Breakthrough pain characteristics and syndromes in patients with cancer pain. An international survey

Breakthrough pain (BKP) is a transitory flare of pain that occurs on a background of relatively well controlled baseline pain. Previous surveys have found that BKP is highly prevalent among patients with cancer pain and predicts more severe pain, pain-related distress and functional impairment, and relatively poor quality of life. An international group of investigators assembled by a task force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) evaluated the prevalence and characteristics of BKP as part of a prospective, cross-sectional survey of cancer pain. Fifty-eight clinicians in 24 countries evaluated a total of 1095 patients with cancer pain using patient-rated items from the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and observer-rated measures. The observer-rated information included demographic and tumor-related data, the occurrence of BKP, and responses on checklists of pain syndromes and pathophysiologies. The clinicians reported BKP in 64.8% of patients. Physicians from English-speaking countries were significantly more likely to report BKP than other physicians. BKP was associated with higher pain scores and functional interference on the BPI. Multivariate analysis showed an independent association of BKP with the presence of more than one pain, a vertebral pain syndrome, pain due to plexopathy, and English-speaking country. These data confirm the high prevalence of BKP, its association with more severe pain and functional impairment, and its relationship to specific cancer pain syndromes. Further studies are needed to characterize subtypes of BKP. The uneven distribution of BKP reporting across pain specialists from different countries suggests that more standardized methods for diagnosing BKP are needed.

The treatment of chronic cancer pain in a cancer hospital in The Netherlands

In a prospective study of 313 Dutch cancer patients with chronic pain, the practice of pain treatment was evaluated by means of Donabedian's structure-process-outcome framework. The practice of pain treatment was assessed by: (1) structural resources, describing the setting in which pain treatment is provided; (2) process components, which describe the clinical practice; and (3) outcome measures, which refer to patients' pain intensity, patient satisfaction, or composite pain management index scores. Results showed that 31.4-59.8% of the cancer pain patients received less than optimal pain treatment. Although pain education and refresher courses for health care providers are scarce, structural resources were not the major cause of the suboptimal level of pain treatment. Rather, the major cause was the process components. Only 36.4% of the patients received strong opioids; 23.1% received analgesics "as needed." Patients' pain knowledge was far from optimal (54.8 on a 0-100 scale), and written pain information was given to only 15.8% of the patients. After discharge, only 36.8% of the district nurses were informed about patients' pain. These results emphasize that continuing efforts to improve the practice of pain treatment are needed.