Effects of different exercise types and cycles on pain and quality of life in breast cancer patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of different combinations of different exercise modalities with different training cycles on the improvement of quality of life and pain symptoms in breast cancer patients. METHODS: The databases PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus were searched through a computer network with a search deadline of 23 August 2023. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data and performed methodological quality assessment of the included literature, and then performed the corresponding statistical analyses and graphing using stata17.0. RESULTS: Thirty-six randomized control trial (RCT) studies involving 3003 participants and seven exercise modalities were included. Most of the exercise modalities improved patients' quality of life compared to usual care, with long-term aerobic combined with resistance exercise [SMD = 0.83,95% CI = 0.34,1.33,p = 0.001] and YOGA [SMD = 0.61,95% CI = 0.06,1.16,p = 0.029] treatments having a significant effect. For pain and fatigue-related outcome indicators, the treatment effect was not significant for all exercise modalities included in the analysis compared to the control group, but tended to be beneficial for patients. CONCLUSION: Long-term aerobic combined with resistance exercise was the most effective in improving quality of life and fatigue status in breast cancer patients, and aerobic exercise was more effective in improving pain symptoms in breast cancer patients.

Virtual reality for pain management in hospitalized patients with cancer: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with cancer often experience acute and/or chronic pain. Although virtual reality (VR) has been extensively studied across a wide range of clinical settings, no studies have yet evaluated potential impact on pain management in this patient population. METHODS: Prospective randomized controlled trial at an urban academic hospital comparing VR against an active control to mitigate moderate-severe cancer disease and treatment-related pain. RESULTS: A total of 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer (any tumor type) were randomized to 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy delivered by handheld tablet. Participants in the two arms were similar in age, sex, race, presence of metastatic disease, concurrent pain specialist consultation, and baseline opioid use. Although both groups experienced improved self-reported pain scores (primary outcome), those randomized to VR experienced significantly greater reduction in pain immediately after intervention compared with active control (p = .03). This difference was sustained for 24 hours as well (p = .004). Within-group analysis showed significant improvement in VR arm of pain bothersomeness (p = .05) and general distress (p = .03) as well. CONCLUSION: Among hospitalized adult patients with moderate-severe pain related to cancer and cancer therapies, VR provided more nonpharmacologic pain relief than active control and this benefit sustained long after conclusion of the intervention. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Virtual reality (VR), a developing technology that immerses the user in new environments, has been shown to improve pain in different patient populations. To test the role of VR in improving pain in hospitalized patients with cancer who report moderate-severe pain, we compared the impact of a 10-minute immersive VR intervention to that of a 10-minute two-dimensional guided imagery experience to improve self-reported pain scores. We found that, although both interventions improved pain, VR did so significantly more. Moreover, participants assigned to VR had sustained improvement in pain 24 hours later.

Virtual Reality for advanced cancer patients assisted at home: A randomized controlled interventional study.

OBJECTIVE: Virtual Reality (VR) has been demonstrated to be an effective option for integrating psychological interventions in different therapeutic settings. This randomized controlled interventional study aims to assess the effects of VR, compared to tablet controlled intervention, on anxiety, depression, pain, and short-term psychophysical symptoms in advanced cancer patients assisted at home. METHODS: Participants were provided with a VR headset or a tablet (TAB) for 4 days. On the first and last day, anxiety and depression were measured by Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and pain by Brief Pain Inventory. Before and after each VR and tablet session, symptoms were collected by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). RESULTS: Fifty-three patients (27 VR vs. 26 TAB) completed the study. Anxiety significantly decreased in the VR group after the 4-day intervention. The analysis of ESAS showed a significant improvement in pain (p = 0.013), tiredness (p < 0.001), and anxiety (p = 0.013) for TAB group, and a significant reduction in tiredness (p < 0.001) in the VR group. CONCLUSIONS: Technological and user-friendly tools, such as VR and tablets, might be integrated with traditional psychological interventions to improve anxiety and cancer-related short-term symptoms. Further studies are needed to better consolidate the possible beneficial effects of VR.

Quality of life, craniomandibular function, and psychosocial factors related to pain and movement in patients with head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: To describe the characteristics of and the associations between health-related quality of life, pain, craniomandibular function, and psychosocial factors related to pain and fear of movement in patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients diagnosed with HNC were recruited. Measurements of the maximum mouth opening range and pressure pain thresholds on the masseter muscle and the distal phalanx of the thumb were conducted, as well as a battery of self-report questionnaires were administrated, including the QoL Questionnaire (EORT QLQ-H&N35), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), the Spanish translation of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia for Temporomandibular Disorders (TSK-TMD), and the short version of the Craniofacial Pain and Disability Inventory (CF-PDI-11). RESULTS: The study sample (66.7% men, mean age 60.12 [11.95] years) experienced a moderate impact on their QoL levels (57.68 [18.25] EORT QLQ-H&N35) and high kinesiophobia values (20.49 [9.11] TSK-TMD). Pain was present in 41% of the patients, but only 3.8% reported severe pain. 26.4% had a restricted mouth opening range, and 34.62% showed significant catastrophism levels. There were strong positive correlations between EORT QLQ-H&N35 and CF-PDI-11 (r = 0.81), between NRS and CF-PDI-11 (r = 0.74), and between PCS and CF-PDI-11 (r = 0.66). CONCLUSION: Patients with HNC experience negative effects in their QoL, related to their impairment in craniomandibular function. Fear of movement, pain intensity, and catastrophism are associated with poorer functionality; relationships that should be considered when attempting to improve health care.

Opioid Therapy for Cancer Pain in Vietnam: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceived Barriers Among Health Care Professionals, Policymakers, and Regulators.

PURPOSE: We aimed to assess knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers among health care professionals (HCPs), policymakers, and regulators in Vietnam related to opioid therapy for cancer pain. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in Vietnam from June to August 2022. Participants completed a questionnaire on their demographic characteristics, knowledge and attitudes toward opioid therapy, and barriers to accessing opioids for cancer pain. RESULTS: Two hundred seven HCPs and 15 policymakers/regulators completed the questionnaire. Poor knowledge about opioids in cancer pain was found in 63.3% of HCPs and 80.0% of policymakers/regulators. Poor knowledge was associated with a lack of training in cancer pain management or palliative care (PC; prevalence ratio [PR], 1.14 [95% CI, 1.04 to 1.24]). Negative attitudes toward opioid therapy in cancer pain were held by 64.7% of HCPs and 80.0% of policymakers/regulators. Negative attitudes were associated with the unavailability of oral morphine in the workplace (PR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.20]). The most common major barriers reported were the absence of national policy on pain management and PC (34.7%), inadequate training in opioid use for cancer pain (33.8%), lockdown of health facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic (32.4%), limited opioid availability in local health facilities (32.4%), and excessively restrictive regulation of opioid dispensing in pharmacies (32.4%). CONCLUSION: This study found a knowledge deficit and negative attitudes toward opioid therapy for cancer pain among HCPs and policymakers/regulators. Improving education and training in opioid therapy is essential. Recognizing major barriers can guide strategies to enhance safe opioid accessibility for cancer pain management in Vietnam.

Cancer-related pain experienced in daily life is difficult to communicate and to manage - for patients and for professionals.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to gain qualitative insight into cancer patients' experiences, explanations, and management strategies regarding their cancer-related pain (CP). METHODS: Seventeen patients with CP were interviewed using a semi-structured interview approach. Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis method was used to analyze the transcribed interviews. The patients all participated in cancer rehabilitation courses arranged by the research clinic at The Danish Knowledge Centre for Rehabilitation and Palliative Care. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: (1) Explaining CP: Patients found it difficult to explain how they experienced their pain. They lacked words, and they frequently used invasive metaphors such as "Pain feels like a heart attack" (2). Strategies and barriers to the management of CP: Initiatives provided by healthcare professionals (HCPs) were perceived as insufficient, and the patients missed guidance in both pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches to pain management. Several saw medicine as unnatural for their body, and they focused on side effects and the medicine affecting their quality of life. (3) Responsibility for managing CP: A lack of responsiveness from the HCPs and taking on responsibility for pain management were experienced by several of the patients. The patients expressed uncertainty about whom to contact for help with the management of their CP. CONCLUSION: The patients' difficulties in explaining, understanding, and communicating their pain and pain management contributed to insufficient pain management. They were also uncertain about who had the responsibility to help them to achieve pain relief. These results share the evidence drawn from studies on patients with chronic non-cancer pain. This qualitative study highlights the need for having more focus on a common language and shared understanding between patients and HCPs. It also underpins the importance of HCPs to assume their responsibility to help patients manage their pain conditions.

Patients' satisfaction with cancer pain treatment at adult oncologic centers in Northern Ethiopia; a multi-center cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is an important indicator of the quality of healthcare. Pain is one of the most common symptoms among cancer patients that needs optimal treatment; rather, it compromises the quality of life of patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the levels and associated factors of satisfaction with cancer pain treatment among adult patients at cancer centers found in Northern Ethiopia in 2023. METHODS: After obtaining ethical approval, a multi-center cross-sectional study was conducted at four cancer care centers in northern Ethiopia. The data were collected using an interviewer-administered structured questionnaire that included the Lubeck Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (LMSQ). The severity of pain was assessed by a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10 with a pain score of 0 = no pain, 1-3 = mild pain, 4-6 = moderate pain, and 7-10 = severe pain Binary logistic regression analysis was employed, and the strength of association was described in an adjusted odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval. RESULT: A total of 397 cancer patients participated in this study, with a response rate of 98.3%. We found that 70.3% of patients were satisfied with their cancer pain treatment. Being married (AOR = 5.6, CI = 2.6-12, P < 0.001) and being single (never married) (AOR = 3.5, CI = 1.3-9.7, P = 0.017) as compared to divorced, receiving adequate pain management (AOR = 2.4, CI = 1.1-5.3, P = 0.03) as compared to those who didn't receive it, and having lower pain severity (AOR = 2.6, CI = 1.5-4.8, P < 0.001) as compared to those who had higher level of pain severity were found to be associated with satisfaction with cancer pain treatment. CONCLUSION: The majority of cancer patients were satisfied with cancer pain treatment. Being married, being single (never married), lower pain severity, and receiving adequate pain management were found to be associated with satisfaction with cancer pain treatment. It would be better to enhance the use of multimodal analgesia in combination with strong opioids to ensure adequate pain management and lower pain severity scores.

Barriers to Pain Management as Perceived by Cancer and Noncancer Patients With Chronic Disease.

BACKGROUND: Pain is the most common symptom experienced by both cancer and non-cancer patients. A wide variety of barriers may hinder the optimal treatment of cancer and noncancer pain that are related to the health care system, health care providers, and patients. PURPOSE: To explore the barriers to pain management as perceived by patients with cancer and noncancer chronic diseases. METHOD: A descriptive, cross-sectional correlational design was employed to recruit a sample of 200 patients (n = 100 patients with cancer, n= 100 patients with noncancer) from two hospitals in Jordan. Patients filled out an Arabic version of Barriers Questionnaire II (ABQ-II). RESULTS: Harmful effects of medications were the greatest barrier to effective pain management, while fatalism had the lowest mean scores. Age was negatively correlated with physiological effects (r = -0.287, p < .01), communication (r = -0.263, p < .01), harmful effects (r = -0.284, p < .01), and the overall barrier score (r = -0.326, p < .01) among noncancer patients with chronic disease and (p > .05) for patients with cancer. Patients with cancer had higher mean scores (M = 2.12, SD = 0.78) in the fatalism subscale than those with noncancer chronic disease (M = 1.91, SD = 0.68), while patients with noncancer chronic disease had significantly higher mean scores (M = 2.78, SD = 0.78) in the communication subscale than patients with cancer (M = 2.49, SD = 0.65), (t = -2.899, p = .005). CONCLUSION: To improve the quality of care for patients who are in pain, it is recommended to address pain management barriers as they arise.

Overcoming Patient Pain Together: Breast Cancer Patients and Caregivers' Pretreatment Psychosocial Distress Linked to Patients' Pain Interference During the First Year of Treatment.

Breast cancer patients experience treatment-related pain from surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, and long-term hormonal treatment, which can lead to poorer outcomes. Patient and family caregivers' psychosocial distress exacerbates patient pain interference, but this has not been directly examined among breast cancer patients in dyadic models longitudinally. Guided by a biopsychosocial framework, the Biobehavioral Family Model, we explore how multiple reports of patient pain interference across the first year of treatment are linked to the patient (N = 55) and caregiver (N = 55) pretreatment psychosocial distress (eg, depression, anxiety, marital satisfaction, family relationship quality). Specifically, we find that breast cancer patients' pain interference increases and then decreases over the first year of treatment. Additionally, caregivers' pretreatment anxiety was associated with increased patient pain interference over time (B = .19, SE = .07, P = .008), while patients' pretreatment psychosocial distress was not associated with a change in their pain interference. Yet, looking at clinically specific times during the first year of treatment, we find that caregiver-reported higher marital satisfaction is associated with lower patient-reported pain interference later in treatment (6 months: B = -.58, SE = .24, P = .017; 12 months: B = -.82, SE = .23, P < .001). We conclude that, per the Biobehavioral Family Model, pretreatment patient and caregiver psychosocial distress is linked to patient pain interference during the first year of breast cancer treatment. Thus, caregivers' psychosocial distress (ie, anxiety and marital satisfaction) may be a particularly important target in future dyadic behavioral intervention strategies to reduce breast cancer patient pain. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the link between breast cancer patients and family caregiver pretreatment psychosocial distress (anxiety, depression, marital satisfaction, and family quality) on patient pain interference during 1 year of breast cancer treatment. Findings suggest that caregiver anxiety and marital satisfaction may be important targets for future dyadic behavioral pain interventions.

Pain coping, multidisciplinary care, and mHealth: Patients' views on managing advanced cancer pain.

OBJECTIVE: Pain is common among people with advanced cancer. While opioids provide significant relief, incorporating psycho-behavioral treatments may improve pain outcomes. We examined patients' experiences with pain self-management and how their self-management of chronic, cancer-related pain may be complemented by behavioral mobile health (mHealth) interventions. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with patients with advanced cancer and pain. Each participant reviewed content from our behavioral mHealth application for cancer pain management and early images of its interface. Participants reflected on their experiences self-managing cancer pain and on app content. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Patients (n = 28; 54% female; mean age = 53) across two geographic regions reported using psychological strategies (e.g., reframing negative thoughts, distraction, pain acceptance, social support) to manage chronic cancer-related pain. Patients shared their perspectives on the integration of psycho-behavioral pain treatments into their existing medical care and their experiences with opioid hesitancy. Patient recommendations for how mHealth interventions could best support them coalesced around two topics: 1.) convenience in accessing integrated pharmacological and psycho-behavioral pain education and communication tools and 2.) relevance of the specific content to their clinical situation. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated pharmacological and psycho-behavioral pain treatments were important to participants. This underscores a need to coordinate complimentary approaches when developing cancer pain management interventions. Participant feedback suggests that an mHealth intervention that integrates pain treatments may have the capacity to increase advanced cancer patients' access to destigmatizing, accessible care while improving pain self-management.

Opioid Prescription Denials by Community Pharmacies for Cancer-Related Pain: A Case Series.

Pain is one of the most common symptoms experienced by patients living with cancer. Guidelines recommend opioids as the mainstay in the management of cancer-related pain. However, the opioid epidemic has resulted in policymakers recommending limitations on opioid prescribing which led to community pharmacies implementing various parameters. These restrictions have created barriers for patients with cancer-related pain attempting to fill opioid prescriptions from their community pharmacies. Additionally, in the setting of the opioid epidemic, there have been reports of systemic bias within community pharmacies, leading to experiences with embarrassment and shame for patients with cancer-related pain. This case series presents specific examples of community pharmacies declining to fill opioid prescriptions for patients with cancer-related pain and associated patient suffering.

Comprehensive Targeted Treatment for Neuropathic and Nociceptive Pain in Palliative Care Patients.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common symptom in patients with advanced, metastatic, or terminal cancer. Neuropathic pain and psycho-emotional suffering are factors that increase the difficulty of pain management. Pain control in patients with cancer remains a challenge for medical professionals. STUDY QUESTION: What is the evolution of neuropathic/mixed pain compared with nociceptive pain under standardized treatment in patients with cancer? STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, longitudinal, open-label, nonrandomized study was conducted on patients with cancer pain. MEASURES AND OUTCOMES: Pain type was assessed at admission using the modified Brief Pain Inventory, and pain intensity was assessed daily using the Numerical Rating Scale for 14 days and on days 21 and 28. Screening of depression was performed on days 1, 7, 14, 21, and 28 using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Patients with pain and depression received analgesics with antidepressants, while patients without depression received analgesics or analgesics with an anticonvulsant depending on the pain subtype. RESULTS: Of 72 patients, 23 had nociceptive pain and 49 had neuropathic/mixed pain. At admission, pain intensity was higher for patients with neuropathic/mixed pain compared with nociceptive pain (mean values: 7.06 vs. 5.82) with statistical significance ( P = 0.001) and remained as such at the end of this study (mean values: 3.77 vs. 2.73). A decrease in the mean pain intensity was observed in all types of pain, but without statistical significance regardless of pain type and treatment protocol used ( P = 0.77). If depression was present, antidepressants combined with analgesics decreased pain and depression scores significantly ( P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with neuropathic/mixed pain have higher levels of pain and lower response to treatment. Identifying psycho-emotional suffering can improve pain control by intervening in the physical and psycho-emotional components of pain.

Patient-reported pain severity and health-related quality of life in patients with multiple myeloma in real world clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: The association between patient self-reported pain severity and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) is poorly understood. AIMS: This real-world study of symptomatic multiple myeloma (MM) patients sought to determine how pain severity from a single question asked during routine clinical consultation was associated with HRQoL. METHODS AND RESULTS: Point-in-time data on HRQoL of 330 patients with MM (median age 70 years) receiving anti-myeloma therapy in Germany and Italy from November 2017 through February 2018 were analyzed. HRQoL was assessed using validated questionnaires (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment [WPAI], European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire -C30 and -MY20). Physical pain severity was assessed during clinical consultation by a single question, asking patients to describe their pain as "no pain," "mild," "moderate," or "severe." Associations between patient-reported pain severity and HRQoL scores were assessed by analysis of variance or χ2 tests. Ninety-six of the 330 patients (29.1%) reported moderate to severe pain. Increase in pain severity, from "no" to "severe" pain, was associated with significantly decreased overall HRQoL (mean score 70.2 to 33.3); significant decreases in levels of physical (82.7 to 35.1), social (81.1 to 44.4), emotional (78.1 to 48.3), and role functioning (79.5 to 38.9); and increased levels of WPAI usual activity impairment (35.4 to 71.4), and fatigue burden (26.0 to 68.9) (all p < .001). CONCLUSION: Higher pain severity, based on a single self-report question, was associated with poorer HRQoL in patients with MM, thereby supporting the clinical relevance of directly asking patients to self-evaluate their pain severity.

Preferences of adults with cancer for systemic cancer treatment: do preferences differ based on age?

Background: We used the Therapy Preference Scale, a 30-item questionnaire, to determine cancer treatment preferences of adults with cancer. Methods: We used Wilcoxon's rank sum test and Fisher's exact test to compare the preferences of younger (<60 years) versus older adults (≥60 years). Results: While 56% of patients would accept treatment offering increased life expectancy at an expense of short-term side effects, 75% preferred maintenance of cognition, functional ability and quality of life to quantity of days. Oral instead of intravenous treatment (p = 0.003), shorter hospital stay (p = 0.03), preservation of cognitive function (p = 0.01) and avoidance of pain (p = 0.02) were more important to older patients compared with younger patients. Conclusion: Many patients prioritized maintenance of cognition, functional ability and quality of life; older patients valued oral treatment, shorter hospital stay, preservation of cognitive function and avoidance of pain.

Lay abstract Understanding the preferences of adults with cancer is important for physicians to develop personalized cancer treatment plans. We used a self-reported 30-item questionnaire, the Therapy Preference Scale, to help patients express their preferences with regard to safety, efficacy and other aspects of therapy. While 56% of the patients in our study would accept treatment offering increased life expectancy at an expense of short-term side effects, 75% preferred maintenance of cognition, functional ability and quality of life to quantity of days. Compared with younger patients, older patients preferred oral instead of intravenous treatment, shorter hospital stay, preservation of cognitive function and avoidance of pain.

Application of Quality Control Circle Activity in Improving Effectiveness of Drug Intervention in Lung Cancer Patients with Moderate to Severe Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer has the highest incidence and mortality of all malignant tumors in China. Cancer pain dramatically affects patients' comfort level, causing insomnia, anorexia, anxiety, fear, depression, and a decline in the quality of life (QOL). The literature suggests a shortage of adequate cancer pain management for 59.1% of patients in China. The quality control circle (QCC) activity reflects the people-oriented core idea of management. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of QCC in enhancing the effectiveness of drug interventions in lung cancer patients with moderate to severe pain. METHODS: From January 2019 to July 2019, lung cancer patients with moderate to severe pain were treated with drugs. The total number of drug interventions was 3072. A QCC activity was performed following the ten steps of the plan-docheck- act (PDCA) model. The reasons for the poor effectiveness of drug intervention in lung cancer patients with moderate to severe pain were analyzed. Countermeasures were designed to improve the effectiveness of drug intervention, including setting up a pain college, writing a medication education manual, and formulating operational rules for the administration of narcotic drugs. The effectiveness of drug intervention in lung cancer patients with moderate to severe pain and activity ability scores of QCC members were analyzed statistically before and after QCC activity. The effectiveness of drug intervention was investigated and compared before and after establishing the QCC. RESULTS: After establishing the PDCA model, the effectiveness of drug intervention for moderate to severe pain in lung cancer patients increased from 56.28% to 85.29%. Members had significant improvement in problem-solving ability, responsibility, communication, coordination, self-confidence, team cohesion, enthusiasm, QCC skills, and harmony. CONCLUSION: QCC activity can significantly improve the efficiency of drug intervention in lung cancer patients with moderate to severe pain and their quality of life.

Effects of virtual reality v. biophilic environments on pain and distress in oncology patients: a case-crossover pilot study.

This pilot study aimed to determine if a biophilic Green Therapy or Virtual Reality environment can decrease an oncology patient's pain and distress while receiving chemotherapy. A case-crossover pilot study was conducted in a comprehensive cancer infusion center. 33 participants with breast, gynecologic, gastrointestinal, pancreatic and prostate cancers were all included in three rooms in a random order at different cycles: control room, Green Therapy room, and Virtual Reality room to receive chemotherapy, respectively. Participants' pain, distress, heart rate, blood pressure, and saliva cortisol were measured before and after infusion in each room. No statistical significance differences were shown in the changes of heart rate, systolic, or diastolic blood pressure, saliva cortisol, pain, or distress before and after infusion between the control, Green Therapy, and Virtual Reality rooms. However, more patients reported the experience as "fun" and "enjoyable" when they were in Green Therapy or Virtual reality room as compared to in the control room. Additionally, since participating in the study, 14 patients reported spending at least 30 min or more outside in nature. In this study, we found that patients' heart rate, blood pressure, and self-reported distress levels were reduced after each biophilic intervention although results are not statistically significant. The study also suggested that biophilic interventions are safe and feasible and may complement the standard of care for oncology patients.

Cancer induced bone pain: current management and future perspectives.

Recent improvements in the therapeutic armamentarium of oncology by the addition of targeted and immunotherapeutic agents have led to an increase in the life expectancy of advanced-stage cancer patients. This has led to an increased number of patients presenting with bone metastasis and experiencing episodes of cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP). CIBP is a crippling, chronic, morbid state interfering significantly with the functional capacity and the quality of life (QoL). CIBP is characterized by a complex multifactorial pathophysiological mechanism involving tumor cells, bone cells, inflammatory microenvironment, and the neuronal tissue. It may not be possible to mitigate pain completely; therefore, the aim should be to reach the lowest possible level of pain that allows for an acceptable QoL to the patient. Multimodality approach of surgical, radiation, medical and behavioral techniques is thus recommended to manage CIBP. This review discusses the pathogenesis and pathophysiological mechanism accompanying bone metastasis and CIBP, currently approved therapies for the management of CIBP, and the future perspective.

Neurolytic Splanchnic Nerve Block and Pain Relief, Survival, and Quality of Life in Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Neurolytic splanchnic nerve block is used to manage pancreatic cancer pain. However, its impact on survival and quality of life remains controversial. The authors' primary hypothesis was that pain relief would be better with a nerve block. Secondarily, they hypothesized that analgesic use, survival, and quality of life might be affected. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, parallel-armed trial was conducted in five Chinese centers. Eligible patients suffering from moderate to severe pain conditions were randomly assigned to receive splanchnic nerve block with either absolute alcohol (neurolysis) or normal saline (control). The primary outcome was pain relief measured on a visual analogue scale. Opioid consumption, survival, quality of life, and adverse effects were also documented. Analgesics were managed using a protocol common to all centers. Patients were followed up for 8 months or until death. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients (48 for each group) were included in the analysis. Pain relief with neurolysis was greater for the first 3 months (largest at the first month; mean difference, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.0]; adjusted P < 0.001) compared with placebo injection. Opioid consumption with neurolysis was lower for the first 5 months (largest at the first month; mean difference, 95.8 [95% CI, 67.4 to 124.1]; adjusted P < 0.001) compared with placebo injection. There was a significant difference in survival (hazard ratio, 1.56 [95% CI, 1.03 to 2.35]; P = 0.036) between groups. A significant reduction in survival in neurolysis was found for stage IV patients (hazard ratio, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.29 to 2.93]; P = 0.001), but not for stage III patients (hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.97]; P = 0.809). No differences in quality of life were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Neurolytic splanchnic nerve block appears to be an effective option for controlling pain and reducing opioid requirements in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

Apalutamide plus Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Analysis of Pain and Fatigue in the Phase 3 TITAN Study.

PURPOSE: We performed an exploratory analysis of prostate cancer-related pain and fatigue on health-related quality of life in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer receiving apalutamide (240 mg/day) or placebo, with continuous androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), in the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled TITAN trial (NCT02489318). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient-reported outcomes for pain and fatigue were evaluated using the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form and Brief Fatigue Inventory. Time to deterioration (TTD) was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method; hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Cox proportional hazards model. General estimating equations for logistic regression estimated treatment-related differences in the likelihood of worsening pain or fatigue. RESULTS: Compliance for completing the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form and Brief Fatigue Inventory was high (96% to 97%) in the first year. Median followup times were similar between treatments (19 to 22 months). Median pain TTD was longer with apalutamide than placebo for "pain at its least in the last 24 hours" (28.7 vs 21.8 months, respectively; p=0.0146), "pain interfered with mood" (not estimable vs 22.4 months; p=0.0017), "pain interfered with walking ability" (28.7 vs 20.2 months; p=0.0027), "pain interfered with relations" (not estimable vs 23.0 months; p=0.0139) and "pain interfered with sleep" (28.7 vs 20.9 months; p=0.0167). Likelihood for fatigue and worsening fatigue were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer receiving apalutamide plus ADT vs placebo plus ADT reported consistently favorable TTD of pain. No difference for change in fatigue was observed with apalutamide vs placebo.

Health-related quality of life and pain with selinexor in patients with advanced dedifferentiated liposarcoma.

Objective: Compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of selinexor versus placebo in patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma. Materials & methods: HRQoL was assessed at baseline and day 1 of each cycle using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item core quality of life questionnaire. Results were reported from baseline to day 169 (where exposure to treatment was maximized while maintaining adequate sample size). Results: Pain scores worsened for placebo versus selinexor across all postbaseline visits, although differences in HRQoL at some visits were not significant. Other domains did not exhibit significant differences between arms; however, scores in both arms deteriorated over time. Conclusion: Patients treated with selinexor reported lower rates and slower worsening of pain compared with patients who received placebo.

Lay abstract The goal of this study was to compare the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with advanced unresectable dedifferentiated liposarcoma treated with selinexor compared with those treated with placebo. HRQoL was measured prior to treatment initiation and at the first day of each cycle of their treatment using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item core quality of life questionnaire. Pain scores worsened for placebo compared with selinexor across all visits after treatment, but differences at some visits were not significant. Other domains did not exhibit significant differences between arms; however, scores in both arms worsened over time reflecting the progressive disease burden in this patient population. As pain is one of the most devastating symptoms associated with advanced and progressing cancers, the significant reduction in pain in the selinexor arm, according to patient perception, represent a relevant added value of this drug in dedifferentiated liposarcoma.