Assessing cancer pain-the first step toward improving patients' quality of life.

PURPOSE: Numerous studies on cancer patients have shown that cancer pain still remains underestimated, poorly assessed, and under-treated. Pain relief should be considered as early as possible within personalized care and as an integral part of quality healthcare in many countries. Nevertheless, personalized care is still insufficiently taken into consideration, partly due to improper or incomplete assessment of cancer pain. The objective of this article is to propose a practical approach to this complex assessment, as the first step to improving patients' quality of life. METHODS: Critical reflection based on literature analysis and clinical practice. RESULTS: Assessment of cancer pain means evaluating the pain intensity over time, the dimensions of pain (sensory-discriminative, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral), the pathophysiological nature of pain (neuropathic, nociceptive, and nociplastic), the etiology, and the patient's perception (diffuse, localized, global). Cancer patients may have simple or multiple forms of pain (mixed, overlapped, combined, and associated). Furthermore, with the use of new specific therapies, the symptomatology of pain is also changing, and certain cancers are becoming chronic. Thus, cancer pain is an archetype of multimorphic pain, and its dynamic assessments (regular and repeated) require a multimodal and targeted approach in order to offer personalized pain management. Multimodal pain treatment must be adapted to the elements that disrupt cancer pain, to the patient's cancer and to the specific treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The dynamic assessments of pain demand the simplest, and the most complete possible procedure, to avoid feasibility problems or self-/hetero-assessment excesses that might lead to less precise and less reliable results. Multimodal and interdisciplinary approaches are being developed, making it possible to optimize cancer pain management.

A clinical approach to the management of cancer-related pain in emergency situations.

PURPOSE: Most cancer patients experience many pain episodes depending on disruptive elements, leading them to the emergency room. The objective of the article is to describe common pitfalls that need to be avoided, as well as opportunities to be seized for repositioning patients back on their care pathway. METHODS: Critical reflection based on literature analysis and clinical practice. RESULTS: Most forms of cancer are now chronic, evolving diseases, and patients are treated with high-technology targeted therapies with iatrogenic effects. Moreover, the multimorphic nature of cancer-related pain requires dynamic, interdisciplinary assessments addressing its etiology, its pathophysiology, its dimensions (sensory-discriminatory, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral), and the patient's perception of it, in order to propose the most adapted therapies. However, for most patients, cancer pain remains underestimated, poorly assessed, and under-treated. In this context, the key steps in emergency cancer pain management are as follows: • Quick relief of uncontrolled cancer pain: after eliminating potential medical or surgical emergencies revealed by pain, a brief questioning will make the use of carefully titrated morphine in most situations possible. • Assessment and re-assessment of the pain and the patient, screening specific elements, to better understand the situation and its consequences. • Identification of disruptive elements leading to uncontrolled pain, with an interdisciplinary confrontation to find a mid to long-term approach, involving the appropriate pharmaceutical and/or non-pharmaceutical strategies, possibly including interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Pain emergencies should be part of the cancer care pathway and, through supportive care, provide an opportunity to help cancer patients both maintain their physical, psychological, and social balance and anticipate further painful episodes.

Strategies of complementary and integrative therapies in cancer-related pain-attaining exhaustive cancer pain management.

PURPOSE: Complementary integrative therapies (CITs) correspond to growing demand in patients with cancer-related pain. This demand needs to be considered alongside pharmaceutical and/or interventional therapies. CITs can be used to cover certain specific pain-related characteristics. The objective of this review is to present the options for CITs that could be used within dynamic, multidisciplinary, and personalized management, leading to an integrative oncology approach. METHODS: Critical reflection based on literature analysis and clinical practice. RESULTS: Most CITs only showed trends in efficacy as cancer pain was mainly a secondary endpoint, or populations were restricted. Physical therapy has demonstrated efficacy in motion and pain, in some specific cancers (head and neck or breast cancers) or in treatments sequelae (lymphedema). In cancer survivors, higher levels of physical activity decrease pain intensity. Due to the multimorphism of cancer pain, certain mind-body therapies acting on anxiety, stress, depression, or mood disturbances (such as massage, acupuncture, healing touch, hypnosis, and music therapy) are efficient on cancer pain. Other mind-body therapies have shown trends in reducing the severity of cancer pain and improving other parameters, and they include education (with coping skills training), yoga, tai chi/qigong, guided imagery, virtual reality, and cognitive-behavioral therapy alone or combined. The outcome sustainability of most CITs is still questioned. CONCLUSIONS: High-quality clinical trials should be conducted with CITs, as their efficacy on pain is mainly based on efficacy trends in pain severity, professional judgment, and patient preferences. Finally, the implementation of CITs requires an interdisciplinary team approach to offer optimal, personalized, cancer pain management.

Opening up disruptive ways of management in cancer pain: the concept of multimorphic pain.

PURPOSE: Following a series of articles reviewing the basics of cancer pain management, in this article, we develop the guiding principle of our philosophy: the concept of multimorphic pain and how to integrate it as the innovative cornerstone of supportive care in cancer. METHOD: Critical reflection based on literature analysis and clinical practice. RESULTS: This model aims to break with standard approaches, offering a more dynamic and exhaustive vision of cancer pain as a singular clinical entity, taking into account its multimorphic characteristics (cancer pain experience can and will change during cancer: aetiology, physiopathology, clinical presentation and consequences of pain) and the disruptive elements that can occur to influence its evolution (cancer evolution, concomitant treatments, pain from associated diseases, comorbidities and complications, or modifications in the environment). Our model establishes the main key stages for interdisciplinary management of cancer pain: Early, personalised management that is targeted and multimodal; Identification, including in advance, of potential disruptive elements throughout the care pathway, using an exhaustive approach to all the factors influencing pain, leading to patient and caregiver education; Optimal analgesic balance throughout the care pathway; Integration of this concept into a systemic early supportive care model from the cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Given the difficulties still present in the management of pain in cancer, and whilst cancer is often considered as a chronic condition, the concept of multimorphic pain proposes a practical, optimised and innovative approach for clinicians and, ultimately, for patients experiencing pain.

Strategies for interventional therapies in cancer-related pain-a crossroad in cancer pain management.

PURPOSE: Interventional therapies are important to consider when facing cancer pain refractory to conventional therapies. The objective of the current review is to introduce these effective strategies into dynamic interdisciplinary pain management, leading to an exhaustive approach to supportive oncology. METHODS: Critical reflection based on literature analysis and clinical practice. RESULTS: Interventional therapies act on the nervous system via neuromodulation or surgical approaches, or on primitive or metastatic lesions via interventional radiotherapy, percutaneous ablation, or surgery. Interventional therapies such as neuromodulations are constantly evolving with new technical works still in development. Nowadays, their usage is better defined, depending on clinical situations, and their impact on quality of life is proven. Nevertheless their availability and acceptability still need to be improved. To start with, a patient's interdisciplinary evaluation should cover a wide range of items such as patient's performance and psychological status, ethical considerations, and physiochemical and pharmacological properties of the cerebrospinal fluid for intrathecal neuromodulation. This will help to define the most appropriate strategy. In addition to determining the pros and cons of highly specialized interventional therapies, their relevance should be debated within interdisciplinary teams in order to select the best strategy for the right patient, at the right time. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, the use of the interventional therapies can be limited by the requirement of specific trained healthcare teams and technical support, or the lack of health policies. However, these interventional strategies need to be proposed as soon as possible to each patient requiring them, as they can greatly improve quality of life.

Opioids in cancer-related pain: current situation and outlook.

PURPOSE: Despite progress in treatments, cancer pain remains underestimated, poorly assessed and under-treated. Prescribing strong opioids, because of their specificities, requires precision in management considering their pharmacology but also a clear understanding of recommendations. Some clinicians highlight the risk of addiction, excessive sedation and respiratory depression and their need for information. Our objective in this review is to suggest some clinical guidance for the positioning and daily use of opioids within cancer pain management. METHODS: Critical reflection based on literature analysis and clinical practice. RESULTS: Strong opioids may be initiated as soon as pain diagnosis is defined. Factors to consider are pain aetiology, opioid pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, genetic polymorphism, physiology (age, gender, weight and pregnancy), comorbidities (especially renal, hepatic, cardiovascular diseases), chronobiology, environmental factors, medication interference and treatment adherence. Achieving the best-balanced opioid treatment for background pain is complex, mainly due to the variable benefit/risk ratio between individuals and the experience of breakthrough cancer pain. Opioid initiation alongside a dynamic reassessment of pain should be fully integrated into the patient's management to optimise analgesia. The efficacy and safety of a strong opioid treatment need to be re-evaluated and adapted to individuals constantly as it varies over time. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer pain is multimorphic and permanently changing due to disease evolution, curative treatments and disruptive events (concomitant treatments, pain from associated disease, comorbidities and complications, modifications of the environment). Well-managed opioids are the cornerstone of a complex environment requiring multidisciplinary dynamic assessments integrated into the patient's care pathway.

5% lidocaine medicated plaster in elderly patients with postherpetic neuralgia: results of a compassionate use programme in France.

BACKGROUND: Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a common, debilitating complication of herpes zoster that has a major impact on patients' quality of life. PHN prevalence increases with advancing age. One treatment option is the topical analgesic 5% lidocaine (lignocaine) medicated plaster (Versatis®), which has been proven to be efficacious and well tolerated in a number of randomized clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to assess the use of the lidocaine medicated plaster under clinical practice conditions in a patient population whose previous PHN treatment with antidepressant and/or antiepileptic agents was inadequate or was not tolerated, or for whom such treatment was contraindicated or not recommended. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicentre, non-interventional observation conducted in private and public health centres in France under a compassionate use programme (CUP). To obtain this new - and, at the time, unauthorized - PHN treatment alternative, physicians (in accordance with French guidelines) had to complete standardized case report forms for each patient before his/her inclusion in the CUP. As it was a CUP and therefore a non-interventional observation, returning documented information on follow-up visits to the medication provider was voluntary, and only a limited number of physicians returned completed forms. Documentation was, however, mandatory for adverse events (AEs) occurrence. Depending on the size of the painful skin area, up to three lidocaine plasters daily were applied for a maximum of 12 hours with plaster-free intervals of at least 12 hours. The study assessed changes in the prescription of concomitant PHN medication from the start of lidocaine plaster treatment to the last follow-up visit, both in terms of the sum of all concomitant PHN treatments and stratified by type of treatment: antiepileptic drugs, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs), classical analgesics (classified as step 1, 2 or 3 according to the WHO cancer pain ladder), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and others (mainly NSAIDs). AEs were monitored for safety. RESULTS: A total of 625 patients were included in the CUP and permitted to receive lidocaine plaster treatment. Physicians returned 273 documented follow-up visit report forms. The mean ± SD CUP duration (i.e. duration of lidocaine plaster treatment) was 2.4 ± 2.5 months (median 1 month). Efficacy was assessed in the group of patients with documented follow-up visits (n = 273; mean ± SD age 73.6 ± 11.2 years), of whom 184 were aged ≥70 years (elderly efficacy population). The safety analysis included 625 patients (mean ± SD age 73.2 ± 11.9 years). Lidocaine plaster treatment resulted in a significant mean reduction of one concomitant PHN treatment per patient in the overall efficacy population analysed at the end of the observation (p < 0.001). In both populations (overall efficacy and elderly efficacy population), significantly fewer patients received TCAs (p = 0.003 and p = 0.001, respectively), step 3 analgesics (p = 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively), and other miscellaneous treatments (p < 0.001 for both populations); there was also a significant reduction in the proportion of patients who took step 2 analgesics (p = 0.009) in the overall efficacy group. AEs (mainly related to local plaster application) were documented for 2.6% of the patients in the safety population; none were considered serious. CONCLUSIONS: In day-to-day clinical practice management of PHN, treatment with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster permitted a significant quantitative reduction in concomitant treatments for neuropathic pain in the overall efficacy population. In the subgroup aged ≥70 years, the quantitative reduction was non-significant. However, in both populations, 5% lidocaine medicated plaster reduced use of TCAs and step 3 analgesics. An improved polymedication status and good tolerability in this likely multimorbid age group indicate that the plaster is a new therapeutic alternative for patients suffering from PHN in France.

Prospective, double-blind, randomized trial of equimolar mixture of nitrous oxide/oxygen to prevent pain induced by insertion of venous access ports in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: To assess the efficacy of equimolar mixture of nitrous oxide/oxygen (EMNO) to prevent pain induced by venous access ports (VAPs) implantation in cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind study on an adult population not knowing the effects of EMNO, cancer patients were randomly assigned to breath via a facial mask, EMNO or a placebo mixture comprising 50% oxygen and 50% nitrogen. The primary end-point was the patients' assessment of the severity of pain evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS, 0 to 100) and the proportion of patients suffering pain in each group. The secondary criteria were side effects, tolerability of EMNO, and the level of satisfaction of both the patients and the medical team. RESULTS: Eighty-three adults (42 in the EMNO group and 41 in the placebo group) were included. VAPs were implanted in the jugular vein in 95% of patients. In the placebo group, 78% of the patients declared that they found VAP implantation painful vs. 34% in the EMNO group (p=0.001). The severity of the pain was reduced by 50% in the EMNO group in comparison with placebo (p=0.0125). Although the median time to perform implantation was strictly identical in both groups (20 min), the estimated duration of surgery seemed longer to patients in the control group. Patient and investigator satisfaction indexes were >90% in both groups. CONCLUSION: EMNO provides an effective solution for the prevention of pain during placement of VAPs.