Estudio observacional, prospectivo y multicéntrico sobre el uso de citrato de fentanilo transmucosa en la práctica clínica habitual para el control de las crisis de dolor irruptivo en pacientes oncológicos / Observational, prospective and multicenter study on the use of transmucosal fentanyl citrate in regular clinical practice for the control of breakthrough pain crises in cancer patients

Objetivo: Evaluar el grado de satisfacción de los pacientes y/o cuidadores con el tratamiento de citrato de fentanilo transmucosa en la gestión de las crisis de dolor irruptivo oncológico en términos de facilidad de uso. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio observacional, prospectivo y multicéntrico con 48 pacientes sometidos a tratamiento de mantenimiento con opioides para el dolor crónico basal provocado por el cáncer y que, además, sufrían crisis de dolor irruptivo para las que estaban recibiendo tratamiento con citrato de fentanilo. La variable principal del estudio fue el grado de satisfacción de los pacientes y/o sus cuidadores con el citrato de fentanilo en el manejo de las crisis de dolor irruptivo oncológico, evaluadas mediante cuestionarios Escala Visual Analógica (EVA). Resultados: El 90,6 % de los pacientes/cuidadores muestran un elevado grado de satisfacción con el empleo de citrato de fentanilo en términos de facilidad de uso (valor medio EVA de 8,2). Por su parte, tanto la valoración general por parte de los pacientes/cuidadores como por parte de los sanitarios ha sido muy positiva (valor medio EVA 7,7). Conclusiones: El citrato de fentanilo es una terapia fácil de usar y eficaz para el tratamiento de las crisis de dolor irruptivo oncológico, con amplia aceptación tanto por parte de pacientes y cuidadores como de los profesionales sanitarios.(AU)

Objective: To assess the degree of satisfaction of patients and/or caregivers with transmucosal fentanyl citrate treatment in the management of breakthrough cancer pain crises in terms of ease of use. Methods: An observational, prospective and multicenter study was carried out with 48 patients undergoing maintenance treatment with opioids for baseline chronic cancer pain and who, in addition, suffered breakthrough pain crises for those who were receiving treatment with fentanyl citrate. The main variable of the study was the degree of satisfaction of the patients and/or their caregivers with fentanyl citrate in the management of breakthrough cancer pain crises, evaluatedby means of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) questionnaires. Results: 90.6 % of patients/caregivers show a high degree of satisfaction with the use of fentanyl citrate in terms of ease of use (mean VAS value of 8.2). For its part, both the general assessment by the patients/caregivers and by the healthcare professionals has been very positive (mean VAS value 7.7). Conclusions: Fentanyl citrate is an easy-to-use and effective therapy for the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain crises, widely accepted by both patients and caregivers as well as health professionals.(AU)

Quality of life in patients with breakthrough cancer pain in radiation oncology departments in Spain: the CAVIDIOR study.

Aim: The CAVIDIOR study evaluated quality of life (QoL) in patients with breakthrough cancer pain receiving palliative radiation therapy in radiation oncology departments (RODs) in Spain. Patients & methods: Prospective observational study at 11 Spanish RODs (July 2016-November 2017). QoL was assessed using Short Form Health Survey 12. Secondary end points were sleep quality, caregiver burden and patient/perception of improvement. Results: QoL improved according to the Short Form Health Survey 12 mental component. Sleep quality and caregivers' burden improved significantly. Conclusion: Breakthrough cancer pain is highly prevalent and can be substantially reduced with appropriate diagnosis and management in RODs. Along with the QoL questionnaire, sleep quality and caregiver burden provide a more comprehensive assessment of overall health status in patients receiving radiation therapy in RODs. Clinical trial registration: NCT02836379 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify measures of breakthrough pain and evaluate their psychometric properties.

INTRODUCTION: Breakthrough pain is common in children and adults with cancer and other conditions, including those approaching end-of-life, although it is often poorly managed, possibly partly due to a lack of validated assessment tools. This review aims to (1) identify all available instruments measuring breakthrough pain in infants, children, adolescents or adults and (2) critically appraise, compare and summarise the quality of the psychometric properties of the identified instruments using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two searches will be carried out between October 2019 and January 2020, one for each aim of the review. The Cochrane Library, International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar, the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database, Evidence Search and OpenGrey databases will be searched from database inception until the date the search is conducted. Reference lists of eligible articles will be screened and authors in the field contacted. For search 1, articles will be screened by two reviewers by abstract, and full-text where necessary, to identify if a breakthrough pain assessment was used. Search 2 will then be conducted to identify studies evaluating measurement properties of these assessments. Two reviewers will screen articles from search 2 by title and abstract. All potentially relevant studies will be screened by full text by both reviewers. For search 2, data will be extracted in parallel with the quality assessment process, as recommended by COSMIN. Two reviewers will assess methodological quality using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist and the COSMIN updated criteria for good measurement properties. Findings will be summarised and, if possible, data will be pooled using meta-analysis. The quality of the evidence will be graded and summarised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results of this review will be submitted for publication in a peer review journal and presented at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019155583.

Reducing breakthrough pain during labour epidural analgesia: an update.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Neuraxial techniques are the current gold standard for labour analgesia, but are associated with up to 25% incidence of breakthrough pain. In this review, we aim to update clinicians on the latest research pertaining to the optimization of neuraxial labour analgesia. RECENT FINDINGS: Attempts to improve the efficacy and reliability of epidural analgesia while minimizing adverse effects have resulted in the rising popularity of combined spinal epidural and the dural puncture epidural (DPE). Recent studies have focused on determining the safety, efficacy, and optimization of the DPE technique.Another research focus is on the development of individualized therapy in which patients may titrate their own labour analgesia according to their varying requirements, possibly augmented with computer-aided feedback systems and automated mandatory bolus techniques that automatically adjust drug delivery to the patients' analgesic requirements. The addition of a risk-stratification model based on maternal, anaesthetic, and obstetric factors will facilitate early institution of individualized therapy to forestall breakthrough pain in higher risk patients. SUMMARY: Recent advances in combined spinal epidural, DPE, automated mandatory bolus, and individualized therapies have advanced our goal of providing effective labour analgesia that is titrated to changing analgesic requirements during labour and delivery and reducing breakthrough pain.

Neuralgia de Arnold en paciente en fase de prueba de SCS por síndrome de espalda fallida / Occipital neuralgia during stimulation trial period of SCS in failed back surgery sindrome

El síndrome de espalda fallida es una de las patologías más frecuentes para estimulación de los cordones posteriores. Aunque es una técnica segura, no está exenta de complicaciones. Presentamos un caso poco habitual de migración en SCS

Failed back surgery syndrome is one of the most common indications for spinal cord stimulation. Although is a safe technique, it has some complications such electrode migration. Here is an unusual migration case of a SCS electrode in a FBSS patient

Breakthrough cancer pain: The importance of the right treatment at the right time.

BACKGROUND: Confusion remains over the definition of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) potentially leading to delayed diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: An on-line survey was conducted in four EU countries among relevant healthcare professionals and cancer patients diagnosed with BTcP. The roles of healthcare professionals (HCPs) were examined and their knowledge and use of available medications recorded. Patients were questioned on how BTcP affected their lives and on the medications they had received/were receiving. RESULTS: There was a 'time lag' of 58 and 13 weeks in Germany and Spain respectively between the initial diagnosis of BTcP and its treatment. Four in ten oncologists across the four countries considered themselves not fully confident in their choice of the appropriate therapy. A quarter of patients in Germany, Italy and Spain and four in ten in France were treated only with increased dosages of the therapy already prescribed for their background pain - often morphine. Almost another quarter received morphine in addition to their treatment for background pain. Oncologists indicated a need for faster-acting treatments revealing a potential lack of awareness of rapid onset oral opioids and patients expressed a desire for more effective pain relief and better psychological support. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for a universal definition of BTcP to facilitate earlier and more accurate diagnosis. It is essential that BTcP is treated immediately on diagnosis with therapies that more closely mirror its temporal characteristics to ensure that patients' desire for more effective pain relief is fulfilled. SIGNIFICANCE: Many cancer patients suffered episodes of BTcP needlessly over many months due to missed diagnosis. Even after diagnosis, many physicians were not fully confident in their choice of 'rescue' therapy which perhaps is not surprising given the very low level of awareness of treatment guidelines, both national and international.

Non pharmacological interventions and non-fentanyl pharmacological treatments for breakthrough cancer pain: A systematic and critical review.

BACKGROUND: Oral opioids or other pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions are often suggested in the management of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). The aim of this systematic and critical review was to analyse and critically comment the evidence of any non-fentanyl therapies proposed for BTcP. METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out to find studies providing clinical data on any treatment excluding fentanyl products. RESULTS: No data exist about the use of oral opioids. Some information is available on parenteral morphine in a large sample of patients and episodes of BTcP. For other treatments, including methadone, nitrous oxide, anti-inflammatory drugs, samarium, and gabapentin the existing data, observational and obtained in a small number of patients do not provide useful information to be generalized. Only ketamine, a drug difficult to use for many physicians, particularly in determined setting, provided some evidence according a randomized controlled double-blind study. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations suggesting the use of oral opioids or other pharmacological and non-pharmacologic interventions for BTcP, are not based on any, even minimal evidence. These treatments are worthwhile of further investigation, particularly in determined conditions that should fit the pharmacokinetics of oral opioids.

[Improving the quality of cancer pain management in palliative care unit: Targeted clinical audit]. / Qualité de la prise en charge de la douleur du cancer en unité de soins palliatifs : audit clinique ciblé.

Goal This study aims to assess the quality of the cancer pain management in Palliative care unit. METHOD: The method used was the targeted clinical audit. The audit grid was built according to the recommendations of the pilot Committee, and tested until the final version with 19 items was obtained. In this retrospective study, 60 consecutive patients were studied on 2 periods of time. The first one (T1) shows the gap between the patient's chart and the expected standard, and proposes corrective measures. The second one (T2) re-assesses, using the same items list, the efficacy of these measures. RESULTS: After the corrective measures, the patients' medical record documentation was significantly improved at T2 for: neuropathic pain assessment improved, from 3% (T1) to 67% (T2) (P<0.001), so did pain assessment during the titration, from 6.7% (T1) to 90% (T2) (P<0.001). The overdoses symptoms assessment improved from 17% at T1 to 93% at T2, (P=0.002) and breakthrough pain evaluation improved from 3% at T1 to 73% at T2, (P<0.001). The pain reassessment after the rescue doses improved from 10% at T1 to 73% at T2 (P<0.001). The other points improved but not significantly. CONCLUSION: The quality of the pain cancer management was improved during the audit, but some points (patient education and in patient medical record documentation) can be improved. We need to continue to implement the improvement measures in our unit.

Breakthrough Cancer Pain: Preliminary Data of The Italian Oncologic Pain Multisetting Multicentric Survey (IOPS-MS).

INTRODUCTION: An ongoing national multicenter survey [Italian Oncologic Pain multiSetting Multicentric Survey (IOPS-MS)] is evaluating the characteristics of breakthrough cancer pain (BTP) in different clinical settings. Preliminary data from the first 1500 cancer patients with BTP enrolled in this study are presented here. METHODS: Thirty-two clinical centers are involved in the survey. A diagnosis of BTP was performed by a standard algorithm. Epidemiological data, Karnofsky index, stage of disease, presence and sites of metastases, ongoing oncologic treatment, and characteristics of background pain and BTP and their treatments were recorded. Background pain and BTP intensity were measured. Patients were also questioned about BTP predictability, BTP onset (≤10 or >10 min), BTP duration, background and BTP medications and their doses, time to meaningful pain relief after BTP medication, and satisfaction with BTP medication. The occurrence of adverse reactions was also assessed, as well as mucosal toxicity. RESULTS: Background pain was well controlled with opioid treatment (numerical rating scale 3.0 ± 1.1). Patients reported 2.5 ± 1.6 BTP episodes/day with a mean intensity of 7.5 ± 1.4 and duration of 43 ± 40 min; 977 patients (65.1%) reported non-predictable BTP, and 1076 patients (71.7%) reported a rapid onset of BTP (≤10 min). Higher patient satisfaction was reported by patients treated with fast onset opioids. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary data underline that the standard algorithm used is a valid tool for a proper diagnosis of BTP in cancer patients. Moreover, rapid relief of pain is crucial for patients' satisfaction. The final IOPS-MS data are necessary to understand relationships between BTP characteristics and other clinical variables in oncologic patients. FUNDING: Molteni Farmaceutici, Italy.

Breakthrough cancer pain: twenty-five years of study.

Breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) is an episode of severe pain that "breaks through" a period of persistent pain at least partly controlled by a stable opioid regimen. Although mentioned in the literature decades ago, it has been only 25 years since the first effort to define and measure it. Controversy about the definition of BTcP continues despite an international effort to achieve consensus. Nevertheless, common approaches to measurement of BTcP have led to a robust literature, including many surveys that have described prevalence, characteristics, and association with adverse outcomes. Measurement also has been important for clinical trials of new drug formulations specifically designed for BTcP. Several approaches have been reported in the literature, although most of them have never been substantiated with appropriate studies. Administration of an opioid as needed is the most common treatment. Twenty-five years of research has produced a more refined understanding of the safety and efficacy of oral opioids in this context, and provided the clinical trials data necessary to attain regulatory approval of multiple new formulations specifically developed for BTcP. Transmucosal formulations of fentanyl may provide meaningful analgesia within 5 to 15 minutes. Given the difference in cost, transmucosal formulations should be considered in a subset of patients with BTcP, including those with pain that are not adequately controlled with an oral drug and those with distress associated with the rapid pain onset. The long-term use of opioids for BTcP remains to be clarified. Future studies should assess the potential of personalized treatment of BTcP.

Consensus and controversies in the definition, assessment, treatment and monitoring of BTcP: results of a Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: There is no unanimous consensus on the clinical features to define breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). The current project aimed to investigate the opinion of a panel of experts on cancer pain on how to define, diagnose, assess, treat and monitor BTcP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A two-round Spanish multi-centre exploratory Delphi study was conducted with medical experts (n = 90) previously selected from Medical Oncology Services, Radiation Oncology, Palliative Care/Home Care Teams, and Pain Units. The study intended to seek experts' consensus and to define a set of recommendations for the management of BTcP. RESULTS: It was generally agreed that, definition of BTcP implies that baseline pain should be controlled (84 %), although not necessarily with opioids (only 30 %); there must be exacerbations (98.9 %); the duration of each episode should last <1 h (70 %); the intensity of pain ≥7 out of 10 (67.8 %); and the number of flares per day should not be less than four. All participants supported the use of the Davies algorithm for the diagnosis. The use of a 'Patient Diary' was highly recommended. The optimal treatment should have a rapid onset, a short-acting analgesic effect (1-2 h) and transmucosal nasal or oral administration. It was considered very important to develop protocols for the management of cancer pain. CONCLUSIONS: The present Delphi study identified a set of recommendations to define, assess and monitor BTcP.

Diagnosis and management of breakthrough cancer pain: Have all the questions been resolved? A Delphi-based consensus assessment (DOIRON).

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the level of agreement and achieve a consensus among cancer pain specialists in Spain with regard to the optimal definition, diagnosis, and management of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). DESIGN: Two-round Delphi methodology survey (February-May 2013) using seven-point Likert scales (ranging from 1 "strongly disagree" to 7 "strongly agree") was carried out. Mean scores >5 or <3 indicated, respectively, agreement or disagreement. Scores from 3 to 5 indicated no consensus. RESULTS: A total of 126 experienced specialists were surveyed. Response rates were 68 % in round 1 and 90 % in round 2. Agreement (mean Likert score) was strongest for the proposed BTcP definition (6.6), the use of oral (6.1), and intranasal (6.0) transmucosal fentanyl, the need for early assessment after BTcP treatment initiation, and the need to improve staff knowledge of BTcP. Broad agreement was also reached regarding the need to systematically screen all cancer patients for BTcP (5.9). Most respondents (82 %) considered strong opioids to be appropriate treatment. In contrast, no consensus was reached regarding strong opioid treatment for baseline pain as a prerequisite for BTcP diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was strong for most treatment, and diagnostic aspects were evaluated in the study. However, several important issues remain unresolved, particularly whether the diagnostic criteria must include strong opioids for background pain. Nurses' awareness and understanding of BTcP was considered insufficient, and more training is needed in this area. Overall, agreement among specialists was good, but more work is needed to better define the optimal diagnostic features and treatments for this condition.

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.

Satisfaction with and Perception of Pain Management among Palliative Patients with Breakthrough Pain: A Qualitative Study.

Breakthrough pain is a significant contributor to much suffering by patients. The experience of intense pain may interfere with, and affect, daily life functioning and has major consequences on patients' well-being if it is not well managed. The area of breakthrough pain has not been fully understood. This study thus aimed to explore the experiences of breakthrough pain among palliative patients. A qualitative study based on a series of open-ended interviews among 21 palliative patients suffering from pain at an urban tertiary hospital in Malaysia was conducted. Five themes were generated: (i) pain viewed as an unbearable experience causing misery in the lives of patients, (ii) deterioration of body function and no hope of recovery, (iii) receiving of inadequate pain management for pain, (iv) insensitivity of healthcare providers toward patients' pain experience, and (v) pain coping experiences of patients. The findings revealed that nonpharmacologic approaches such as psychosocial support should be introduced to the patients. Proper guidance and information should be given to healthcare providers to improve the quality of patient care. Healthcare providers should adopt a sensitive approach in caring for patients' needs. The aim is to meet the needs of the patients who want to be pain free or to attain adequate relief of their pain for breakthrough pain.

Breakthrough pain in cancer patients: prevalence, mechanisms and treatment options.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this article was to examine the definition, the characteristics, and the management of breakthrough cancer pain (BTP) in cancer patients by a critical review of recent literature. RECENT FINDINGS: BTP should be more correctly defined as an episode of severe intensity in patients receiving an adequate treatment with opioids able to provide at least mild analgesia. BTP is a heterogeneous condition as episodes vary between individuals. BTP can be classified into two big distinct pictures: spontaneous-type and incident-type pain. The principal pharmacological treatment of BTP is represented by the administration of opioids as needed. Recent reviews revealed that transmucosal preparation of fentanyl provided superior and more rapid pain relief as compared with placebo in the first 30 min after dosing. Few comparison studies among fentanyl products have been performed.Finally, although dose titration was recommended for years, a meaningful dosing according to the level of opioid tolerance may enhance the advantages of such products. SUMMARY: BTP represents a serious problem reported by many cancer patients despite receiving regular use of opioids. Subgroups of breakthrough pain have been identified. Different modalities of pharmacological interventions are available. Further studies are warranted to assess the net benefit of these drugs to assist decision-making by patients, clinicians, and payers according to individual clinical conditions.

Accuracy of a Diagnostic Algorithm to Diagnose Breakthrough Cancer Pain as Compared With Clinical Assessment.

CONTEXT: Breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP) is a heterogeneous condition, and there are no internationally agreed standardized criteria to diagnose it. There are published algorithms to assist with diagnosis, but these differ in content. There are no comparative data to support use. OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic ability of a simple algorithm against a comprehensive clinical assessment to diagnose BTCP and to assess if verbal rating descriptors can adequately discriminate controlled background pain. METHODS: Patients with cancer pain completed a three-step algorithm with a researcher to determine if they had controlled background pain and BTCP. This was followed by a detailed pain consultation with a clinical specialist who was blinded to the algorithm results and determined an independent pain diagnosis. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for the condition of BTCP. Further analysis determined which verbal pain severity descriptors corresponded with the condition of controlled background pain. RESULTS: The algorithm had a sensitivity of 0.54 and a specificity of 0.76 in the identification of BTCP. The positive predictive value was 0.7, and the negative predictive value was 0.62. The sensitivity of a background pain severity rating of mild or less to accurately categorize controlled background pain was 0.69 compared with 0.97 for severity of moderate or less; however, this was balanced by a higher specificity rating for mild or less, 0.78 compared with 0.2. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic breakthrough pain algorithm had a good positive predictive value but limited sensitivity using a cutoff score of "mild" to define controlled background pain. When the cutoff level was changed to moderate, the sensitivity increased, but specificity reduced. A comprehensive clinical assessment remains the preferred method to diagnose BTCP.

Italian Oncological Pain Survey (IOPS): a multicentre Italian study of breakthrough pain performed in different settings.

OBJECTIVE: A survey of breakthrough pain (BTP) was performed in five palliative care units (PCU), seven oncology departments (ONC), and nine pain clinics (OPC). METHODS: A standard algorithm was used to confirm the diagnosis of BTP of patients refereed to different settings. RESULTS: 1,412 evaluable cancer patients were enrolled. 53.9% were males and the mean age was 63.7±13.1 years. The mean intensity of background pain was 2.8±0.73. Patients reported 2.4±1.1 BTP episodes/day with a mean intensity of 7.37±1.28. 80.6% patients reported that the BTP had a significant negative impact in everyday life. The majority of patients reported a fast onset of BTP, which was predictable in 50.7% of cases, while BTP with a gradual onset (>10 min) was less predictable (29%) (P=0.001). PCU patients were older, had lower Karnofsky levels, a lower number of BTP episodes/day, a slow onset of BTP onset, and a less predictable BTP. Cancer diagnosis was performed a mean of 23.5 months (SD±32.8) before the assessment. The mean duration of background pain was 3.5 months (SD±3.5), and the mean duration of any analgesic treatment was 2.5 months (SD±3). BTP started a mean of 2.2 months (SD±1.9) before the assessment. Characteristics of BTP were influenced by the course of disease, as well as the duration of background pain and initiation of BTP. Most patients took rapid onset opioids and were satisfied with the treatment. BTP diagnosis was prevalently made by ONC and OPC physicians, and rarely by GPs. CONCLUSION: This survey performed by an Italian observatory expert review group, has confirmed that the BTP represents a clinically relevant condition with a negative impact on the patient's quality of life. BTP was detected in all settings involved. A number of factors are associated with the BTP. Also factors regarding the course of disease and setting of care have been assessed. This information may help in stratifying patients or predicting the risk of development of BTP with specific characteristics.