Evaluating Pain Management Practices for Cancer Patients among Health Professionals: A Global Survey

Opioid analgesics for nociceptive cancer pain: A comprehensive review

Pain is one of the most burdensome symptoms in people with cancer, and opioid analgesics are considered the mainstay of cancer pain management. For this review, the authors evaluated the efficacy and toxicities of opioid analgesics compared with placebo, other opioids, nonopioid analgesics, and nonpharmacologic treatments for background cancer pain (continuous and relatively constant pain present at rest), and breakthrough cancer pain (transient exacerbation of pain despite stable and adequately controlled background pain). They found a paucity of placebo-controlled trials for background cancer pain, although tapentadol or codeine may be more efficacious than placebo (moderate-certainty to low-certainty evidence). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs including aspirin, piroxicam, diclofenac, ketorolac, and the antidepressant medicine imipramine, may be at least as efficacious as opioids for moderate-to-severe background cancer pain. For breakthrough cancer pain, oral transmucosal, buccal, sublingual, or intranasal fentanyl preparations were identified as more efficacious than placebo but were more commonly associated with toxicities, including constipation and nausea. Despite being recommended worldwide for the treatment of cancer pain, morphine was generally not superior to other opioids, nor did it have a more favorable toxicity profile. The interpretation of study results, however, was complicated by the heterogeneity in the study populations evaluated. Given the limited quality and quantity of research, there is a need to reappraise the clinical utility of opioids in people with cancer pain, particularly those who are not at the end of life, and to further explore the effects of opioids on immune system function and quality of life in these individuals.

The impact of opioid administration for post gamma knife radiosurgery frame removal: a prospective quality-improvement study

PURPOSE

In our center, five Gamma Knife proceduralists differed in opioid administration practices prior to Leksell frame removal, providing the opportunity to improve the care of patients with brain metastases by studying whether opioid medications improve pain scores and patient satisfaction during Gamma Knife treatment in a prospective, pseudorandomized fashion.

METHODS

We prospectively administered a questionnaire to patients undergoing Gamma Knife Radiosurgery for metastases between November, 2017 and July, 2018. Using multivariable methods, we assessed whether opioid pain medication administration influenced the change in pain scores after frame removal, and whether they influenced patient satisfaction on how often their pain was controlled, and their overall satisfaction.

RESULTS

We included 142 patients. Mean age was 65.2 ± 10.8 years and 52.7% were female. Morphine was the most commonly administered medication. Pain increases were greater around frame removal than placement. Opioids were not associated with any difference in the change in pain scores before and after frame removal, or patient satisfaction. Patients with higher pre-removal pain scores had smaller increases in pain scores after removal; they also had worse pain control and overall satisfaction with their treatment.

CONCLUSION

Morphine administration prior to frame removal did not improve pain scores or pain control satisfaction. Absence of efficacy may be related to delayed onset of action, and stronger and faster-acting agents should be explored. Pre-removal pain scores were associated with decreased pain control and overall satisfaction, further identifying earlier and stronger pain treatment as a potential area for improvement.

Cancer Research in Vulnerable Populations: A Call for Collaboration and Sustainability From MENAT Countries

PURPOSE

Cancer is a major burden across Middle East, North Africa, Türkiye (MENAT). Many MENAT countries experience multiple conflicts that compound vulnerabilities, but little research investigates the linkages between vulnerability and cancer research. This study examines the current level and the potential for cancer research among vulnerable populations in the MENAT region, aiming to provide direction toward developing a research agenda on the region's vulnerable populations.

METHODS

Expert-driven meetings were arranged among the 10 authors. After obtaining institutional review board approval, a self-administered online survey questionnaire was circulated to more than 500 cancer practitioners working in 22 MENAT countries.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixteen cancer practitioners across the MENAT region responded. Fifty percent of the respondents identified clinical research in vulnerable patients with cancer as a significant issue; 21.8% reported previous research experience that included vulnerable populations, and 60% reported encountering vulnerable populations in their daily clinical practice. The main barriers to conducting research were lack of funding (60%), protected time (42%), and research training (35%). More than half of the respondents believed that wars/conflicts constituted an important source of vulnerability. The most vulnerable cancer populations were the elderly, palliative/terminally ill, those with concomitant mental health-related issues, those with other chronic illnesses, and socioeconomically deprived patients.

CONCLUSION

Results support that a major effort is needed to improve cancer research among vulnerable cancer populations in the MENAT region. We call for interdisciplinary research that accounts for the region's unique, compounding, and cumulative forms of vulnerability. This cancer research agenda on different vulnerable populations must balance sociobehavioral studies that explore sociopolitical barriers to quality care and clinical studies that gauge and refine treatment protocols. Building a research agenda through collaboration and solidarity with international partners is prime time.

Update on Prevalence of Pain in Patients with Cancer 2022: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

Experiencing pain and insufficient relief can be devastating and negatively affect a patient's quality of life. Developments in oncology such as new treatments and adjusted pain management guidelines may have influenced the prevalence of cancer pain and severity in patients. This review aims to provide an overview of the prevalence and severity of pain in cancer patients in the 2014-2021 literature period. A systematic literature search was performed using the databases PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Titles and abstracts were screened, and full texts were evaluated and assessed on methodological quality. A meta-analysis was performed on the pooled prevalence and severity rates. A meta-regression analysis was used to explore differences between treatment groups. We identified 10,637 studies, of which 444 studies were included. The overall prevalence of pain was 44.5%. Moderate to severe pain was experienced by 30.6% of the patients, a lower proportion compared to previous research. Pain experienced by cancer survivors was significantly lower compared to most treatment groups. Our results imply that both the prevalence of pain and pain severity declined in the past decade. Increased attention to the assessment and management of pain might have fostered the decline in the prevalence and severity of pain.