–30). In a significant percentage of patients, BTcP was both predictable and unpredictable (23%). The BTcP onset was less than 20 min in the majority of patients. The mean duration of untreated episodes was 47.5 (SD 47.6) minutes. The mean time to meaningful pain relief after taking a BTcP medication was >20 min in 44.5% of patients. The efficacy of BTcP medication was not considered good in more than 63% of patients. Gender (females) (OR = 4.16) and lower Karnofsky (OR = 0.92) were independently associated with BTcP. A higher number of BTcP episodes/day was associated with gender (females) (p = 0.036), short duration of BTcP (p = 0.005), poorer efficacy of BTcP medication (none or mild) (p = 0.001), and late meaningful pain relief (p = 0.024). The poor efficacy of BTcP medication was independently associated with a higher number of episodes/day (OR = 0.22). In patients who were receiving low doses of opioids, BTcP prevalence was 69.8%. Many patients did not achieve a sufficient level of satisfaction with BTcP medications, particularly with oral morphine. Data also suggest that better optimization of background analgesia, though apparently acceptable, may limit the number of BTcP episodes.