The Value of In Vivo Reflectance Confocal Microscopy as an Assessment Tool in Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of standardized objective and reliable assessment tools for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). In vivo reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) imaging offers a non-invasive method to identify peripheral neuropathy markers, namely Meissner's corpuscles (MC). This study investigated the feasibility and value of RCM in CIPN. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Reflectance confocal microscopy was performed on the fingertip to evaluate MC density in 45 healthy controls and 9 patients with cancer (prior, during, and post-chemotherapy). Quantification was completed by 2 reviewers (one blinded), with maximum MC count/3 × 3 mm image reported. Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST; thermal and mechanical detection thresholds), Grooved pegboard test, and patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMS) were conducted for comparison. RESULTS: In controls (25 females, 20 males; 24-81 years), females exhibited greater mean MC density compared with males (49.9 ± 7.1 vs 30.9 ± 4.2 MC/3 × 3 mm; P = .03). Differences existed across age by decade (P < .0001). Meissner's corpuscle density was correlated with mechanical detection (ρ = -0.51), warm detection (ρ = -0.47), cold pain (ρ = 0.49) thresholds (P < .01); and completion time on the Grooved pegboard test in both hands (P ≤ .02). At baseline, patients had reduced MC density vs age and gender-matched controls (P = .03). Longitudinal assessment of MC density revealed significant relationships with QST and PROMS. Inter-rater reliability of MC count showed an intraclass correlation of 0.96 (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the clinical utility of RCM in CIPN as it provides meaningful markers of sensory nerve dysfunction. Novel, prospective assessment demonstrated the ability to detect subclinical deficits in patients at risk of CIPN and potential to monitor neuropathy progression.

Perioperative management of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19: review and recommendations for perioperative management from a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for perioperative management of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) are mainly based on extrapolated evidence or expert opinion. We aimed to systematically investigate how COVID-19 affects perioperative management and clinical outcomes, to develop evidence-based guidelines. METHODS: First, we conducted a rapid literature review in EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (January 1 to July 1, 2020), using a predefined protocol. Second, we performed a retrospective cohort analysis of 166 women undergoing Caesarean section at Tongji Hospital, Wuhan during the COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic, imaging, laboratory, and clinical data were obtained from electronic medical records. RESULTS: The review identified 26 studies, mainly case reports/series. One large cohort reported greater mortality in elective surgery patients diagnosed after, rather than before surgery. Higher 30 day mortality was associated with emergency surgery, major surgery, poorer preoperative condition and surgery for malignancy. Regional anaesthesia was favoured in most studies and personal protective equipment (PPE) was generally used by healthcare workers (HCWs), but its use was poorly described for patients. In the retrospective cohort study, duration of surgery, oxygen therapy and hospital stay were longer in suspected or confirmed patients than negative patients, but there were no differences in neonatal outcomes. None of the 262 participating HCWs was infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) when using level 3 PPE perioperatively. CONCLUSIONS: When COVID-19 is suspected, testing should be considered before non-urgent surgery. Until further evidence is available, HCWs should use level 3 PPE perioperatively for suspected or confirmed patients, but research is needed on its timing and specifications. Further research must examine longer-term outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42020182891 (PROSPERO).

A genome-wide association study finds genetic variants associated with neck or shoulder pain in UK Biobank.

BACKGROUND: Common types of musculoskeletal conditions include pain in the neck and shoulder areas. This study seeks to identify the genetic variants associated with neck or shoulder pain based on a genome-wide association approach using 203 309 subjects from the UK Biobank cohort and look for replication evidence from the Generation Scotland: Scottish Family Health Study (GS:SFHS) and TwinsUK. METHODS: A genome-wide association study was performed adjusting for age, sex, BMI and nine population principal components. Significant and independent genetic variants were then sent to GS:SFHS and TwinsUK for replication. RESULTS: We identified three genetic loci that were associated with neck or shoulder pain in the UK Biobank samples. The most significant locus was in an intergenic region in chromosome 17, rs12453010, having P = 1.66 × 10-11. The second most significant locus was located in the FOXP2 gene in chromosome 7 with P = 2.38 × 10-10 for rs34291892. The third locus was located in the LINC01572 gene in chromosome 16 with P = 4.50 × 10-8 for rs62053992. In the replication stage, among four significant and independent genetic variants, rs2049604 in the FOXP2 gene and rs62053992 in the LINC01572 gene were weakly replicated in GS:SFHS (P = 0.0240 and P = 0.0202, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We have identified three loci associated with neck or shoulder pain in the UK Biobank cohort, two of which were weakly supported in a replication cohort. Further evidence is needed to confirm their roles in neck or shoulder pain.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: where are we now?

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a major challenge, with increasing impact as oncological treatments, using potentially neurotoxic chemotherapy, improve cancer cure and survival. Acute CIPN occurs during chemotherapy, sometimes requiring dose reduction or cessation, impacting on survival. Around 30% of patients will still have CIPN a year, or more, after finishing chemotherapy. Accurate assessment is essential to improve knowledge around prevalence and incidence of CIPN. Consensus is needed to standardize assessment and diagnosis, with use of well-validated tools, such as the EORTC-CIPN 20. Detailed phenotyping of the clinical syndrome moves toward a precision medicine approach, to individualize treatment. Understanding significant risk factors and pre-existing vulnerability may be used to improve strategies for CIPN prevention, or to use targeted treatment for established CIPN. No preventive therapies have shown significant clinical efficacy, although there are promising novel agents such as histone deacetylase 6 (HDAC6) inhibitors, currently in early phase clinical trials for cancer treatment. Drug repurposing, eg, metformin, may offer an alternative therapeutic avenue. Established treatment for painful CIPN is limited. Following recommendations for general neuropathic pain is logical, but evidence for agents such as gabapentinoids and amitriptyline is weak. The only agent currently recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology is duloxetine. Mechanisms are complex with changes in ion channels (sodium, potassium, and calcium), transient receptor potential channels, mitochondrial dysfunction, and immune cell interactions. Improved understanding is essential to advance CIPN management. On a positive note, there are many potential sites for modulation, with novel analgesic approaches.

Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, poor quality of life, and healthcare costs. Chronic pain has a weighted mean prevalence in adults of 20%.For many years, the treatment choice for chronic pain included recommendations for rest and inactivity. However, exercise may have specific benefits in reducing the severity of chronic pain, as well as more general benefits associated with improved overall physical and mental health, and physical functioning.Physical activity and exercise programmes are increasingly being promoted and offered in various healthcare systems, and for a variety of chronic pain conditions. It is therefore important at this stage to establish the efficacy and safety of these programmes, and furthermore to address the critical factors that determine their success or failure. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of Cochrane Reviews of adults with chronic pain to determine (1) the effectiveness of different physical activity and exercise interventions in reducing pain severity and its impact on function, quality of life, and healthcare use; and (2) the evidence for any adverse effects or harm associated with physical activity and exercise interventions. METHODS: We searched theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on the Cochrane Library (CDSR 2016, Issue 1) for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), after which we tracked any included reviews for updates, and tracked protocols in case of full review publication until an arbitrary cut-off date of 21 March 2016 (CDSR 2016, Issue 3). We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR tool, and also planned to analyse data for each painful condition based on quality of the evidence.We extracted data for (1) self-reported pain severity, (2) physical function (objectively or subjectively measured), (3) psychological function, (4) quality of life, (5) adherence to the prescribed intervention, (6) healthcare use/attendance, (7) adverse events, and (8) death.Due to the limited data available, we were unable to directly compare and analyse interventions, and have instead reported the evidence qualitatively. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 reviews with 381 included studies and 37,143 participants. Of these, 264 studies (19,642 participants) examined exercise versus no exercise/minimal intervention in adults with chronic pain and were used in the qualitative analysis.Pain conditions included rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, low back pain, intermittent claudication, dysmenorrhoea, mechanical neck disorder, spinal cord injury, postpolio syndrome, and patellofemoral pain. None of the reviews assessed 'chronic pain' or 'chronic widespread pain' as a general term or specific condition. Interventions included aerobic, strength, flexibility, range of motion, and core or balance training programmes, as well as yoga, Pilates, and tai chi.Reviews were well performed and reported (based on AMSTAR), and included studies had acceptable risk of bias (with inadequate reporting of attrition and reporting biases). However the quality of evidence was low due to participant numbers (most included studies had fewer than 50 participants in total), length of intervention and follow-up (rarely assessed beyond three to six months). We pooled the results from relevant reviews where appropriate, though results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. Pain severity: several reviews noted favourable results from exercise: only three reviews that reported pain severity found no statistically significant changes in usual or mean pain from any intervention. However, results were inconsistent across interventions and follow-up, as exercise did not consistently bring about a change (positive or negative) in self-reported pain scores at any single point. Physical function: was the most commonly reported outcome measure. Physical function was significantly improved as a result of the intervention in 14 reviews, though even these statistically significant results had only small-to-moderate effect sizes (only one review reported large effect sizes). Psychological function and quality of life: had variable results: results were either favourable to exercise (generally small and moderate effect size, with two reviews reporting significant, large effect sizes for quality of life), or showed no difference between groups. There were no negative effects. Adherence to the prescribed intervention: could not be assessed in any review. However, risk of withdrawal/dropout was slightly higher in the exercising group (82.8/1000 participants versus 81/1000 participants), though the group difference was non-significant. Healthcare use/attendance: was not reported in any review. Adverse events, potential harm, and death: only 25% of included studies (across 18 reviews) actively reported adverse events. Based on the available evidence, most adverse events were increased soreness or muscle pain, which reportedly subsided after a few weeks of the intervention. Only one review reported death separately to other adverse events: the intervention was protective against death (based on the available evidence), though did not reach statistical significance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the evidence examining physical activity and exercise for chronic pain is low. This is largely due to small sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. A number of studies had adequately long interventions, but planned follow-up was limited to less than one year in all but six reviews.There were some favourable effects in reduction in pain severity and improved physical function, though these were mostly of small-to-moderate effect, and were not consistent across the reviews. There were variable effects for psychological function and quality of life.The available evidence suggests physical activity and exercise is an intervention with few adverse events that may improve pain severity and physical function, and consequent quality of life. However, further research is required and should focus on increasing participant numbers, including participants with a broader spectrum of pain severity, and lengthening both the intervention itself, and the follow-up period.

Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, poor quality of life, and healthcare costs. Chronic pain has a weighted mean prevalence in adults of 20%.For many years, the treatment choice for chronic pain included recommendations for rest and inactivity. However, exercise may have specific benefits in reducing the severity of chronic pain, as well as more general benefits associated with improved overall physical and mental health, and physical functioning.Physical activity and exercise programmes are increasingly being promoted and offered in various healthcare systems, and for a variety of chronic pain conditions. It is therefore important at this stage to establish the efficacy and safety of these programmes, and furthermore to address the critical factors that determine their success or failure. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of Cochrane Reviews of adults with chronic pain to determine (1) the effectiveness of different physical activity and exercise interventions in reducing pain severity and its impact on function, quality of life, and healthcare use; and (2) the evidence for any adverse effects or harm associated with physical activity and exercise interventions. METHODS: We searched theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on the Cochrane Library (CDSR 2016, Issue 1) for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), after which we tracked any included reviews for updates, and tracked protocols in case of full review publication until an arbitrary cut-off date of 21 March 2016 (CDSR 2016, Issue 3). We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR tool, and also planned to analyse data for each painful condition based on quality of the evidence.We extracted data for (1) self-reported pain severity, (2) physical function (objectively or subjectively measured), (3) psychological function, (4) quality of life, (5) adherence to the prescribed intervention, (6) healthcare use/attendance, (7) adverse events, and (8) death.Due to the limited data available, we were unable to directly compare and analyse interventions, and have instead reported the evidence qualitatively. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 reviews with 381 included studies and 37,143 participants. Of these, 264 studies (19,642 participants) examined exercise versus no exercise/minimal intervention in adults with chronic pain and were used in the qualitative analysis.Pain conditions included rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, low back pain, intermittent claudication, dysmenorrhoea, mechanical neck disorder, spinal cord injury, postpolio syndrome, and patellofemoral pain. None of the reviews assessed 'chronic pain' or 'chronic widespread pain' as a general term or specific condition. Interventions included aerobic, strength, flexibility, range of motion, and core or balance training programmes, as well as yoga, Pilates, and tai chi.Reviews were well performed and reported (based on AMSTAR), and included studies had acceptable risk of bias (with inadequate reporting of attrition and reporting biases). However the quality of evidence was low due to participant numbers (most included studies had fewer than 50 participants in total), length of intervention and follow-up (rarely assessed beyond three to six months). We pooled the results from relevant reviews where appropriate, though results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. Pain severity: several reviews noted favourable results from exercise: only three reviews that reported pain severity found no statistically significant changes in usual or mean pain from any intervention. However, results were inconsistent across interventions and follow-up, as exercise did not consistently bring about a change (positive or negative) in self-reported pain scores at any single point. Physical function: was the most commonly reported outcome measure. Physical function was significantly improved as a result of the intervention in 14 reviews, though even these statistically significant results had only small-to-moderate effect sizes (only one review reported large effect sizes). Psychological function and quality of life: had variable results: results were either favourable to exercise (generally small and moderate effect size, with two reviews reporting significant, large effect sizes for quality of life), or showed no difference between groups. There were no negative effects. Adherence to the prescribed intervention: could not be assessed in any review. However, risk of withdrawal/dropout was slightly higher in the exercising group (82.8/1000 participants versus 81/1000 participants), though the group difference was non-significant. Healthcare use/attendance: was not reported in any review. Adverse events, potential harm, and death: only 25% of included studies (across 18 reviews) actively reported adverse events. Based on the available evidence, most adverse events were increased soreness or muscle pain, which reportedly subsided after a few weeks of the intervention. Only one review reported death separately to other adverse events: the intervention was protective against death (based on the available evidence), though did not reach statistical significance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the evidence examining physical activity and exercise for chronic pain is low. This is largely due to small sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. A number of studies had adequately long interventions, but planned follow-up was limited to less than one year in all but six reviews.There were some favourable effects in reduction in pain severity and improved physical function, though these were mostly of small-to-moderate effect, and were not consistent across the reviews. There were variable effects for psychological function and quality of life.The available evidence suggests physical activity and exercise is an intervention with few adverse events that may improve pain severity and physical function, and consequent quality of life. However, further research is required and should focus on increasing participant numbers, including participants with a broader spectrum of pain severity, and lengthening both the intervention itself, and the follow-up period.

Randomized Double-Blind Trial of Pregabalin Versus Placebo in Conjunction With Palliative Radiotherapy for Cancer-Induced Bone Pain.

PURPOSE: Cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) affects one third of patients with cancer. Radiotherapy remains the gold-standard treatment; however, laboratory and clinical work suggest that pregabalin may be useful in treating CIBP. The aim of this study was to examine pregabalin in patients with CIBP receiving radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter, double-blind randomized trial of pregabalin versus placebo was conducted. Eligible patients were age ≥ 18 years, had radiologically proven bone metastases, were scheduled to receive radiotherapy, and had pain scores ≥ 4 of 10 (on 0-to-10 numeric rating scale). Before radiotherapy, baseline assessments were completed, followed by random assignment. Doses of pregabalin and placebo were increased over 4 weeks. The primary end point was treatment response, defined as a reduction of ≥ 2 points in worst pain by week 4, accompanied by a stable or reduced opioid dose, compared with baseline. Secondary end points assessed average pain, interference of pain with activity, breakthrough pain, mood, quality of life, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 233 patients were randomly assigned: 117 to placebo and 116 to pregabalin. The most common cancers were prostate (n = 88; 38%), breast (n = 77; 33%), and lung (n = 42; 18%). In the pregabalin arm, 45 patients (38.8%) achieved the primary end point, compared with 47 (40.2%) in the placebo arm (adjusted odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.81; P = .816). There were no statistically significant differences in average pain, pain interference, or quality of life between arms. There were differences in mood (P = .031) and breakthrough pain duration (P = .037) between arms. Outcomes were compared at 4 weeks. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not support the role of pregabalin in patients with CIBP receiving radiotherapy. The role of pregabalin in CIBP with a clinical neuropathic pain component is unknown.

Using animal models to understand cancer pain in humans.

Cancer pain is not a single entity but a complex pain state involving different pain syndromes, with inflammatory, neuropathic, compressive, and ischaemic mechanisms. Current therapeutic regimens are based largely on opioids, although opioid treatment can lead to many side effects. Studies using animal models of cancer pain are aimed at understanding cancer pain and developing novel therapies. The most frequently reported models are of bone cancer pain, predominantly modelling pain associated with tumour growth within bone marrow. Here we summarise recent findings from studies using animal models of cancer pain and discuss the methodological quality of these studies.

The characteristics of physical activity and gait in patients receiving radiotherapy in cancer induced bone pain.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: An objective measure of pain relief may add important information to patients' self assessment, particularly after a treatment. The study aims were to determine whether measures of physical activity and/or gait can be used in characterizing cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) and whether these biomarkers are sensitive to treatment response, in patients receiving radiotherapy (XRT) for CIBP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were assessed before (baseline) and 6-8weeks after XRT (follow up). The following assessments were done: Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), activPAL™ activity meter, and GAITRite® electronic walkway (measure of gait). Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney and Pearson statistical analyses were done. RESULTS: Sixty patients were assessed at baseline; median worst pain was 7 and walking interference was 5. At follow up 42 patients were assessed. BPI worst pain, average pain, walking interference and total functional interference all improved (p<0.001). An improvement in functional interference correlated with aspects of physical activity (daily hours standing r=0.469, p=0.002) and gait (cadence r=0.341, p=0.03). The activPAL and GAITRite parameters did not change following XRT (p>0.05). In responder analyses there were no differences in activPAL and GAITRite parameters (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Assessment of physical activity and gait allow a characterization of the functional aspects of CIBP, but not in the evaluation of XRT.

Animal models of bone cancer pain: systematic review and meta-analyses.

Pain can significantly decrease the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer. Current treatment strategies often provide inadequate analgesia and unacceptable side effects. Animal models of bone cancer pain are used in the development of novel pharmacological approaches. Here we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of publications describing in vivo modelling of bone cancer pain in which behavioural, general health, macroscopic, histological, biochemical, or electrophysiological outcomes were reported and compared to appropriate controls. In all, 150 publications met our inclusion criteria, describing 38 different models of bone cancer pain. Reported methodological quality was low; only 31% of publications reported blinded assessment of outcome, and 11% reported random allocation to group. No publication reported a sample size calculation. Studies that reported measures to reduce bias reported smaller differences in behavioural outcomes between tumour-bearing and control animals, and studies that presented a statement regarding a conflict of interest reported larger differences in behavioural outcomes. Larger differences in behavioural outcomes were reported in female animals, when cancer cells were injected into either the tibia or femur, and when MatLyLu prostate or Lewis Lung cancer cells were used. Mechanical-evoked pain behaviours were most commonly reported; however, the largest difference was observed in spontaneous pain behaviours. In the spinal cord astrocyte activation and increased levels of Substance P receptor internalisation, c-Fos, dynorphin, tumor necrosis factor-α and interleukin-1ß have been reported in bone cancer pain models, suggesting several potential therapeutic targets. However, the translational impact of animal models on clinical pain research could be enhanced by improving methodological quality.

Pain, depression, and fatigue as a symptom cluster in advanced cancer.

CONTEXT: Pain, depression, and fatigue are common symptoms in cancer populations. They often coexist and have been suggested as a specific symptom cluster. Systemic inflammation (SI) may be a possible common mechanism. OBJECTIVE: This study examined whether pain, depression, and fatigue exist as a symptom cluster in advanced cancer patients with cachexia and might be related to the presence of SI. METHODS: Secondary data analysis was undertaken of two clinical trials in patients with cancer cachexia (n = 654). Pain, depression, and fatigue were assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30. Plasma C-reactive protein (CRP) was measured as a marker of SI in a subgroup (n = 436). Multivariate analysis and a series of regression analyses were undertaken relating pain, depression, fatigue, and CRP. RESULTS: Pain, depression, and fatigue clustered, with between two and four times as many patients having all three symptoms as would be expected if the symptoms only coexist by chance (P < 0.001). CRP was not related to the symptom cluster. There was a strong relationship between the pattern of symptoms and physical functioning (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Pain, depression, and fatigue is an identifiable symptom cluster in a cohort of cachexic cancer patients and is associated with reduced physical functioning.

Characterization of cancer-induced bone pain: an exploratory study.

PURPOSE: Cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) is the commonest cause of pain in patients with cancer. Its association with increased morbidity combined with limitations of currently available therapies makes it a clinical challenge. Clinical characterization of this complex pain syndrome is essential in underpinning clinical management and informing future research. The aim of this exploratory study was to characterise CIBP using self-rating scales. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of patients with CIBP was carried out in a regional oncology centre. Patients described their pain over the preceding 24 h using the McGill Pain Questionnaire, Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and a breakthrough pain questionnaire. Multiple linear regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were recruited. Annoying, gnawing, aching, and nagging were the most commonly used words to describe CIBP. From the BPI, median average pain was 4/10 and worst pain was 7/10 on a 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale. The worst pain score correlated more strongly with BPI interference score (p=0.001). Forty-one patients had breakthrough pain. Patients with breakthrough pain had higher total BPI interference scores than those with no breakthrough pain; median (IQR); 35.0 (2.5-44.7) vs. 18.5 (5.5-26.7), p<0.01. Of the patients, 20/41 (48%) had breakthrough pain of rapid onset (less than 5 min) and short duration (less than 15 min). CONCLUSION: In CIBP, worst pain most accurately reflects the characteristics of pain flares and functional impairment. Breakthrough pain is often unpredictable, sudden onset and short duration. Further characterization studies of CIBP in the broader cancer population are needed.

Cancer pain and its relationship to systemic inflammation: an exploratory study.

Pain is the commonest symptom in cancer patients, whereas inflammation is implicated in cancer development and progression. The relationship between pain and inflammation in cancer is therefore of interest; however, it is challenging to examine because multiple factors may affect these variables. This study assessed the relationship between cancer pain and systemic inflammation using a retrospective analysis of 2 clinical trial datasets of patients with cancer cachexia. Included patients had gastrointestinal, lung, or pancreatic cancer. Pain was assessed using the pain subscale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C-30. Inflammation was assessed using C-reactive protein (CRP). A regression analysis between pain and logarithmically transformed CRP was run, and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated. A total of 718 patients entered the trials, of whom 449 had CRP measured. Both trial populations were well matched. Pain positively correlated with CRP. The Pearson correlation coefficients were 0.126 and 0.163 for trials 1 and 2, respectively. This correlation was statistically significant at the P<.05 level. These findings support that pain is related to systemic inflammation in a cohort of cancer patients. Many factors can affect pain and inflammation in cancer, demonstrating that any relationship that exists between pain and inflammation is of interest. This is in keeping with work showing this relationship in nonmalignant pain. Studies targeting inflammation and assessing its effect on pain in cancer would be an important step in the research agenda.

A systematic review examining the literature on attitudes of patients with advanced cancer toward research.

The attitudes of heterogeneous groups of cancer patients towards research have been studied extensively. Less is known about these attitudes in the advanced cancer population. Such patients may have differing attitudes for a variety of reasons, including burden of disease and social factors. This systematic review examines the literature on attitudes of patients with advanced cancer toward research and aims to define common themes. The following databases were searched electronically: CINAHL (1982-2007), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2007), Embase (1996-2007), and Medline (1996-2007). Additionally, the following journals were hand searched: Palliative Medicine, Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, and the European Journal of Palliative Care. The search terminologies used were: "Cancer" AND "Attitudes" AND "Research" AND "Palliative Care." All subheadings were included. Results were limited to English-language journals and studies involving humans. Of the 637 articles retrieved, 11 were included after an appraisal process. Both positive and negative attitudes toward research in advanced cancer were identified. Common themes of altruism, hope, and self-benefit were identified in 10 studies as a motivation for trial participation. Negative attitudes toward symptom control and risk of increased hospital admissions were identified in four studies. Most of the studies involved patients' views about participating in hypothetical trials, limiting the generalizability of results. An important step for future work would be to examine the experiences and opinions of patients with advanced cancer who have actually participated in a clinical trial.

Are cancer pain and depression interdependent? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Pain and depression are common in cancer patients. As these are both highly prevalent, the issue of a possible interdependent association has been raised. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the available literature and explore whether there is any evidence to support a causal relationship between cancer pain and depression. METHODS: An extensive literature search was undertaken. The following databases were searched electronically: Medline (1950-2007), Embase (1988-2007), CINAHL (1982-2007) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 2 2007). The initial literature search revealed 892 articles. Following initial screening 41 articles were independently reviewed in detail. Fourteen articles were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: The mean prevalence of both depression and pain was 36.5% (range 22.1-49.0). In 9 out of 14 studies a statistically significant association was demonstrated between pain and depression. Pain intensity positively correlated with depression (P<0.05). Items such as 'worst pain' and 'enjoyment of life' (on the Brief Pain Inventory) correlated significantly with depression. When using the McGill Pain Questionnaire, depressed patients used more affective pain descriptors. It was also shown that the longer the duration of pain, the higher the risk of depression. CONCLUSIONS: Pain and depression are highly prevalent in cancer patients; however, there have been no appropriately designed studies to examine a causal relationship. Although associations exist, the evidence available is not sufficient to support an interdependent relationship between pain and depression. A suitably designed longitudinal study to examine causality would be a relevant step in the research agenda.

A randomised double blind trial of the effect of pre-emptive epidural ketamine on persistent pain after lower limb amputation.

Persistent pain has been reported in up to 80% of patients after limb amputation. The mechanisms are not fully understood, but nerve injury during amputation is important, with evidence for the crucial involvement of the spinal N-methyl d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor in central changes. The study objective was to assess the effect of pre-emptively modulating sensory input with epidural ketamine (an NMDA antagonist) on post-amputation pain and sensory processing. The study recruited 53 patients undergoing lower limb amputation who received a combined intrathecal/epidural anaesthetic for surgery followed by a randomised epidural infusion (Group K received racemic ketamine and bupivacaine; Group S received saline and bupivacaine). Neither general anaesthesia nor opioids were used during the peri-operative period. Pain characteristics were assessed for 12 months. The primary endpoint was incidence and severity of post-amputation pain. Persistent pain at one year was much less in both groups than in comparable studies, with no significant difference between groups (Group K=21% (3/14) and 50% (7/14); and Group S=33% (5/15) and 40% (6/15) for stump and phantom pain, respectively). Post-operative analgesia was significantly better in Group K, with reduced stump sensitivity. The intrathecal/epidural technique used, with peri-operative sensory attenuation, may have reduced ongoing sensitisation, reducing the overall incidence of persistent pain. The improved short-term analgesia and reduced mechanical sensitivity in Group K may reflect acute effects of ketamine on central sensitisation. Longer term effects on mood were detected in Group K that requires further study.