Current cannabis use and pain management among US cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: National studies reporting the prevalence of cannabis use have focused on individuals with a history of cancer without distinction by their treatment status, which can impact symptom burden. While pain is a primary motivation to use cannabis in cancer, the magnitude of its association with cannabis use remains understudied. METHODS: We examined cannabis use and pain management among 5523 respondents of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System with a cancer history. Survey-weighted prevalence proportions of respondents' cannabis use are reported, stratified on cancer treatment status. Regression models estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of cancer-related pain and cannabis use. RESULTS: Cannabis use was slightly more prevalent in those undergoing active treatment relative to those who were not undergoing active treatment (9.3% vs. 6.2%; P=0.05). Those under active treatment were more likely to use cannabis medicinally (71.6% vs. 50.0%; P=0.03). Relative to those without cancer-related pain, persons with pain under medical control (OR 2.1, 95% CI, 1.4-3.2) or uncontrolled pain were twice as likely to use cannabis (OR 2.0, 95% CI, 1.1-3.5). CONCLUSIONS: Use of cannabis among cancer patients may be related to their treatment and is positively associated with cancer-related pain. Future research should investigate the associations of cannabis use, symptom burden, and treatment regimens across the treatment spectrum to facilitate interventions.

Cognitive function and its associated factors among patients with cancer pain: a multicentre cross-sectional study in China.

OBJECTIVE: This research aimed to assess the levels of cognitive function and its contributing factors among individuals experiencing cancer pain (CP) in mainland China. DESIGN: A descriptive, cross-sectional study. SETTING: The investigation was undertaken within three tertiary oncology hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: We included 220 hospitalised individuals who reported experiencing cancer-related pain and consented to complete the research questionnaires. OUTCOME MEASURES: The collected data encompassed sociodemographic and clinical variables, augmented by results from validated questionnaires. Cognitive impairment (CI) was evaluated using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive (FACT-Cog) scale, with scores ranging from 0 to 148. Sleep quality, depression and anxiety were assessed through the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7, respectively. A binary logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with CI in individuals with CP. RESULTS: Of the 225 individuals approached, 220 (97.8%) participated in the study. The mean FACT-Cog score for those with CP was 101.29 (SD=25.24; range=25-148). The prevalence of CI among these individuals was 35.90%. Sleep quality was rated below medium in 45% of participants with CP. More than moderate pain was reported by 28.2%, with 64.6% experiencing depression and 38.6% experiencing anxiety. Increased odds of developing CI were observed in those with CP (OR 1.422, 95% CI 1.129 to 1.841), depression (OR 1.119, 95% CI 1.029 to 1.2117), anxiety (OR 1.107, 95% CI 1.005 to 1.220), advancing age (OR 1.042, 95% CI 1.013 to 1.073), poor sleep quality (OR 1.126, 95% CI 1.013 to 1.252) and a history of smoking (OR 3.811, 95% CI 1.668 to 8.707). CONCLUSIONS: CI associated with CP is notably prevalent in China. Those older, with a smoking history, inadequate sleep, more severe pain, depression and anxiety, have a heightened risk of CI. Consequently, interventions need to be personalised, addressing these key determinants.

Prevalence of opioid-induced adverse events across opioids commonly used for analgesic treatment in Japan: a multicenter prospective longitudinal study.

PURPOSE: Although opioids have been shown to be effective for cancer pain, opioid-induced adverse events (AEs) are common. To date, little is known about the differences in risks of AEs by opioid type. This study was performed to compare the prevalence of AEs across opioids commonly used for analgesic treatment in Japan. METHODS: This study was conducted as a preplanned secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective longitudinal study of inpatients with cancer pain who received specialized palliative care for cancer pain relief. We assessed daily AEs until termination of follow-up. We rated the severity of AEs based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. We computed adjusted odds ratios for each AE (constipation, nausea and vomiting, delirium, and drowsiness) with the following variables: opioid, age, sex, renal dysfunction, and primary cancer site. RESULTS: In total, 465 patients were analyzed. Based on the descriptive analysis, the top four most commonly used opioids were included in the analysis: oxycodone, hydromorphone, fentanyl, and tramadol. With respect to the prevalence of AEs among all analyzed patients, delirium (n = 25, 6.3%) was the most frequent, followed by drowsiness (n = 21, 5.3%), nausea and vomiting (n = 19, 4.8%), and constipation (n = 28, 4.6%). The multivariate logistic analysis showed that no single opioid was identified as a statistically significant independent predictor of any AE. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in the prevalence of AEs among oxycodone, fentanyl, hydromorphone, and tramadol, which are commonly used for analgesic treatment in Japan.

Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems for Cancer Pain Control: Insights on Current Contemporary Practices in the US.

OBJECTIVES: Among patients with cancer with moderate to severe, intractable pain, intrathecal drug delivery using an intrathecal drug delivery system (IDDS) offers effective pain control. In this study, we evaluate the trends of IDDS therapy among patients with cancer, associated comorbidities, complications, and outcomes, using a large representative US administrative inpatient data base. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) data base contains data from 48 states and the District of Columbia. The NIS was used to identify patients with cancer who underwent IDDS implantation between 2016 and 2019. Patients with cancer with intrathecal pumps for the treatment of chronic pain were identified using administrative codes. Baseline demographics, hospital characteristics, type of cancer associated with IDDS implantation, palliative care encounters, hospitalization costs, length of stay, and prevalence of bone pain were evaluated in the study. RESULTS: A total of 22,895 (0.32%) individuals with hospital admission for IDDS surgery were included for analysis among 7.06 million individuals with cancer in the final cohort. The IDDS cohort consisted of patients predominantly in the 65-to-79 years age group (40.49%), female sex (50.42%), and Caucasian ethnicity (75.82%). The top five cancers in patients receiving IDDS were lung (27.15%), colorectal (24.9%), liver (16.44%), bone (8.01%), and liver (7.99%) cancer. In addition, the length of stay was six days (interquartile range [IQR] four-nine days) and the median cost of hospital admission was $29,062 (IQR $19,413-$42,261) in the patients who received an IDDS. These factors were greater than those in patients without IDDS. CONCLUSIONS: A very few patients with cancer received IDDS in the US during the study period. Despite recommendations supporting its use, there are significant racial and socioeconomic disparities in IDDS use.

Cannabis use among adults undergoing cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the risks and benefits of cannabis use in the context of cancer care. This study characterized the prevalence, reasons for use, and perceived benefits of cannabis and compared symptoms and perceived risks between those who reported past 30-day cannabis use and those who did not. METHODS: Adults undergoing cancer treatment at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center completed measures of sociodemographic characteristics, cannabis use, use modalities, reasons for use, perceived harms/benefits of use, physical and psychological symptoms, and other substance/medication use. Analyses compared patients who used or did not use cannabis in the past 30 days. RESULTS: Participants (N = 267) were 58 years old on average, primarily female (70%), and predominantly White (88%). Over a quarter of respondents (26%) reported past 30-day cannabis use, and among those, 4.5% screened positive for cannabis use disorder. Participants who used cannabis most often used edibles (65%) or smoked cannabis (51%), and they were younger and more likely to be male, Black, and disabled, and to have lower income and Medicaid insurance than participants who did not use cannabis. Those who used cannabis reported more severe symptoms and perceived cannabis as less harmful than those who did not use cannabis. The most common medical reasons for cannabis use were pain, cancer, sleep problems, anxiety, nausea/vomiting, and poor appetite. Participants reported the greatest cannabis-related symptom relief from sleep problems, nausea/vomiting, headaches, pain, muscle spasms, and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer who used cannabis perceived benefits for many symptoms, although they showed worse overall symptomatology. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Among adults undergoing cancer treatment, 26% reported cannabis use in the past 30 days. Those who used cannabis were more likely to be male and disabled and to have lower income and Medicaid insurance than those who did not use cannabis. Participants most commonly reported using cannabis for pain, cancer, sleep, anxiety, and nausea/vomiting and reported the greatest perceived benefits for sleep, nausea/vomiting, headaches, pain, muscle spasms, and anxiety, yet participants who used cannabis also reported feeling worse physically and psychologically compared to those who did not use cannabis. Participants who used cannabis were more likely to report that cannabis was less risky to their health than alcohol, smoking, and opioids than those who did not use cannabis.

The Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain in Patients with Bone Metastasis: a descriptive cohort study.

PURPOSE: We describe the prevalence of the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain (ECS-CP) features in patients with bone metastasis and cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) and the relationship between ECS-CP features, pain intensity, and opioid consumption. METHODS: We assessed ECS-CP features and recoded pain mechanisms and opioid use in adult patients with bone metastasis. Validated measures were used to assess pain intensity, incident pain, psychological distress, addictive behavior, and cognition. RESULTS: Among 147 eligible patients, 95.2% completed the assessment. Mean participant age was 73.2 years, the majority female (52.1%) with breast cancer occurring most commonly (25.7%). One or more ECS-CP features were present in 96.4% and CIBP in 75.7% of patients. The median average and worst pain scores were 3 and 6, respectively. Neuropathic pain was the most prevalent pain mechanism (45.0%) and was associated with breakthrough pain frequency (p=0.014). Three-quarters had incident pain, which was strongly associated with a higher average and worst pain scores (3.5 and 7, p<0.001 for both), background oral morphine equivalent daily dose (26.7mg, p=0.005), and frequency of daily breakthrough analgesia (1.7 doses/day, p=0.007). Psychological distress (n=90, 64.3%) was associated with a significantly higher average pain score (4, p=0.009) and a slightly higher worst pain score (7, p=0.054). Addictive behaviour and cognitive dysfunction were relatively uncommon (18.6% and 12.9%, respectively). CONCLUSION: There is a need to promote standardized assessment and classification of pain syndromes such as CIBP. The ECS-CP may allow us to consider CIBP in a systematic manner and develop personalized pain interventions appropriate to the pain profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered in ANZCTR ACTRN12622000853741 (16/06/2022).

Cancer pain and alcohol self-medication.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors are at increased risk of pain due to their either cancer and/or treatments. Substances like alcohol may be used to self-medicate cancer pain; however, these substances pose their own health risks that may be more pronounced for cancer survivors. METHODS: We used cross-sectional data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 2012-2019 to quantify the association between cancer pain and alcohol use. We used negative binomial regression, with interaction terms added to examine variations across age, sex, and race. We also examined whether alcohol use relates to cancer pain control status. RESULTS: Cancer survivors with cancer pain were more likely to be younger, female, Black, and to have been diagnosed with breast cancer. Cancer pain was associated with lower alcohol consumption (incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.88, confidence interval (CI): 0.77, 0.99). This association was primarily among people 65 and older, women, and white and Hispanic people. Cancer pain control status was not related to alcohol use. CONCLUSIONS: Lower alcohol use among cancer survivors with pain has many possible explanations, including several alternative pain management strategies or a decrease in social engagement. Our findings of racial and gender disparities in cancer pain are consistent with the broader evidence on disparities in pain. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Cancer pain management for marginalized groups should be improved. Healthcare providers should screen cancer survivors for both pain and substance use, to prevent unhealthy self-medication behaviors.

Smoking cessation after cancer diagnosis reduces the risk of severe cancer pain: A longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Whether abstinence from smoking among cancer patients reduces cancer pain is still unclear. Opioids can act as a surrogate index for evaluating the incidence of severe cancer pain in countries where opioid abuse is infrequent. This study aimed to investigate whether changed smoking behavior after cancer diagnosis influences the incidence of severe cancer pain as determined by strong opioid use. METHODS: Using a large Japanese insurance claims database (n = 4,797,329), we selected 794,702 insured employees whose annual health checkup data could be confirmed ≥6 times between January 2009 and December 2018. We selected 591 study subjects from 3,256 employees who were diagnosed with cancer pain and had health checkup data at the year of cancer pain diagnosis. RESULTS: A significantly greater proportion of patients who continued smoking after cancer diagnosis ("current smoker", n = 133) received strong opioids (36.8%) compared with patients who had never smoked or had stopped before cancer diagnosis ("non-smoker", n = 383, 20.6%; p<0.05) but also compared with patients who had quit smoking after cancer diagnosis ("abstainer:", n = 75, 24.0%; p<0.05). In multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, abstainers had a significantly lower risk of receiving strong opioids than current smokers (hazard ratio: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.328 to 0.997). These findings were consistent across multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that patients who quit smoking after cancer diagnosis have a lower risk of severe cancer pain. This information adds clinical incentives for improving quality of life among those who smoked at the time of cancer diagnosis.

Trends in opioid and non-opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain among privately insured adults in the United States, 2012-2019.

Recent clinical guidelines have emphasized non-opioid treatments in lieu of prescription opioids for chronic non-cancer pain, exempting cancer patients from these recommendations. In this study, we determine trends in opioid and non-opioid treatment among privately insured adults with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) or cancer. Using administrative claims data from IBM MarketScan Research Databases, we identified privately-insured adults who were continuously enrolled in insurance for at least one calendar year from 2012 to 2019. We identified individuals with CNCP diagnosis, defined as a diagnosis of arthritis, headache, low back pain, and/or neuropathic pain, and a individuals with cancer diagnosis in a calendar year. Outcomes included receipt of any opioid, non-opioid medication, or non-pharmacologic CNCP therapy and opioid prescribing volume, MME-per-day, and days' supply. Estimates were regression-adjusted for age, sex, and region. Between 2012 and 2019, the proportion of patients who received any opioid decreased across both groups (CNCP: 49.7 to 30.5%, p<0.01; cancer: 86.0 to 78.7%, p<0.01). Non-opioid pain medication receipt remained steady for individuals with CNCP (66.7 to 66.4%, p<0.01) and increased for individuals with cancer (74.4 to 78.8%, p<0.01), while non-pharmacologic therapy use rose among individuals with CNCP (62.4 to 66.1%, p<0.01). Among those prescribed opioids, there was a decrease in the receipt of at least one prescription with >90 MME/day (CNCP: 13.9% in 2012 to 4.9% in 2019, p<0.01; Cancer: 26.2% to 7.6%, p<0.01); >7 days of supply (CNCP: 56.3% to 30.7%, p <0.01; Cancer: 47.5% to 22.7%, p<0.01), the mean number of opioid prescriptions (CNCP: 5.2 to 3.9, p<0.01; Cancer: 4.0 to 2.7, p<0.01) and mean MME/day (CNCP: 49.9 to 38.0, p<0.01; Cancer: 62.4 to 44.7, p<0.01). Overall, from 2012-2019, opioid prescribing declined for CNCP and cancer, with larger reductions for patients with CNCP. For both groups, reductions in prescribed opioids outpaced increases in non-opioid alternatives.

Cancer pain during an epidemic and a pandemic.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As our global population ages, cancer has become more prevalent. Thankfully, oncologic treatments are highly effective, leading to significantly improved rates of long-term survival. However, many of these therapies are associated with persistent pain syndromes. Clinicians caring for people with cancer must understand how the influence of the current epidemic of opioid misuse and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have complicated cancer pain management. Creative solutions can emerge from this knowledge. RECENT FINDINGS: Persistent pain due to cancer and its treatment can be managed through multimodal care, although efforts to mitigate the opioid misuse epidemic have created challenges in access to appropriate treatment. Isolation measures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic have limited access to nonpharmacologic therapies, such as physical therapy, and have exacerbated mental health disorders, including anxiety and depression. SUMMARY: Cancer pain treatment requires more nuanced assessment and treatment decisions as patients live longer. Societal factors multiply existing challenges to cancer pain relief. Research is needed to support safe and effective therapies.

Perceived discrimination and physical activity mediate the associations between receiving a survivorship care plan and cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plan helps improve the continuity of care and manage ongoing pain that affects up to 46% of cancer survivors by promoting health behaviors, including physical activity. However, perceived discrimination may decrease the likelihood of cancer survivors participating in physical activities and negatively influence their pain status. Thus, this study aimed to examine the mediating role of physical activity and perceived discrimination in the relationship between receiving a survivorship care plan and cancer pain. METHODS: This cross-sectional, correlational study utilized data from the 2012-2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Analyses accounted for the complex survey design. Logistic regression was utilized to analyze the association among survivorship care plans, discrimination, physical activity, and pain. Generalized structural equation modeling was conducted to test a hypothesized model in which survivorship care plans and discrimination affect physical activity, and subsequently influence pain status. RESULTS: Forty-two and 81% of survivors reported receiving treatment summaries and follow-up care plans, respectively, and 8% experienced cancer pain. After controlling for covariates, the highest discrimination quintile was three times more likely to report cancer pain than the lowest quintile. While receiving follow-up care plans was positively related to cancer pain, respondents in the third- to fifth- quintiles were less likely to report cancer pain when receiving follow-up care plans than the first quintile respondents. Physical activity mediated the association between discrimination and cancer pain. CONCLUSIONS: Reverse relationships between receiving follow-up care plans and cancer pain existed; however, discrimination and physical activity mediated these relationships.

Effect of Cancer Pain Guideline Implementation on Pain Outcomes Among Adult Outpatients With Cancer-Related Pain: A Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial.

Importance: An evidence-practice gap exists for cancer pain management, and cancer pain remains prevalent and disabling. Objectives: To evaluate the capacity of 3 cancer pain guideline implementation strategies to improve pain-related outcomes for patients attending oncology and palliative care outpatient services. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic, stepped wedge, cluster-randomized, nonblinded, clinical trial was conducted between 2014 and 2019. The clusters were cancer centers in Australia providing oncology and palliative care outpatient clinics. Participants included a consecutive cohort of adult outpatients with advanced cancer and a worst pain severity score of 2 or more out of 10 on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Data were collected between August 2015 and May 2019. Data were analyzed July to October 2019 and reanalyzed November to December 2021. Interventions: Guideline implementation strategies at the cluster, health professional, and patient levels introduced with the support of a clinical champion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary measure of effect was the percentage of participants initially screened as having moderate to severe worst pain (NRS ≥ 5) who experienced a clinically important improvement of 30% or more 1 week later. Secondary outcomes included mean average pain, patient empowerment, fidelity to the intervention, and quality of life and were measured in all participants with a pain score of 2 or more 10 at weeks 1, 2, and 4. Results: Of 8099 patients screened at 6 clusters, 1564 were eligible, and 359 were recruited during the control phase (mean [SD] age, 64.2 [12.1] years; 196 men [55%]) and 329 during the intervention phase (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [12.7] years; 155 men [47%]), with no significant differences between phases on baseline measures. The mean (SD) baseline worst pain scores were 5.0 (2.6) and 4.9 (2.6) for control and intervention phases, respectively. The mean (SD) baseline average pain scores were 3.5 (2.1) for both groups. For the primary outcome, the proportions of participants with a 30% or greater reduction in a pain score of 5 or more of 10 at baseline were similar in the control and intervention phases (31 of 280 participants [11.9%] vs 30 of 264 participants [11.8%]; OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79-1.60; P = .51). No significant differences were found in secondary outcomes between phases. Fidelity to the intervention was low. Conclusions and Relevance: A suite of implementation strategies was insufficient to improve pain-related outcomes for outpatients with cancer-related pain. Further evaluation is needed to determine the required clinical resources needed to enable wide-scale uptake of the fundamental elements of cancer pain care. Ongoing quality improvement activities should be supported to improve sustainability.

Impact of Pain on Employment and Financial Outcomes Among Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Although pain is a frequently reported symptom among individuals with cancer, there is limited information on the impact of pain on employment or financial outcomes. This study used nationally representative data to examine the role of pain levels on employment and financial outcomes. METHODS: We used data from the 2016-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Experiences with Cancer Survivorship Supplement to identify 1,213 adults diagnosed with cancer. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to examine association of pain levels and self-reported employment and financial outcomes. RESULTS: Approximately 43% of adults with a cancer history reported no pain, 29% mild pain, 18% moderate pain, and 10% severe pain over the past 7 days. Compared with those reporting no pain, individuals reporting any pain had significantly increased likelihood of adverse employment outcomes including early retirement, feeling less productive, and staying at a job because of concerns about losing insurance. Individuals with any pain (compared with no pain) also had significantly increased likelihood of adverse financial outcomes including borrowing money or going into debt, inability to cover medical costs, and worrying about paying medical bills. For both employment and financial outcomes, there were dose-response relationships, with worse outcomes generally associated with greater pain levels. CONCLUSION: Pain is frequently associated with adverse employment and financial outcomes among cancer survivors, and greater pain is associated with worse outcomes. Better assessment of pain severity among survivors and implementation of strategies to assist with employment and financial objectives may be important steps to enhance patient-centered care.

Worst Pain Severity Profiles of Oncology Patients Are Associated With Significant Stress and Multiple Co-Occurring Symptoms.

Little is known about the associations between pain, stress, and co-occurring symptoms in oncology patients. Purpose was to identify subgroups of patients with distinct worst pain profiles and evaluate for differences among the subgroups in demographic and clinical characteristics, as well as stress and symptom scores. Oncology outpatients (n = 1305) completed questionnaires prior to their second or third chemotherapy cycle. Worst pain intensity was assessed 6 times over 2 chemotherapy cycles using a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale. The 371 patients (28.4%) who had ≤1 occurrence of pain over the 6 assessments were classified as the None class. For the remaining 934 patients whose data were entered into the latent profile analysis, 3 distinct worst pain profiles were identified (ie Mild [12.5%], Moderate [28.6%], Severe [30.5%]). Compared to None class, Severe class had fewer years of education and a lower annual income; were less likely to be employed and married; less likely to exercise on a regular basis, had a higher comorbidity burden, and a worse functional status. Compared to None class, Severe class reported higher levels of general, disease-specific, and cumulative life stress and lower levels of resilience, as well as higher levels of depressive symptoms, anxiety, fatigue, sleep disturbance, and cognitive dysfunction. This study is the first to identify distinct worst pain profiles in a large sample of oncology patients receiving chemotherapy and associated risk factors. PERSPECTIVE: Unrelieved pain remains a significant problem for oncology patients receiving chemotherapy. High levels of stress and co-occurring symptoms contribute to a more severe pain profile in these patients.

Cancer pain control in a Nigerian oncology clinic: treating the disease and not the patient.

INTRODUCTION: inadequate pain control negatively impacts the quality of life of patients with cancer while potentially affecting the outcome. Proper pain evaluation and management are therefore considered an important treatment goal. This study assessed the prevalence of pain, the prescribing patterns, and the efficacy of pain control measures in cancer patients at the Radiation Oncology Unit of the Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Lagos. METHODS: this was a longitudinal study design recruiting adults attending outpatient clinics. Participants were assessed at initial contact and again following six weeks using the Universal Pain Assessment Tool developed by the UCLA Department of Anaesthesiology. RESULTS: among the patients reviewed, 34.0% (118 of 347) were at the clinic, referred for initial assessment following primary diagnosis. All respondents had solid tumours; the most common was breast cancer. The prevalence of pain at initial assessment was 85.9% (298 of 347), with over half of respondents, 74.5% (222 of 347) characterising their pain as moderate to severe. Over a quarter, 28.9% (100 of 347) of patients were not asked about their pain by attending physicians, and none of the patients had a pain assessment tool used during evaluation. In 14.4% (43 of 298) of patients, no intervention was received despite the presence of pain. At six weeks review, 31.5% (94 of 298) of patients had obtained no pain relief despite instituted measures. CONCLUSION: under-treatment of cancer pain remains a significant weak link in cancer care in (Low-to-middle-income country) LMICs like Nigeria, with a significant contributor being physician under-evaluation and under-treatment of pain. To ensure pain eradication, the treatment process must begin with a thorough evaluation of the patient's pain, an explicit pain control goal and regular reevaluation.

Is physician implicit bias associated with differences in care by patient race for metastatic cancer-related pain?

RATIONALE: Implicit racial bias affects many human interactions including patient-physician encounters. Its impact, however, varies between studies. We assessed the effects of physician implicit, racial bias on their management of cancer-related pain using a randomized field experiment. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of a randomized field experiment between 2012 and 2016 with 96 primary care physicians and oncologists using unannounced, Black and White standardized patients (SPs)who reported uncontrolled bone pain from metastatic lung cancer. We assessed implicit bias using a pain-adaptation of the race Implicit Association Test. We assessed clinical care by reviewing medical records and prescriptions, and we assessed communication from coded transcripts and covert audiotapes of the unannounced standardized patient office visits. We assessed effects of interactions of physicians' implicit bias and SP race with clinical care and communication outcomes. We conducted a slopes analysis to examine the nature of significant interactions. RESULTS: As hypothesized, physicians with greater implicit bias provided lower quality care to Black SPs, including fewer renewals for an indicated opioid prescription and less patient-centered pain communication, but similar routine pain assessment. In contrast to our other hypotheses, physician implicit bias did not interact with SP race for prognostic communication or verbal dominance. Analysis of the slopes for the cross-over interactions showed that greater physician bias was manifested by more frequent opioid prescribing and greater discussion of pain for White SPs and slightly less frequent prescribing and pain talk for Black SPs with the opposite effect among physicians with lower implicit bias. Findings are limited by use of an unvalidated, pain-adapted IAT. CONCLUSION: Using SP methodology, physicians' implicit bias was associated with clinically meaningful, racial differences in management of uncontrolled pain related to metastatic lung cancer. There is favorable treatment of White or Black SPs, depending on the level of implicit bias.

History and Epidemiology of Cancer Pain.

Pain is indelibly associated with the cancer experience. A systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that the prevalence of cancer pain is 55% during anticancer treatment, 66.4% in advanced, metastatic, or terminal disease, and 39.3% after curative treatment.

Significance of descriptive symptoms and signs and clinical parameters as predictors of neuropathic cancer pain.

PURPOSE: Evaluation of symptoms and signs for the management of neuropathic cancer pain (NCP) is challenging. This study aimed to identify clinical predictors of NCP and symptoms and signs most relevant of those in Korean patients. METHODS: This nationwide, descriptive, cross-sectional, multicenter, observational study included 2,003 cancer patients aged ≥20 years who reported a visual analog scale (VAS) score ≥1 for pain and provided informed consent for participation. The Douleur Neuropathic (DN4) questionnaire (score ≥4) was used to determine symptoms and signs as well as the presence of NCP. RESULTS: The prevalence of NCP was associated with age <65 years [OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.270-1.934], disease duration >6 months (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.232-2.012), stage IV cancer (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.593-0.955), history of chemotherapy (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.225-2.472), and moderate-to-severe cancer pain (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.671-2.524) after multivariate analysis. The most common descriptive symptoms of NCP were tingling, electric shock, and pins and needles. For NCP patients in the presence or absence of the clinical predictors, pins and needles (p = 0.001) and painful cold (p<0.001) symptoms were significantly frequent in patients with moderate-to-severe pain. Tingling, numbness, and touch hypoesthesia (p = 0.022, 0.033, 0.024, respectively) were more frequent in those with longer cancer duration and hyperesthesia (p = 0.024) was more frequent in young patients. CONCLUSION: Age <65 years, disease duration >6 months, stage IV cancer, history of chemotherapy, and moderate-to-severe cancer pain, were identified as predictors of NCP. Some symptoms and signs of NCP were associated with these predictors. Further studies are warranted on the pathogenesis and management of NCP with respect to the symptoms and signs, and factors associated with pain severity in Korean patients.

US Trends in Opioid Access Among Patients With Poor Prognosis Cancer Near the End-of-Life.

PURPOSE: Heightened regulations have decreased opioid prescribing across the United States, yet little is known about trends in opioid access among patients dying of cancer. METHODS: Among 270,632 Medicare fee-for-service decedents with poor prognosis cancers, we used part D data to examine trends from 2007 to 2017 in opioid prescription fills and opioid potency (morphine milligram equivalents per day [MMED]) near the end-of-life (EOL), defined as the 30 days before death or hospice enrollment. We used administrative claims to evaluate trends in pain-related emergency department (ED) visits near EOL. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2017, the proportion of decedents with poor prognosis cancers receiving ≥ 1 opioid prescription near EOL declined 15.5% (relative percent difference [RPD]), from 42.0% (95% CI, 41.4 to 42.7) to 35.5% (95% CI, 34.9 to 36.0) and the proportion receiving ≥ 1 long-acting opioid prescription declined 36.5% (RPD), from 18.1% (95% CI, 17.6 to 18.6) to 11.5% (95% CI, 11.1 to 11.9). Among decedents receiving opioids near EOL, the mean daily dose fell 24.5%, from 85.6 MMED (95% CI, 82.9 to 88.3) to 64.6 (95% CI, 62.7 to 66.6) MMED. Overall, the total amount of opioids prescribed per decedent near EOL (averaged across those who did and did not receive an opioid) fell 38.0%, from 1,075 morphine milligram equivalents per decedent (95% CI, 1,042 to 1,109) to 666 morphine milligram equivalents per decedent (95% CI, 646 to 686). Simultaneously, the proportion of patients with pain-related ED visits increased 50.8% (RPD), from 13.2% (95% CI, 12.7 to 13.6) to 19.9% (95% CI, 19.4 to 20.4). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated similar declines in opioid utilization in the 60 and 90 days before death or hospice, and suggested that trends in opioid access were not confounded by secular trends in hospice utilization. CONCLUSION: Opioid use among patients dying of cancer has declined substantially from 2007 to 2017. Rising pain-related ED visits suggests that EOL cancer pain management may be worsening.

Role of sex hormones in modulating breast and ovarian cancer associated pain.

According to the National Cancer Institute in 2020 there will be an estimated 21,750 new ovarian cancer cases and 276,480 new breast cancer cases. Both breast and ovarian cancer are hormone dependent cancers, meaning they cannot grow without the presence of hormones. The two most studied hormones in these two cancers are estrogen and progesterone, which are also involved in the modulation of pain. The incidence of pain in breast and ovarian cancer is very high. Research about mechanisms involved in modulation of pain by hormones are still being debated, as some studies find estrogen to be anti-nociceptive and others pro-nociceptive in pain studies. Moreover, analgesic treatments for breast and ovarian cancer-associated pain are limited and often ineffective. In this review, we will focus on estrogen and progesterone mechanisms of action in modulation of pain and cancer. We will also discuss new treatment options for these types of cancer and associated-pain.