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

Background: Better understanding of the episodic cancer pain (CP) spectrum, including pains that occur in addition to its conventionally defined breakthrough CP (BTcP) and incident CP (IcP) components, may inform CP assessment and management. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of episodic patient-reported CP and the prevalence and associations of study-defined BTcP (S-BTcP) and IcP (S-IcP) in patients with CP. Methods: In a cross-sectional study at their first CP clinic attendance, participants with CP had the following assessments: Brief Pain Inventory (BPI); Pain Management Index (PMI), with PMI-negative status indicating undertreatment; standardized neuropathic pain component (NPC) status; S-BTcP (no trigger identified) and S-IcP (trigger identified) status, based on a preceding 7-day history of transitory pain flares distinct from background pain, and BPI-Worst or BPI-Now pain intensity ≥ 4. Clinicodemographic variables' association with S-BTcP and S-IcP was examined in logistic regression analyses. Results: Of 371 participants, 308 (83%) had episodic CP by history alone; 140 (37.7%) and 181 (48.8%) had S-BTcP and S-IcP, respectively. Multivariable analyses demonstrated significant (p < 0.05) associations (odds ratios: 95% CIs) for 6 variables with S-BTcP: head and neck pain location (2.53; 1.20-5.37), NPC (2.39; 1.34-4.26), BPI average pain (1.64; 1.36-1.99), abdominal pain (0.324; 0.120-0.873), S-IcP (0.207; 0.116-0.369), and PMI-negative status (0.443; 0.213-0.918). Similar independent associations (p < 0.05) occurred for S-IcP with NPC, BPI average pain, and PMI-negative status, in addition to radiotherapy, S-BTcP, soft tissue pain, and sleep interference. Conclusions: Episodic or transient patient-reported CP flares often do not meet the more conventional criteria that define BTcP and IcP, the principal episodic CP types. Both BTcP and IcP occur frequently and both are associated with a NPC, higher pain intensity, and less opioid underuse in the management of CP. Further studies are warranted to both better understand the complex presentations of episodic CP and inform its classification.

Squamous cell carcinoma: pain as a clue to increased tumour diameter, increased invasion depth, the grade of differentiation, acantholysis and perineural invasion.

BACKGROUND: Pain may be associated with actinic keratosis (AK), intraepidermal carcinoma (IEC) and invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), which may all display high-risk features. AIM: To examine variation in pain frequency associated with these three conditions, and assess their invasive SCC surface diameter, invasion depth, grade of differentiation, presence of acantholysis and perineural invasion (PNI). METHODS: Pain was prospectively recorded for consecutive cases of AK, IEC and SCC from three institutions in Australia during the period 2016-2018. RESULTS: Pain with palpation was recorded with 15.8% of AK (n = 30/190), 15.1% of IEC (n = 345/299) and 29.0% invasive SCC (n = 247/853). Pain without palpation was respectively 1.1% (2/190), 4.0% (12/299) and 6.7% (57/853). Invasive SCC with increased surface diameters and deeper invasion recorded increased pain frequency. Pain did not vary significantly by the grade of differentiation in males. In females, well-differentiated SCC recorded more pain (45.4%; n = 473) than poorly differentiated SCC (9.1%; n = 11). Acantholytic SCC recorded more pain 48.7% (n = 29) than nonacantholytic SCC 35.2% (n = 824). Three out of five cases of PNI recorded pain. Pain intensity was not recorded, which was a limitation. CONCLUSION: Pain presence increases from AK to invasive SCC. Pain was more frequent in invasive SCC with increased surface diameter, deeper invasion, acantholysis and PNI. Pain frequency did not vary between the grades of differentiation in males. In females, pain was less frequent in poorly differentiated than in well-differentiated SCC.

The IASP classification of chronic pain for ICD-11: chronic cancer-related pain.

Worldwide, the prevalence of cancer is rising and so too is the number of patients who survive their cancer for many years thanks to the therapeutic successes of modern oncology. One of the most frequent and disabling symptoms of cancer is pain. In addition to the pain caused by the cancer, cancer treatment may also lead to chronic pain. Despite its importance, chronic cancer-related pain is not represented in the current International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). This article describes the new classification of chronic cancer-related pain for ICD-11. Chronic cancer-related pain is defined as chronic pain caused by the primary cancer itself or metastases (chronic cancer pain) or its treatment (chronic postcancer treatment pain). It should be distinguished from pain caused by comorbid disease. Pain management regimens for terminally ill cancer patients have been elaborated by the World Health Organization and other international bodies. An important clinical challenge is the longer term pain management in cancer patients and cancer survivors, where chronic pain from cancer, its treatment, and unrelated causes may be concurrent. This article describes how a new classification of chronic cancer-related pain in ICD-11 is intended to help develop more individualized management plans for these patients and to stimulate research into these pain syndromes.

Opioid responsiveness of nociceptive versus mixed pain in clinical cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether clinical cancer patients with mixed nociceptive-neuropathic pain are less responsive to opioids than patients with nociceptive pain. BACKGROUND: Pain is common in advanced cancer patients. Pain driven by neuropathic mechanisms is considered to be resistant to opioids. This hypothesis is mainly based on animal studies and single-dose opioid studies in humans but has not been confirmed in clinical practice. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected from 240 clinical cancer pain patients using opioids. Multiple linear regression was used for assessing the associations between the logarithm of the morphine equivalent dose (MED) at three days after admission (T = 3d) relative to admission (T = 0d) (logRMED) and type of pain (nociceptive versus mixed pain), corrected for gender, age, primary cancer site and use of non-opioid and adjuvant analgesics. As secondary outcome measures, associations between logMED and logPFent (fentanyl plasma level) at T = 3d and type of pain were assessed. RESULTS: Pain intensity between T = 0d and T = 3d was significantly and evenly reduced in patients with nociceptive pain (n = 173) and mixed pain (n = 67). Median (interquartile range) MED was 20 (10-52) and 20 (20-80) mg (T = 0d), 40 (10-67) and 40 (20-100) mg (T = 3d), median PFent (T = 3d) was 1.59 (0.58-3.19) and 1.38 (0.54-4.39) ng/ml, none of them significantly different, in patients with nociceptive and mixed pain, respectively. Neither logRMED, logMED (T = 3d), or logPFent (T = 3d) was significantly associated with type of pain, after correction for confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that, at least in clinical cancer patients, mixed pain is as responsive to opioids as nociceptive pain.

The impact of a simplified documentation method for the Edmonton classification system for cancer pain (ECS-CP) on clinician utilization.

PURPOSE: The use of standardized pain classification systems such as the ECS-CP can assist in the assessment and management of cancer pain. However, its completion has been limited due to its perceived complexity of decoding each feature. The objectives of this study were to determine the rate of clinician documentation and completion of the ECS-CP features after revision and simplification of the response for each feature. METHODS: Electronic records of consecutive patient visits at the outpatient supportive care center seen by 12 palliative medicine specialists were collected at 6 months before (pre-interventional period), 6 and 24 months after (post-interventional period) the implementation of the simplified ECS-CP tool. Rate of ECS-CP documentation, completion, and analysis of patient and physician predictors were completed. RESULTS: One thousand and twelve patients' documentation was analyzed: 343 patients, before; 341 patients, 6 months after, and 328 patients, 24 months after the intervention. ≥2/5 items were completed before the intervention, 6 months after the intervention and 24 months after intervention in 0/343 (0 %), 136/341 (40 %), and 238/328 (73 %), respectively (p < 0.001). 5/5 items were completed before the intervention, 6 months after the intervention and 24 months after intervention in 0/343 (0 %), 131/341 (38 %), and 222/328 (68 %), respectively, (p < 0.001). There were no patient or physician predictors found significant for successful documentation of ECS-CP. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that significant simplification and intensive education is necessary for successful adoption of a scoring system. More research is needed in order to identify how to adopt tools for daily clinical practice in palliative care.

The McGill University Health Centre Cancer Pain Clinic: A Retrospective Analysis of an Interdisciplinary Approach to Cancer Pain Management.

Context. The McGill University Health Center (MUHC) Cancer Pain Clinic offers an interdisciplinary approach to cancer pain management for patients. The core team includes a nurse clinician specialist in oncology and palliative care, a palliativist, an anaesthetist, and a radiation oncologist. This tailored approach includes pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies offered concurrently in an interdisciplinary fashion. Objectives. Description of the interdisciplinary MUHC cancer pain approach and analysis of treatments and outcomes. Methods. A retrospective analysis of new outpatients completing two subsequent visits (baseline and follow-ups: FU1, FU2) was conducted. Variables included (a) symptom severity measured by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, (b) pain and disability measured with the Brief Pain Inventory, and (c) analgesic plan implementation including pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapies. Results. 71 charts were reviewed. Significant pain relief was achieved consistently at FU1 and FU2. The average pain severity decreased by 2 points between initial assessment and FU2. More than half (53%) of patients responded with a pain reduction greater than 30%. Severity of other symptoms (i.e., fatigue, nausea, depression, and anxiety) and disability also decreased significantly at FU2. The total consumption of opioids remained stable; however, the consumption of short acting preparations decreased by 52% whereas the prescription of nonopioid agents increased. Beyond drug management, 60% of patients received other analgesic therapies, being the most common interventional pain procedures and psychosocial approaches. Conclusion. The MUHC interdisciplinary approach to cancer pain management provides meaningful relief of pain and other cancer-related symptoms and decreases patients' disability.

From "Breakthrough" to "Episodic" Cancer Pain? A European Association for Palliative Care Research Network Expert Delphi Survey Toward a Common Terminology and Classification of Transient Cancer Pain Exacerbations.

CONTEXT: Cancer pain can appear with spikes of higher intensity. Breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP) is the most common term for the transient exacerbations of pain, but the ability of the nomenclature to capture relevant pain variations and give treatment guidance is questionable. OBJECTIVES: To reach consensus on definitions, terminology, and subclassification of transient cancer pain exacerbations. METHODS: The most frequent authors on BTCP literature were identified using the same search strategy as in a systematic review and invited to participate in a two-round Delphi survey. Topics with a low degree of consensus on BTCP classification were refined into 20 statements. The participants rated their degree of agreement with the statements on a numeric rating scale (0-10). Consensus was defined as a median numeric rating scale score of ≥7 and an interquartile range of ≤3. RESULTS: Fifty-two authors had published three or more articles on BTCP over the past 10 years. Twenty-seven responded in the first round and 24 in the second round. Consensus was reached for 13 of 20 statements. Transient cancer pain exacerbations can occur without background pain, when background pain is uncontrolled, and regardless of opioid treatment. There exist cancer pain exacerbations other than BTCP, and the phenomenon could be named "episodic pain." Patient-reported treatment satisfaction is important with respect to assessment. Subclassification according to pain pathophysiology can provide treatment guidance. CONCLUSION: Significant transient cancer pain exacerbations include more than just BTCP. Patient input and pain classification are important factors for tailoring treatment.

[Pain medication in nursing home residents with and without cancer. Most frequently with metamizole]. / Schmerzmittelversorgung von Pflegeheimbewohnern mit und ohne Krebserkrankung. Am häufigsten mit Metamizol.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a highly prevalent symptom in nursing home residents. The analgesic pharmacotherapy of older adults is associated with challenges; however, studies from Germany examining the prescription pattern of analgesics in nursing home residents are rare. OBJECTIVES: This study was carried out to examine the prescription of analgesics in nursing home residents with and without the diagnosis of cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using health insurance claims data persons aged ≥ 65 years who were newly admitted to a nursing home between 2004 and 2009 and who survived at least the first 90 days after admission were included in the study. Cancer was identified by outpatient diagnoses of malignant neoplasms (ICD-10: C00-C97). Prescription drugs within the first 90 days after admission to a nursing home were analyzed which means that aspirin and acetaminophen were not taken into account. RESULTS: A total of 5549 nursing home residents were included, who were on average 81.5 years old (56.8 % females). More than half (53.5 %) were assigned to care level I and 781 (14.1 %) were diagnosed with cancer. The study cohort received on average 7.8 different medications (with vs. without cancer: 8.6 vs. 7.6, respectively) and 43.8 % had prescriptions for analgesics (with vs. without cancer: 52.5 vs. 42.3 %, respectively). A total of 37.1 % were taking WHO step 1 analgesics (step 2: 11.4 % and step 3: 9.2 %). The proportion of persons receiving metamizole (dipyrone) was 28.3 % (with vs. without cancer: 35.6 vs. 27.1 %, respectively). Regarding all prescriptions, metamizole was by far the most frequently prescribed medication in nursing homes followed by melperone and omeprazole. CONCLUSION: Approximately one third of nursing home residents received metamizole and most were long-term prescriptions. Considering that metamizole is associated with potentially life-threatening adverse effects, caution is indicated particularly when prescribed over long periods.