Pain prevalence and characteristics in survivors of solid cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The latest systematic review on the prevalence of pain in cancer survivors was published 5 years ago. The current review aims to provide an extended overview on the prevalence of pain, pain mechanisms, pain characteristics, and assessment methods in cancer survivors. METHODS: A systematic research was conducted on 17th of April 2020 using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane looking at studies from 2014 to 2020. Studies had to report pain prevalence rates in cancer survivors with a solid tumor who finished curative treatment at least 3 months ago. Methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute quality appraisal tool. Characteristics of the included studies, participants and reported pain prevalence rates were extracted. The reported prevalence rates of the individual studies were pooled within a meta-analysis. Meta-regressions were performed to identify possible determinants of the pooled pain prevalence. RESULTS: After deduplication, 7300 articles were screened, after which 38 were included in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias was rated low in 26 articles and moderate in 12 articles. The pooled pain prevalence was 47% (95%CI 39-55), with a heterogeneity of 98.99%. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that nearly half of cancer survivors report pain after completing curative treatment at least 3 months ago. However, substantial unexplained heterogeneity warrants cautious interpretation of these results. Meta-regression using cancer type, treatment location, pain measurement, and follow-up time as a covariate could not explain influencing factors explaining the high heterogeneity.

Pain Prevalence During Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

CONTEXT: Pain is one of the most complex and prevalent symptoms in the cancer population. Despite the protective role of acute cancer-related pain, it is also an important predictor for the likelihood of developing chronic pain after cancer treatment. OBJECTIVES: Since the last systematic review on pain prevalence rates during cancer treatment dates already from 2016, the aim of the present systematic review was to provide an overview of pain prevalence rates during cancer treatment since this previous review. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature, including studies between 2014 and 2020, was conducted using the databases Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane. Studies reporting pain prevalence rates during or within three months after curative cancer treatment was included. Title/abstract and full-text was screened double-blinded, followed by independent evaluation of the risk of bias. All prevalence rates were pooled within meta-analyses and a meta-regression was performed to clarify the amount of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Of the 9052 studies, 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis of which 10 included breast cancer and two lung cancer patients. The pooled pain prevalence rate was 40% (95%CI 0.29-0.51), with a heterogeneity of 96%. Out of the meta-regression, only the covariate "method of pain measurement" significantly clarified the heterogeneity (P < 0.05), resulting in a residual heterogeneity of 94.88%. CONCLUSION: Five years after the last systematic review published on this topic, pain is still very prevalent during cancer treatment. However, the pain prevalence rates were also very heterogeneous. These two findings emphasize the need for further research on the development of adequate pain assessment and pain management approaches during cancer treatment.

Quantitative Sensory Testing in Women After Surgery for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a noninvasive technique to evaluate functioning of the somatosensory system. In many women surgically treated for breast cancer (BC), somatosensory functioning is disturbed with high prevalence of sensory loss and/or pain. The aims of this systematic review were (1) to summarize literature about QST methods; (2) to summarize the results within women surgically treated for BC (patients and survivors); (3) to compare QST results between women surgically treated for BC with and without pain; and (4) to compare the results between women surgically treated for BC and women without history of BC. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted up to February 2020. Included studies had to report on QST methods (mechanical or thermal detection-pain thresholds, pressure pain thresholds [PPT], temporal summation [TS], or conditioned pain modulation [CPM]) in women over 18 years with-without pain, who had undergone unilateral surgery for BC. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were included. Discrepancies in QST methods were greatest for TS and CPM. A local disturbance in thermal detection and an increased pain facilitation were found in BC survivors with pain in the surgical area. BC survivors with upper limb pain had significantly lower PPT at the surgical area and PPT were also significantly lower compared with women without history of BC, at affected and nonaffected sides for both local and remote body regions. DISCUSSION: Standardized QST incorporating assessments of CPM is warranted in order to draw conclusions about neurobiological mechanisms of pain and somatosensory disturbances after surgical treatment for BC and to enhance mechanism-based management of these sequelae.