Update on Prevalence of Pain in Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
TL;DR: Despite increased attention on assessment and management, pain continues to be a prevalent symptom in patients with cancer and in the upcoming decade, the authors need to overcome barriers toward effective pain treatment and develop and implement interventions to optimally manage pain in Patients with cancer.
About: This article is published in Journal of Pain and Symptom Management.The article was published on 2016-06-01 and is currently open access. It has received 1059 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Cancer pain & Meta-analysis.
Citations
More filters
Oslo University Hospital1, University College London2, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center3, University of Valencia4, University of Technology, Sydney5, Vrije Universiteit Brussel6, University of Edinburgh7, University of Vic8, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre9, Haukeland University Hospital10, King's College London11, University Hospital Heidelberg12, Copenhagen University Hospital13, University of Lausanne14, University of Göttingen15
TL;DR: This Commission proposes the use of standardised care pathways and multidisciplinary teams to promote integration of oncology and palliative care, and calls for changes at the system level to coordinate the activities of professionals, and for the development and implementation of new and improved education programmes, with the overall goal of improving patient care.
Abstract: Full integration of oncology and palliative care relies on the specific knowledge and skills of two modes of care: the tumour-directed approach, the main focus of which is on treating the disease; and the host-directed approach, which focuses on the patient with the disease. This Commission addresses how to combine these two paradigms to achieve the best outcome of patient care. Randomised clinical trials on integration of oncology and palliative care point to health gains: improved survival and symptom control, less anxiety and depression, reduced use of futile chemotherapy at the end of life, improved family satisfaction and quality of life, and improved use of health-care resources. Early delivery of patient-directed care by specialist palliative care teams alongside tumour-directed treatment promotes patient-centred care. Systematic assessment and use of patient-reported outcomes and active patient involvement in the decisions about cancer care result in better symptom control, improved physical and mental health, and better use of health-care resources. The absence of international agreements on the content and standards of the organisation, education, and research of palliative care in oncology are major barriers to successful integration. Other barriers include the common misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care only, stigmatisation of death and dying, and insufficient infrastructure and funding. The absence of established priorities might also hinder integration more widely. This Commission proposes the use of standardised care pathways and multidisciplinary teams to promote integration of oncology and palliative care, and calls for changes at the system level to coordinate the activities of professionals, and for the development and implementation of new and improved education programmes, with the overall goal of improving patient care. Integration raises new research questions, all of which contribute to improved clinical care. When and how should palliative care be delivered? What is the optimal model for integrated care? What is the biological and clinical effect of living with advanced cancer for years after diagnosis? Successful integration must challenge the dualistic perspective of either the tumour or the host, and instead focus on a merged approach that places the patient's perspective at the centre. To succeed, integration must be anchored by management and policy makers at all levels of health care, followed by adequate resource allocation, a willingness to prioritise goals and needs, and sustained enthusiasm to help generate support for better integration. This integrated model must be reflected in international and national cancer plans, and be followed by developments of new care models, education and research programmes, all of which should be adapted to the specific cultural contexts within which they are situated. Patient-centred care should be an integrated part of oncology care independent of patient prognosis and treatment intention. To achieve this goal it must be based on changes in professional cultures and priorities in health care.
387 citations
Northwestern University1, American Society of Clinical Oncology2, University of Wisconsin-Madison3, Mayo Clinic4, University of Rochester5, Mercy Medical Center (Baltimore, Maryland)6, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center7, Duke University8, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center9, Fox Chase Cancer Center10, University of California, San Francisco11, University of Kentucky12
TL;DR: An ASCO-convened expert panel conducted a systematic literature search of studies investigating chronic pain management in cancer survivors to provide evidence-based guidance on the optimum management of chronic pain in adult cancer survivors.
Abstract: PurposeTo provide evidence-based guidance on the optimum management of chronic pain in adult cancer survivors.MethodsAn ASCO-convened expert panel conducted a systematic literature search of studies investigating chronic pain management in cancer survivors. Outcomes of interest included symptom relief, pain intensity, quality of life, functional outcomes, adverse events, misuse or diversion, and risk assessment or mitigation.ResultsA total of 63 studies met eligibility criteria and compose the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. Studies tended to be heterogeneous in terms of quality, size, and populations. Primary outcomes also varied across the studies, and in most cases, were not directly comparable because of different outcomes, measurements, and instruments used at different time points. Because of a paucity of high-quality evidence, many recommendations are based on expert consensus.RecommendationsClinicians should screen for pain at each encounter. Recurrent disease, second malignancy, or lat...
379 citations
TL;DR: This systematic review and meta-analysis provides an updated synthesis of the published randomized clinical trials into the use and advantages of acupuncture and/or acupressure among patients with cancer pain.
Abstract: Importance Research into acupuncture and acupressure and their application for cancer pain has been growing, but the findings have been inconsistent. Objective To evaluate the existing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for evidence of the association of acupuncture and acupressure with reduction in cancer pain. Data Sources Three English-language databases (PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL) and 4 Chinese-language biomedical databases (Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang) were searched for RCTs published from database inception through March 31, 2019. Study Selection Randomized clinical trials that compared acupuncture and acupressure with a sham control, analgesic therapy, or usual care for managing cancer pain were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis Data were screened and extracted independently using predesigned forms. The quality of RCTs was appraised with the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Random-effects modeling was used to calculate the effect sizes of included RCTs. The quality of evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was pain intensity measured by the Brief Pain Inventory, Numerical Rating Scale, Visual Analog Scale, or Verbal Rating Scale. Results A total of 17 RCTs (with 1111 patients) were included in the systematic review, and data from 14 RCTs (with 920 patients) were used in the meta-analysis. Seven sham-controlled RCTs (35%) were notable for their high quality, being judged to have a low risk of bias for all of their domains, and showed that real (compared with sham) acupuncture was associated with reduced pain intensity (mean difference [MD], −1.38 points; 95% CI, −2.13 to −0.64 points;I2 = 81%). A favorable association was also seen when acupuncture and acupressure were combined with analgesic therapy in 6 RCTs for reducing pain intensity (MD, −1.44 points; 95% CI, −1.98 to −0.89;I2 = 92%) and in 2 RCTs for reducing opioid dose (MD, −30.00 mg morphine equivalent daily dose; 95% CI, −37.5 mg to −22.5 mg). The evidence grade was moderate because of the substantial heterogeneity among studies. Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review and meta-analysis found that acupuncture and/or acupressure was significantly associated with reduced cancer pain and decreased use of analgesics, although the evidence level was moderate. This finding suggests that more rigorous trials are needed to identify the association of acupuncture and acupressure with specific types of cancer pain and to integrate such evidence into clinical care to reduce opioid use.
202 citations
TL;DR: The amount and quality of evidence around the use of opioids for treating cancer pain is disappointingly low, although the evidence indicates that around 19 out of 20 people with moderate or severe pain who are given opioids and can tolerate them should have that pain reduced to mild or no pain within 14 days.
Abstract: Background
Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) drugs are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. The most commonly-used opioid drugs are buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, tramadol, and tapentadol.
Objectives
To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy of opioids in cancer pain, and to report on adverse events associated with their use.
Methods
We identified systematic reviews examining any opioid for cancer pain published to 4 May 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were no or mild pain within 14 days of starting treatment, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events.
Main results
We included nine reviews with 152 included studies and 13,524 participants, but because some studies appeared in more than one review the number of unique studies and participants was smaller than this. Most participants had moderate or severe pain associated with a range of different types of cancer. Studies in the reviews typically compared one type of opioid or formulation with either a different formulation of the same opioid, or a different opioid; few included a placebo control. Typically the reviews titrated dose to effect, a balance between pain relief and adverse events. Various routes of administration of opioids were considered in the reviews; oral with most opioids, but transdermal administration with fentanyl, and buprenorphine. No review included studies of subcutaneous opioid administration. Pain outcomes reported were varied and inconsistent. The average size of included studies varied considerably between reviews: studies of older opioids, such as codeine, morphine, and methadone, had low average study sizes while those involving newer drugs tended to have larger study sizes.
Six reviews reported a GRADE assessment (buprenorphine, codeine, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, and tramadol), but not necessarily for all comparisons or outcomes. No comparative analyses were possible because there was no consistent placebo or active control. Cohort outcomes for opioids are therefore reported, as absolute numbers or percentages, or both.
Reviews on buprenorphine, codeine with or without paracetamol, hydromorphone, methadone, tramadol with or without paracetamol, tapentadol, and oxycodone did not have information about the primary outcome of mild or no pain at 14 days, although that on oxycodone indicated that average pain scores were within that range. Two reviews, on oral morphine and transdermal fentanyl, reported that 96% of 850 participants achieved that goal.
Adverse event withdrawal was reported by five reviews, at rates of between 6% and 19%. Participants with at least one adverse event were reported by three reviews, at rates of between 11% and 77%.
Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because many studies in the reviews were at high risk of bias from several sources, including small study size.
Authors' conclusions
The amount and quality of evidence around the use of opioids for treating cancer pain is disappointingly low, although the evidence we have indicates that around 19 out of 20 people with moderate or severe pain who are given opioids and can tolerate them should have that pain reduced to mild or no pain within 14 days. This accords with the clinical experience in treating many people with cancer pain, but overstates to some extent the effectiveness found for the WHO pain ladder. Most people will experience adverse events, and help may be needed to manage the more common undesirable adverse effects such as constipation and nausea. Perhaps between 1 in 10 and 2 in 10 people treated with opioids will find these adverse events intolerable, leading to a change in treatment.
201 citations
20 Aug 2020
TL;DR: The epidemiology, mechanisms, diagnosis and treatment of comorbid depression in patients with medical diseases, including major depressive disorder, are discussed.
Abstract: Depression is one of the most common comorbidities of many chronic medical diseases including cancer and cardiovascular, metabolic, inflammatory and neurological disorders. Indeed, the prevalence of depression in these patient groups is often substantially higher than in the general population, and depression accounts for a substantial part of the psychosocial burden of these disorders. Many factors can contribute to the occurrence of comorbid depression, such as shared genetic factors, converging biological pathways, social factors, health behaviours and psychological factors. Diagnosis of depression in patients with a medical disorder can be particularly challenging owing to symptomatic overlap. Although pharmacological and psychological treatments can be effective, adjustments may need to be made for patients with a comorbid medical disorder. In addition, symptoms or treatments of medical disorders may interfere with the treatment of depression. Conversely, symptoms of depression may decrease adherence to treatment of both disorders. Thus, comprehensive treatment plans are necessary to optimize care.
191 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group criteria for toxicity and response are presented to facilitate future reference and to encourage further standardization among those conducting clinical trials.
Abstract: STANDARD CRITERIA FOR TOXICITY and for response to treatment are important prerequisites to the conduct of cancer trials. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group criteria for toxicity and response are presented to facilitate future reference and to encourage further standardization among those conduc
9,661 citations
"Update on Prevalence of Pain in Pat..." refers methods in this paper
...General characteristics were recorded for each study and included: author(s), year of publication, conti nent of origin, aim of the study, setting (inpatient, outpatient, home, hospice or palliative care unit, referred to palliative care service), type of cancer (head and neck, lung, breast, gastro intestinal, prostate, gynecological, all other types of cancer), sex, age, race, Eastern Cooperati v Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (13), sample size, and method of data collec ti n (questionnaire completed by patient or proxy, interview with patient or proxy, medical rec ord)....
[...]
Aarhus University1, French Institute of Health and Medical Research2, Washington University in St. Louis3, Tufts Medical Center4, University of Rochester5, Queen's University6, Helsinki University Central Hospital7, Oslo University Hospital8, Karolinska Institutet9, Aarhus University Hospital10, University of the Witwatersrand11, Churchill Hospital12, Johns Hopkins University13, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust14, Imperial College London15, California Pacific Medical Center16, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health17, University of Edinburgh18, University of Sydney19, Greenwich Hospital20, University of Dundee21, University of California, San Diego22
TL;DR: The results support a revision of the NeuPSIG recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain and allow a strong recommendation for use and proposal as first-line treatment in neuropathicPain for tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, pregabalin, and gabapentin.
Abstract: Summary Background New drug treatments, clinical trials, and standards of quality for assessment of evidence justify an update of evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and E valuation (GRADE), we revised the Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain based on the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods Between April, 2013, and January, 2014, NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind studies of oral and topical pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies. We used number needed to treat (NNT) for 50% pain relief as a primary measure and assessed publication bias; NNT was calculated with the fi xed-eff ects Mantel-Haenszel method. Findings 229 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment eff ects. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009). T rial outcomes were generally modest: in particular, combined NNTs were 6·4 (95% CI 5·2–8·4) for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine (nine of 14 studies); 7·7 (6·5–9·4) for pregabalin; 7·2 (5·9–9·21) for gabapentin, including gabapentin extended release and enacarbil; and 10·6 (7·4–19·0) for capsaicin high-concentration patches. NNTs were lower for tricyclic antidepressants, strong opioids, tramadol, and botulinum toxin A, and undetermined for lidocaine patches. Based on GRADE, fi nal quality of evidence was moderate or high for all treatments apart from lidocaine patches; tolerability and safety, and values and preferences were higher for topical drugs; and cost was lower for tricyclic antidepressants and tramadol. These fi ndings permitted a strong recommendation for use and proposal as fi rst-line treatment in neuropathic pain for tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, pregabalin, and gabapentin; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as second line for lidocaine patches, capsaicin high-concentration patches, and tramadol; and a weak recommendation for use and proposal as third line for strong opioids and botulinum toxin A. Topical agents and botulinum toxin A are recommended for peripheral neuropathic pain only. Interpretation Our results support a revision of the NeuPSIG recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain. Inadequate response to drug treatments constitutes a substantial unmet need in patients with neuropathic pain. Modest effi cacy, large placebo responses, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and poor phenotypic profi ling probably account for moderate trial outcomes and should be taken into account in future studies. Funding NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain.
2,512 citations
TL;DR: Pooled prevalence of pain was >50% in all cancer types with the highest prevalence in head/neck cancer patients (70%; 95% CI 51% to 88%).
1,621 citations
"Update on Prevalence of Pain in Pat..." refers background or methods or result in this paper
...In 2007, a systematic review was published on the p revalence of cancer pain over a time perspective of 40 years (7)....
[...]
...More Attention to Cancer Pain Considering the previous systematic review (7), the number of articles that addressed prevalence of cancer pain during the last 10 years h s increased by 35% as compared to the 40 years before....
[...]
...As in the previous systematic review (7), studies w re categorized into groups based on the disease characteristics described in t he methods and results sections: Group 1 studies that included patients after finishing cura tive treatment; group 2 - studies that included patients receiving anti-cancer treatment, with cura tive or palliative intention; group 3 - studies that included patients with advanced, metastatic an d/or terminal disease; group 4 - studies including all groups....
[...]
...In the pr vious review (7), criteria specifically for...
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluated the effect of a nursing-led intervention on quality of life, symptom intensity, mood, and resource use in patients with advanced cancer in a randomized controlled trial.
Abstract: Context There are few randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of palliative care interventions to improve the care of patients with advanced cancer. Objective To determine the effect of a nursing-led intervention on quality of life, symptom intensity, mood, and resource use in patients with advanced cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized controlled trial conducted from November 2003 through May 2008 of 322 patients with advanced cancer in a rural, National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center in New Hampshire and affiliated outreach clinics and a VA medical center in Vermont. Interventions A multicomponent, psychoeducational intervention (Project ENABLE [Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends]) conducted by advanced practice nurses consisting of 4 weekly educational sessions and monthly follow-up sessions until death or study completion (n = 161) vs usual care (n = 161). Main Outcome Measures Quality of life was measured by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy for Palliative Care (score range, 0-184). Symptom intensity was measured by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (score range, 0-900). Mood was measured by the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (range, 0-60). These measures were assessed at baseline, 1 month, and every 3 months until death or study completion. Intensity of service was measured as the number of days in the hospital and in the intensive care unit (ICU) and the number of emergency department visits recorded in the electronic medical record. Results A total of 322 participants with cancer of the gastrointestinal tract (41%; 67 in the usual care group vs 66 in the intervention group), lung (36%; 58 vs 59), genitourinary tract (12%; 20 vs 19), and breast (10%; 16 vs 17) were randomized. The estimated treatment effects (intervention minus usual care) for all participants were a mean (SE) of 4.6 (2) for quality of life (P = .02), −27.8 (15) for symptom intensity (P = .06), and −1.8 (0.81) for depressed mood (P = .02). The estimated treatment effects in participants who died during the study were a mean (SE) of 8.6 (3.6) for quality of life (P = .02), −24.2 (20.5) for symptom intensity (P = .24), and −2.7 (1.2) for depressed mood (P = .03). Intensity of service did not differ between the 2 groups. Conclusion Compared with participants receiving usual oncology care, those receiving a nurse-led, palliative care–focused intervention addressing physical, psychosocial, and care coordination provided concurrently with oncology care had higher scores for quality of life and mood, but did not have improvements in symptom intensity scores or reduced days in the hospital or ICU or emergency department visits. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00253383
1,379 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explored the relationship between numerical ratings of pain severity and ratings of their interference with such functions as activity, mood, and sleep, and found optimal cutpoints that form 3 distinct levels of cancer pain severity that can be defined on a 0-10 point numerical scale.
Abstract: As a way of delineating different levels of cancer pain severity, we explored the relationship between numerical ratings of pain severity and ratings of pain's interference with such functions as activity, mood, and sleep. Interference measures were used as critical variable to grade pain severity. We explored the possibility that pain severity could be classified into groupings roughly comparable to mild, moderate, and severe. Our hypothesis was that mild, moderate, and severe pain would differentially impair cancer patients' function. We were able to identify boundaries among these categories of pain severity in terms of their interference with function. We also examined the extent to which cancer patients from different language and cultural groups differ in their self-reported interference as a function of pain severity level. We found optimal cutpoints that form 3 distinct levels of pain severity that can be defined on a 0-10-point numerical scale. We determined that, based on the degree of interference with cancer patients' function, ratings of 1-4 correspond to mild pain, 5-6 to moderate pain, and 7-10 to severe pain. Our analysis illustrates that the pain severity-interference relationship is non-linear. These cutpoints were the same for each of the national samples in our analysis, although there were slight differences in the specific interference items affected by pain. These cutpoints might be useful in clinical evaluation, epidemiology, and clinical trials.
1,336 citations