Management of predictable pain using fentanyl pectin nasal spray in patients undergoing radiotherapy

Procedural pain in patients with cancer: a Delphi expert management consensus

OBJECTIVES

Diagnosis, treatment and care of cancer often involve procedures that may be distressing and potentially painful for patients. The PROCEDIO Study aimed to generate expert-based recommendations on the management of moderate to severe procedural pain in inpatients and outpatients with cancer.

METHODS

Using a two-round Delphi method, experts from pain and palliative care units, medical and radiation oncology and haematology departments expressed their agreement on 24 statements using a 9-point Likert scale, which were classified as appropriate (median 7-9), uncertain (4-6) or inappropriate (1-3). Consensus was achieved if at least two-thirds of the panel scored within the range containing the median.

RESULTS

With an overall agreement on the current definition of procedural pain, participants suggested a wider description based on evidence and their clinical experience. A strong consensus was achieved regarding the need for a comprehensive pre-procedural pain assessment and experts emphasised that healthcare professionals involved in procedural pain management should be adequately trained. Most panellists (98.2%) agreed that pharmacological treatment should be chosen considering the duration of the procedure. Transmucosal fentanyl (96.5%) and morphine (71.7%) were recommended as the most appropriate drugs. Oral and nasal transmucosal fentanyl were agreed as the most suitable for both outpatients and inpatients, while consensus was reached for intravenous and subcutaneous morphine for inpatients.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide updated expert-based recommendations on the definition, prevention and treatment of moderate to severe procedural pain, which could inform specialists involved in pain management of patients with cancer.

Breakthrough cancer pain in the radiotherapy setting: a systematic and critical review

INTRODUCTION

Breakthrough pain (BP) is a complex phenomenon that has been reported to have a relevant role in the global management of cancer pain. Radiotherapy (RT) has a fundamental part in the treatment of many pain conditions, particularly oral mucositis and painful bone metastases.

AREAS COVERED

The literature regarding the phenomenon of BP in the radiotherapy setting was reviewed. Three areas were assessed, including epidemiology, pharmacokinetics, and clinical data.

EXPERT OPINION

Qualitative and quantitative data regarding BP in the RT setting are poor in terms of scientific evidence. Most papers assessed fentanyl products, particularly fentanyl pectin nasal spray, to resolve possible problems with transmucosal absorption of fentanyl due to mucositis of the oral cavity in patients with head and neck cancer or to prevent and treat procedural pain during RT sessions. According to the lack of clinical studies with large number of patients, BP should be included in the agenda of radiation oncologists.

Is pain part of a systemic syndrome in head and neck cancer?

Head and neck cancers (HNC) represent 5% of all malignancies worldwide with about 180,000 cancer deaths per year. Patients with HNC are characterized by a systemic inflammatory state, generally associated with worse outcomes. Treatment-related toxicity is common among HNC patients and causes systemic consequences such as fatigue or cognitive dysfunction. The therapeutic treatments of HNC involve the release in circulation of inflammatory systemic mediators, whose effects trigger a vicious circle that may lead to functional and behavioral alterations. The areas of the head and neck are highly sensitive to pain. Literature data confirm that in HNC patients, pain is one of the most distressing symptoms across all the phases of treatment. Pain is associated with worse general conditions, depression, fatigue, impaired cognitive functions, and lower survival rate. The treatment of advanced HNC cases is multimodal and requires a multidisciplinary psycho-socio-pharmacological approach mediated by a team of experts. The pharmacological approach in management of HNC patients with pain is fundamental and involves the use of opioids, NSAIDs, steroids, or other drugs. Opioids in pain management therapy in patients with HNC could allow the pain level to be adequately monitored, thus improving quality of life. The integration of opioid and non-opioid therapy as well as non-pharmacological interventions is essential for the rehabilitation of physical, social, and psychological functions and to achieve pain control in patients with HNC. Opioid treatment is the mainstay for pain control, being used both for background and breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) episodes. Fentanyl, easily absorbed and generally well tolerated, appears to be a possible choice due to its versatility. Non-pharmacological interventions, such as tailored yoga, physical exercise, and acupuncture, may have a role in pain management in patients with HNC.

Effectiveness of fentanyl pectin nasal citrate in controlling episodes of breakthrough cancer pain triggered by routine radiotherapy procedures

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of fentanyl pectin nasal spray (FPNS) in controlling procedural breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP) in advanced cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study involved 62 advanced cancer patients, with well-controlled background pain, who presented BTCP associated to routine radiotherapy procedures, treated with FPNS according to our protocol of administration. The BPE intensity was measured using a visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

The BTCP was triggered during the computed tomography simulation (79.3%) or treatment delivery (20.7%). Patients indicated a mean VAS of 8.8 (range 7-10) when attempting the procedure. After 4.5 min (range 2-10) of the first FPNS dose, the majority of patients (85.5%) indicated a VAS of 4.3 (range 2-6). 15.5% of the patients did not respond after 15 min; requiring a second dose. All these patients responded, reporting a mean VAS of 4.2 (range 4-6) after 3.0 min (range 2-5) of the second dose. None of the patients required a third dose, nor reported an AE after the administration of FPNS.

CONCLUSIONS

In our knowledge, our study is the one of highest recruitment, and with the fastest response of BTCP treated with FPNS reported in advanced cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. FPNS has proven to be highly effective in reducing the intensity of procedural BTCP in a very short period of time.

Determining the impact of pre-radiation treatment verification simulation/dry run by analyzing intradepartmental reported incidents and surveying staff and patients

PURPOSE

Error identification in radiation therapy is critical to maintain a safe and efficient therapeutic environment. A verification simulation (VS; also called a dry run for patient information) provides a dedicated time prior to treatment to duplicate steps of patient setup, imaging, and treatment process as a final quality assurance step. Through the use of surveys and analysis of reported incidents, we sought to determine the value of a VS before initiating patient treatment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In November 2014, a VS was instituted across our network of 11 radiation oncology clinics. A comparison of the incident rate reported through our departmental incident learning system (ILS) was made between a non-VS group (965 patients who were treated in the 18 months prior to instituting the VS) and a VS group (984 patients who were treated over 18 months with the VS policy in place). From August to December 2016, surveys were completed by 211 patients and 55 physicians, nurses, and therapists detailing their perspectives on the VS.

RESULTS

There were 28 incidents (2.9%) in the non-VS group compared with 18 incidents (1.8%) in the VS group (P = .03). In the VS group, more incidents were detected before the day of treatment (P = .03) and fewer incidents on the day of treatment (P = .02). In addition, a trend toward fewer incidents after treatment started (P = .09) was observed. Patient surveys indicated that 99.5% of patients were informed of the VS, 83% reported decreased anxiety during treatment, and 5% indicated concerns about delaying treatment. The majority of staff members (67%) were satisfied with the VS.

CONCLUSIONS

A VS helps identify and correct incidents before the administration of radiation therapy and reduces patient anxiety.

What to Do, and What Not to Do, When Diagnosing and Treating Breakthrough Cancer Pain (BTcP): Expert Opinion

Clinical management of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) is still not satisfactory despite the availability of effective pharmacological agents. This is in part linked to the lack of clarity regarding certain essential aspects of BTcP, including terminology, definition, epidemiology and assessment. Other barriers to effective management include a widespread prejudice among doctors and patients concerning the use of opioids, and inadequate assessment of pain severity, resulting in the prescription of ineffective drugs or doses. This review presents an overview of the appropriate and inappropriate actions to take in the diagnosis and treatment of BTcP, as determined by a panel of experts in the field. The ultimate aim is to provide a practical contribution to the unresolved issues in the management of BTcP. Five ‘things to do’ and five ‘things not to do’ in the diagnosis and treatment of BTcP are proposed, and evidence supporting said recommendations are described. It is the duty of all healthcare workers involved in managing cancer patients to be mindful of the possibility of BTcP occurrence and not to underestimate its severity. It is vital that all the necessary steps are carried out to establish an accurate and timely diagnosis, principally by establishing effective communication with the patient, the main information source. It is crucial that BTcP is treated with an effective pharmacological regimen and drug(s), dose and administration route prescribed are designed to suit the particular type of pain and importantly the individual needs of the patient.