BACKGROUND: Patients with bone metastasis-associated cancer pain often experience a complex mix of pain types. Consequently, the use of multimodal combination therapy is essential. While monitoring for common adverse reactions in pain treatment, it is also crucial to be vigilant for the rare but serious serotonin syndrome.
METHODS: A 53-year-old female with metastatic gastric cancer was hospitalized due to severe, uncontrolled thoracic and cervical pain. During the titration of her cancer pain medication, she developed serotonin syndrome.
METHODS: He was diagnosed with refractory cancer pain and serotonin syndrome.
METHODS: The complete process of cancer pain medication in a patient with gastric cancer and bone metastasis was analyzed, with a primary focus on the selection of analgesic medications, adjustment of opioid dosages, and prevention and treatment of medication-associated adverse reactions.
RESULTS: The patient\'s cancer pain was well controlled, with the prompt management of adverse reactions. Furthermore, by adjusting the medication regimen, intolerable adverse reactions were prevented.
CONCLUSIONS: In clinical settings, personalized analgesic regimens must be developed for patients with cancer pain to enhance patient compliance with medication, prevent the occurrence of severe adverse reactions, and improve the overall quality of life of patients with cancer. Healthcare professionals should pay increased attention to ADRs associated with opioid medications, whereas pharmacists should assist them in promptly identifying ADRs.

OBJECTIVE: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

BACKGROUND: Cancer pain is multidimensional and management should be individualized to patient goals. The current standard for pain goal assessment is the personal pain goal (PPG), a numeric rating for tolerable pain intensity. However, the PPG may not accurately capture a personally meaningful goal for tailoring pain management.
OBJECTIVE: Identify how pain goals are used in cancer pain management and types of goals researched.
METHODS: CINAHL, PsychInfo, and PubMed databases and manual searching were used to locate research or scholarship about cancer pain goals. Authors reviewed titles, abstracts and full text to agree on the final sample.
RESULTS: Sixteen articles met inclusion criteria. Study designs included: quality improvement project (1), concept analysis (1), qualitative methods (5), quantitative methods (8), and mixed methods (1). Findings included: goal setting as a key attribute of pain management; achieving personal goals as the outcome of pain management work; qualitative themes discussed personal goals related to pain management; developing a patient pain management resource including a SMART goal; using motivational interviewing to set functional pain goals; PPG assessment was feasible; and achieving PPG equated to having controlled pain when compared to the clinically important difference measure used in research (≥30%). Quantitative studies reported on PPGs only.
CONCLUSIONS: Currently, assessments for cancer pain goals do not include function, activities, moods, medication effects, or safety that patients wish to achieve as a pain management outcome. Development and testing of multidimensional patient pain goals assessments is warranted so that goals can be consistently assessed, documented, and personally meaningful.

BACKGROUND: Strong opioids are the cornerstone in the treatment of cancer-related pain.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare analgesic effectiveness of different strong opioids for the treatment of cancer-related pain.
METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched for RCTs that compared strong opioids for treatment of cancer-related pain against one another. A network meta-analysis was conducted and the related Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking (SUCRA)-based treatment ranks were calculated. Primary outcome was pain intensity (numerical rating scale (NRS)) and/or the percentage of patients with ≥50% pain reduction, after 1 and 2-4 weeks.
RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs (1813 patients) were included. Methadone showed, with a high certainty of evidence, increased ORs for treatment success at 1 week, compared with morphine, buprenorphine, fentanyl, and oxycodone, range 3.230-36.833. Methadone had the highest likelihood to be the treatment of preference (ToP) (SUCRA 0.9720). For fentanyl, ORs were lower, however significant and with high certainty. After 2-4 weeks, methadone again showed the highest likelihood for ToP, however, with moderate certainty and nonsignificant ORs. The combination of morphine/methadone, compared with morphine, buprenorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, and oxycodone achieved a treatment effect of mean NRS difference after 2-4 weeks between -1.100 and -1.528 and had the highest likelihood for ToP.
CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that methadone possibly deserves further promotion as first-line treatment for the treatment of cancer-related pain.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effectiveness of image-guided energy ablation techniques with and without concurrent therapies in providing palliative pain relief in patients with bone metastases.
METHODS: Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, and Pubmed were searched from inception to April 14, 2023, using search terms related to bone lesions and MeSH terms regarding ablation therapy. English peer-reviewed primary articles were included that reported pain scores following image-guided energy-based ablation of bone metastases. Exclusion criteria included nonpalliative treatment, pain scores associated with specific treatment modalities not reported, and nonmetastatic bone lesions. Mean percentage reduction in pain score was calculated.
RESULTS: Of the 1,396 studies screened, 54 were included. All but 1 study demonstrated decreased pain scores at final follow-up. Mean reductions in pain scores at final follow-up were 49% for radiofrequency (RF) ablation, 58% for RF ablation and adjunct, 54% for cryoablation (CA), 72% for cryoablation and adjunct (CA-A), 48% for microwave ablation (MWA), 81% for microwave ablation and adjunct (MWA-A), and 64% for high-intensity focused ultrasound (US). Postprocedural adverse event rates were 4.9% for RF ablation, 34.8% for RF ablation and adjunct, 9.6% for CA, 12.0% for CA-A, 48.9% for MWA, 33.5% for MWA-A, and 17.0% for high-intensity focused US.
CONCLUSIONS: Image-guided energy ablation demonstrated consistently strong reduction in pain across all modalities, with variable postprocedural adverse event rates. Owing to heterogeneity of included studies, quantitative analysis was not appropriate. Future primary research should focus on creating consistent prospective studies with established statistical power, explicit documentation, and comparison with other techniques.

OBJECTIVE: The World Health Organization endorses that palliative care has a significant impact on the outcomes of patients with cancer. Integration of palliative care into standard oncology practice has been shown to improve a variety of patient outcomes. In this article, we present our experience with the development of a palliative care tumor board.
METHODS: Starting in June 2021, we implemented a multidisciplinary palliative care and oncology tumor board focused on pain and symptom management. Complex cases were presented bimonthly. We retrospectively reviewed our experience. Data were collected on the attendees, the case presented, and the resultant therapeutic decisions made.
UNASSIGNED: Between June 2021 and September 2022, tumor board meetings were conducted in person and virtually. An average of twelve people attended, including physicians and nurse practitioners from the palliative care, oncology, interventional radiology, radiation oncology, psychiatry, pediatric palliative care, and physical medicine and rehab disciplines. There were 68 patients presented with the most frequently discussed cancer being breast cancer, followed by lung cancer. A total of 18 patients (26%) were referred for procedure, including 7 patients (10%) for radiation and 11 patients (16%) for interventional procedures, and 34 patients (50%) had medication changes as outcomes of the meeting.
CONCLUSIONS: The development of a biweekly palliative care conference modeled after traditional oncologic tumor board meetings allows patients to be discussed in a multidisciplinary setting and commonly results in changes in the management for pain and other cancer-related symptoms.

Oncologic chronic pain is often difficult to control, especially in anatomical areas with multiple and complex innervation, such as the pelvic/perineal region. The ganglion impar block (GIB) is a procedure with growing interest and varied applicability. It has been used in several benign and malignant causes of pelvic and perineal pain refractory to pharmacological treatment. We conducted a review of all articles published in PUBMED® until the 30th of October 2022 regarding GIB in oncologic pain. 19 articles were identified with a total of 278 patients. Both chronic cancer pain and chronic postcancer treatment pain patients were included. We reviewed the various techniques, approaches, and therapeutic options that were employed. No serious adverse effects were reported. GIB appears to be an effective and safe procedure that should be considered in patients with intractable perineal cancer-related pain.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 55% of patients diagnosed with primary or metastatic cancer endure pain directly attributable to the disease. Consequently, it becomes imperative to address pain management through a comparative analysis of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and conventional radiation therapy (CRT), especially in light of the less efficacious improvement achieved solely through pharmacological interventions.
METHODS: A systematic exploration was undertaken on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier\'s ScienceDirect databases to identify studies that compare Stereotactic Radiotherapy to Conventional radiation therapy for pain management in individuals with metastatic bone cancer. The analyses were executed utilizing the random-effects model.
RESULTS: A cohort of 1152 participants with metastatic bone cancer was analyzed, demonstrating significantly higher complete pain relief in the Stereotactic Radiotherapy group during both early and late follow-up (RR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.17, 2.23, p-value: 0.004; I2: 0%). Stereotactic Radiotherapy also showed a non-significant increase in the incidence of partial pain relief (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.34, p-value: 0.56; I2: 18%). Furthermore, Stereotactic Radiotherapy was associated with a significantly reduced risk of stationary pain throughout follow-up (RR: 0.61; 95%CI: 0.48, 0.76, p-value: <0.0001; I2: 0. The incidence of progressive pain was non-significantly reduced with Stereotactic Radiotherapy during both early and late follow-up (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.50, 1.17, p-value: 0.22; I2: 0%). Secondary outcomes exhibited a non-significant trend favoring Stereotactic Radiotherapy for dysphagia, esophagitis, pain, and radiodermatitis, while a non-significant increase was observed for nausea, fatigue, and vertebral compression fracture.
CONCLUSIONS: In summary, stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) has improved in achieving complete pain relief while exhibiting a decreased probability of delivering stationary pain compared to conventional radiation therapy (CRT). Nevertheless, it is crucial in future research to address a noteworthy limitation, specifically, the risk of vertebral compression fracture.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common experience in people living with cancer. Concerns around opioid prescribing have seen a move toward a multi-modality management approach, which includes interventional pain procedures.
OBJECTIVE: In this paper we discuss the interventional pain procedures used to treat cancer pain at two major tertiary centers in Australia.
RESULTS: This expert review provides practical insights on cancer pain management from healthcare providers in different specialties. These insights can be used to guide the management of a wide range of cancer pain types.
CONCLUSIONS: Furthermore, this review identifies the need for a systematic and comprehensive approach to the management of cancer pain that is broader than that of a single specialty. With recent advances in pain management procedures, an interdisciplinary approach is essential in order to provide an up to date, patient tailored approach to pain management. This review will help inform the development of a cancer pain intervention registry.

Palliative radiotherapy (RT) effectively relieves pain in patients with bone metastases (BMs). Furthermore, several clinical trials, in most cases conducted in high-income countries (HICs), proved that single-fraction RT is equally effective compared to multi-fractionated RT. However, the evidence is scarce regarding low/middle-income countries (LMICs), where the diagnosis of BMs could be later and RT techniques less advanced. Therefore, we conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate the efficacy of palliative RT of BMs in the LMIC setting. A literature search was performed independently by two authors on the PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus databases. Overall, 333 records were screened and after the selection process, 11 papers were included in the analysis. Complete pain response rates ranged from 11.5% to 37.1% (median: 22%) for single-fraction RT and from 0% to 35.1% (median: 19%) for multi-fractionated RT. Partial pain response rates ranged from 23.1% to 76.9% (median: 53.8%) for single fraction RT and from 23.8% to 84.6% (median: 65%) for multi-fractionated RT. Four randomized trials compared single-fraction RT with multiple-fraction RT and none of them showed significant differences in terms of pain relief. Our analysis showed that pain response rates after palliative RT recorded in LMIC are like those reported in studies performed in HIC. Even in this setting, RT in single fraction shows comparable pain response rates to multifractional RT.