Feasibility of quantitative pain assessment in outpatient oncology practice.

PURPOSE: Although physicians view failure to assess pain systematically as the most important barrier to outpatient cancer pain management, little is known about pain assessment in this setting. We sought to determine whether pain is routinely assessed and whether routine quantitative pain assessment is feasible in a busy outpatient oncology practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a pre- and postintervention chart review of 520 randomly selected medical and radiation oncology patient visits at a community hospital-based private outpatient practice. The intervention consisted of training health assistants (HAs) to measure and document patient pain scores by using a visual analog scale. The main outcome measures included HA documentation of patient pain scores, quantitative and qualitative mention of pain in the physician note, and analgesic treatment before and after the intervention. RESULTS: After the intervention, HA documentation of pain scores increased from 1% to 75.6% (P < .0001). Physician documentation increased from 0% to 4.8% for quantitative documentation (P < .01), and from 60.0% to 68.3% for qualitative documentation (not significant). Of all the patients, 23.1% reported significant pain. Subgroups with greater pain included patients actively receiving radiation treatments and patients with lung cancer. Of patients with significant pain, 28.2% had no mention of pain in the physician note and 47.9% had no documented analgesic treatment. CONCLUSION: Quantitative pain assessment was virtually absent before our intervention but easily implemented and sustained in a busy outpatient oncology practice. Pain score collection identified a high prevalence of pain, patient subgroups at risk for pain, and a significant proportion of patients with pain that was neither evaluated nor treated by their oncologists.     

The role of therapies in managing cancer‐related pain

ROBB K. & EWER‐SMITH C. (2010) European Journal of Cancer Care 19 , 5
The role of therapies in managing cancer‐related pain Cancer pain is complex and multi‐dimensional and requires a multi‐disciplinary team approach. Therapists have an important role in the assessment and management of patients with cancer‐related pain, but the challenge remains to practise in an evidence‐based way.     

Sublingual piroxicam for cancer pain

Pain is the most feared complication of cancer. In our previous studies we have showed that non steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can be effectively used for the treatment of cancer pain and sublingual form of piroxicam has recently been available. So we started another study to investigate the efficacy of piroxicam in sublingual form in the treatment of cancer pain. A total of 21 patients were enrolled. Pain is assessed with a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS). After administration of a single dose of 20 mg piroxicam sublingually the patients were asked to show the severity of pain on the VAS scale 15, 30, 60, 120, 180 and 360 minutes later. The mean initial VAS score was 7.61 ± 2.133. The analgesic effect of piroxicam started as early as 15min and peaked at 30min. The mean VAS scores at 15, 30, 60, 120, 180 and 360 min were 6.28 ± 2.75, 5.33 ± 3.526, 5.42 ± 3.74, 5.71 ± 3.73, 5.76 ± 3.87 and 6.04 ± 3.82 respectively. Although the mean VAS scores were statistically lower this was not clinically significant. Complete relief was achieved only in three patients and partial relief was detected in four (14.2% and 19% respectively). Cancer pain can be relieved in 80–90% of cases with proper treatment. Although all patients tolerated the drug very well without any significant side effects, we achieved only 33% relief with piroxicam. This figure is far from satisfactory and not acceptable for the treatment of cancer pain at this dosage and schedule.     

Pain outcomes in patients with advanced breast cancer and bone metastases

BACKGROUND:

In this study, the authors evaluated the effect of denosumab versus zoledronic acid (ZA) on pain in patients with advanced breast cancer and bone metastases.

METHODS:

The prevention of pain, reduction in pain interference with daily life activities, and the proportion of patients requiring strong opioid analgesics were assessed in a randomized, double‐blind, double‐dummy phase 3 study comparing denosumab with ZA for preventing skeletal‐related events in 2046 patients who had breast cancer and bone metastases. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory‐Short Form at baseline and monthly thereafter.

RESULTS:

Fewer patients who received denosumab reported a clinically meaningful worsening of pain severity (≥2‐point increase) from baseline compared with patients who received ZA, and a trend was observed toward delayed time to pain worsening with denosumab versus ZA (denosumab, 8.5 months; ZA, 7.4 months; P = .08). In patients who had no/mild pain at baseline, a 4‐month delay in progression to moderate/severe pain was observed with denosumab compared with ZA (9.7 months vs 5.8 months; P = .002). Denosumab delayed the time to increased pain interference by approximately 1 month compared with ZA (denosumab, 16.0 months; ZA, 14.9 months; P = .09). The time to pain improvement (P = .72) and the time to decreased pain interference (P = .92) were similar between the groups. Fewer denosumab‐treated patients reported increased analgesic use from no/low use at baseline to strong opioid use.

CONCLUSIONS:

Denosumab demonstrated improved pain prevention and comparable pain palliation compared with ZA. In addition, fewer denosumab‐treated patients shifted to strong opioid analgesic use. Cancer 2013. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

植入式鞘内药物输注系统用于顽固性癌痛患者的疗效及安全性分析*

目的:评估植入式鞘内药物输注系统用于顽固性癌痛患者镇痛治疗的有效性及安全性。方法:回顾性分析2012年11月至2016年1 月四川大学华西医院疼痛科收治的17例患者,其中男性13例,女性4 例。对顽固性癌痛患者实施植入式鞘内药物输注系统外接患者自控镇痛（patient controlled analgesia ,PCA ）,观察并记录鞘内镇痛前后患者的视觉模拟评分法（visual analoguescales,VAS ）评分、吗啡用量和各项生活质量的评分,同时观察鞘内镇痛的不良反应。结果:17例患者实施鞘内镇痛后的VAS 为（2.9 ± 1.8）分,显著低于鞘内镇痛前VAS（7.2 ± 2.5）分（P < 0.001）;常规途径使用的阿片类药物（相当于吗啡的镇痛剂量）为（42.1 ±7.5）mg/d ,与鞘内镇痛前（282.9 ± 95.5）mg/d 相比,显著降低（P = 0.004）;鞘内镇痛后患者日常生活、情绪和睡眠的生活质量评分较鞘内镇痛前均显著降低（P < 0.05）;患者镇痛满意度则较鞘内镇痛前显著增加（P < 0.001）。 鞘内镇痛的不良反应包括戒断症状、低颅压性头痛、尿潴留和颅内感染。结论:植入式鞘内药物输注系统外接PCA 可安全有效的用于常规途径阿片类药物镇痛无效的顽固性癌痛患者。      

晚期癌症患者癌痛的规范化治疗疗效评估（附115例）

目的:回顾性分析中重度癌痛患者应用规范化镇痛治疗后生活质量的改善,为临床治疗和护理工作提供指导。方法:以我院门诊及住院2年内共115例晚期癌症患者为研究对象,以疼痛程度分为中度及重度癌痛两组,对比两组规范化镇痛治疗前后的生活质量评分,并将中度癌痛组分为二阶梯镇痛治疗组及弱化二阶梯镇痛治疗组,对比两组治疗后生活质量评分。结果:经过规范化镇痛治疗后,中度及重度癌痛组的生活质量均较治疗前明显好转（P<0.001）,且中度癌痛组中弱化二阶梯镇痛药物组的生活质量较二阶梯镇痛药物组改善明显,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:规范化镇痛治疗可明显改善晚期癌症患者生活质量,且弱化二阶梯镇痛治疗可有效改善中度癌痛患者生活质量。     

药物干预对中重度晚期癌痛患者生活质量影响的临床研究

目的：调查与分析药物干预对58例中重度晚期癌痛患者疗效及生活质量的影响。方法选择58例中重度晚期癌性疼痛患者,合理规范使用三阶梯镇痛药物,利用简明疼痛调查量表（BPI）及癌症患者生活质量量表（QOL-C30）对患者治疗前、治疗后1周及治疗后1个月情况进行调查和分析。结果患者药物治疗后 NRS（numeral rating scale）评分较治疗前低（P ＜0．05）,治疗后1周及治疗后1个月的疼痛缓解总有效率分别为86．1％及91．3％。药物的主要不良反应有便秘、恶心、呕吐、排尿困难、嗜睡、瘙痒等,QOL-C30量表六项功能指标及总体健康、总体生活质量评价治疗前后均存在显著性差异（均P ＜0．05）,其中角色功能、认知功能、总体健康及总体生活质量评价治疗后两阶段（1周及1个月）相比较存在显著性差异（均 P ＜0．05）。结论药物干预对中重度晚期癌痛患者有效,药物不良反应如消化道反应恶心、呕吐、便秘等不容忽视,生活质量中身体功能、情绪功能及社会功能应得到长期关注,并采取相应措施干预,不断改善和提高患者整体生活质量。     

Greek brief pain inventory: validation and utility in cancer pain

OBJECTIVE: The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) is a pain assessment tool. It has been translated into and validated in several languages. The purpose of this study was the translation into and validation of the BPI in Greek. Moreover, we wanted to detect cultural and social differences, if any, of pain interference in patients' lives. METHODS: The translation and validation of the inventory took place at the Areteion Hospital. The final validation sample consisted of 220 cancer patients (123 males, 97 females, age range 21-87 years, mean age 61.3). Primary cancer locations were lung 25.6%, gastrointestinal tract 25.6%, breast 11.5%, prostate 7.07%, gynecological cancers 9.6% and others 20.57%. The patients themselves completed the majority of the Greek BPI (G-BPI) papers. The pain management index (PMI) was also calculated in order to assess the adequacy of pain treatment. Assessing the reliability and the validity made the actual validation of the G-BPI. RESULTS: Pain severity and pain management: 147 patients reported severe pain, 48 patients moderate, and 25 patients mild pain (mean average pain 6.22). From these patients only 21 were found on strong and 33 on weak opioid treatment, while 166 patients were found on no opioid analgesic treatment. In agreement with these data is the PMI which was positive only for 9 patients, while 44 patients had PMI = 0 and all the others had negative PMI scores. Reliability and Validity of the G-BPI: Coefficient alphas were 0.849 for the interference items and 0.887 for the severity items. Additionally, the factor analysis of the G-BPI items results in a two-factor solution, that satisfies the criteria of reproducibility, interpretability and confirmatory setting. CONCLUSION: This study shows the efficacy of the G-BPI for the assessment of pain severity as well as the pain management in Greece, and therefore its utility in improving the analgesic treatment outcome in Greek patients.     

The preferences and experiences of different bisphosphonate treatments in women with breast cancer

Objective: The objective of this study was to examine women's experiences with oral and intravenous (i.v.) bisphosphonate therapy, the impact that treatment had on bone pain and Quality of Life (QoL), and their preferences if choice were available between oral and i.v. administration. Methods: This was a prospective study of women with metastatic breast cancer receiving either oral or i.v. bisphosphonate therapy. Semi‐structured interview techniques and QoL questionnaires were employed. Participants in the study were interviewed three times, once in person and twice by telephone. Results: A total of 79 patients from eight UK hospitals participated in the study; 35 were receiving oral bisphosphonate medication and 44 i.v. treatments. Self‐reported adherence to oral therapy was good although 21% had chosen not to take their drugs at some time. Most had adapted their lifestyle to accommodate oral therapy with 29/37(74%) completely satisfied. However 9/37(24%) expressed dissatisfaction with constraints especially the time required to stand upright after taking their tablets. By 6 months 23/25 (91%) of patients receiving (i.v.) therapies were generally satisfied with the frequency and 22/25 (88%) with the convenience especially if given concurrently with chemotherapy. Overall 25/54 (46%) patients reported improved bone pain scores on the validated FACT‐BP scale from baseline to 6 months. Conclusions: Both oral and i.v. therapies have disadvantages but were acceptable to most patients some of whom had reduced bone pain over time. More data regarding acceptability, adherence, and patients' preference for bisphosphonate therapies are required. Until randomised trials demonstrate superior efficacy for one mode of bisphosphonate therapy over another, we suggest offering patients a choice of bisphosphonate therapy. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Racial differences in pain during 1 year among women with metastatic breast cancer: a hazards analysis of interval-censored data

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal tumor-specific studies of cancer pain across the disease trajectory provide insight into the course of pain. Information on pain predictors refines our understanding of patients with greatest distress and need. METHODS: The authors studied 1124 women with metastatic breast cancer and bone metastases, all of whom received standard treatment in an international clinical trial conducted from October 1998 to January 2001. The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) was administered repeatedly during the course of 1 year. Hazard models were fitted to identify baseline and time-dependent covariates as predictors of pain worsening within cumulative 80-day intervals during the year. RESULTS: Increased severe pain hazards were associated with non-Caucasian race (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.52; 95% CI, 1.69-3.76), restricted performance status (HR = 1.73; 95% CI, 1.13-2.64), and radiation therapy in a previous interval (HR = 2.86; 95% CI, 1.61-5.09). Estimated cumulative rates for not yet reaching a BPI score of 7 or above ranged from 0.79 (0.72-0.85) in the first interval to 0.64 (0.55-0.74) in the last interval for non-Caucasian women, whereas these rates ranged from 0.91 (0.89-0.93) to 0.84 (0.81-0.87) for Caucasian women. CONCLUSIONS: By using a time-to-event hazards analysis for cancer symptom data, the authors demonstrated that non-Caucasian race predicted poorer pain control among women with metastatic breast cancer. Disparity findings from cross-sectional studies were confirmed. Pain management strategies should take race into account as a risk factor for worsening pain outcomes, and further investigation should seek to uncover and resolve the reasons for this obvious disparity.     

Attitudes towards pain management in hospitalized cancer patients and their influencing factors

Objective:To investigate patients' attitudes towards cancer pain management and analyze the factors influencing these attitudes.Methods:The self-developed Demographic and Disease-Related Information Questionnaires,Pain Management Barriers Questionnaire-Taiwan form (BQT),and Pain Knowledge Questionnaire were administered to 363 pairs of hospitalized cancer patients and their caregivers from the oncology departments of 7 hospitals in Beijing,China.Results:The average patient score for attitudes towards pain management was 2.96±0.49.The dimension scores indicated good attitudes in three areas (scores ＜2.5),"Desire to be good" (2.22±1.04),"Fatalism" (2.08±0.81) and "Religious fatalism" (1.86±1.00),and poor attitudes in six areas (scores ≥2.5),"Tolerance" (3.83±0.96),"Use of analgesics as needed (p.r.n.)" (3.73±1.01),"Addiction" (3.44±1.05),"Disease progression" (3.28±1.26),"Distraction of physicians" (3.16±1.07) and "Side effects" (2.99±0.68).Two factors were entered into the regression equation:the caregivers' attitudes towards cancer pain management and the patients' pain knowledge.These two factors explained 23.2％ of the total variance in the patients' average scores for their attitudes towards cancer pain management.Conclusions:The patients' attitudes towards cancer pain management were poor and could be influenced by the caregivers' attitudes and the patients' pain knowledge,and thus need to be improved.     

微波对癌性疼痛镇痛效果的临床观察

目的：采用915MHz微波对101例各种中晚期癌症患者的疼痛的临床镇痛效果进行了研究。方法：应用非麻醉性镇痛剂、麻醉性镇痛剂、微波治疗做了自身交叉对比观察。结果：微波对癌痛的镇痛效果优于非麻醉性镇痛剂（P＜0．001），镇痛持续时间优于麻醉性及非麻醉性镇痛剂（P＜0．001）。结论：交叉应用可减少止痛剂用量。无任何副作用，并能改善其它临床症状，是一种较好的癌病治疗方法。     

立体定向扣带回毁损术治疗晚期癌痛

目的：探索扣带回毁损术治疗晚期癌痛的效果.方法：选择应用三阶梯治疗无效的晚期癌痛病人39例,包括肺癌20例,肝癌骨转移8例,前列腺癌骨转移6例,骨肿瘤患者5例,其中35例伴抑郁症及焦虑症.采用直观模拟疼痛量表（VAS）和McGill疼痛问卷量表（MPQ）分别在术前和书后进行疼痛评分,同时记录手术前后患者使用止痛药的种类和最大剂量,将术后3个月的VAS、MPQ评分与术前评分进行比较.结果：术后患者癌痛基本消失,只需服用小剂量止痛药物.术后3个月止痛效果稳定,VAS评分及MPQ评分较术前明显降低（P＜0.05）,无严重并发症发生,其中35例患者的抑郁症及焦虑症明显好转.结论：双侧扣带回前部联合毁损术能有效治疗晚期癌痛,缓解患者的抑郁症及焦虑症.     

Variations in pain management outcomes among palliative care centers and the impact of organizational factors

BACKGROUND:

The assessment of pain management outcomes is important for the quality assurance of palliative care. The objective of this study was to determine whether there are significant variations in pain management outcomes among palliative care centers and whether they are affected by organizational factors.

METHODS:

Data used in this investigation were from the 2009 Korean Terminal Cancer Patient Information System and administrative records of the 34 inpatient palliative care centers designated by the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare in 2009. Self‐reported pain scores (range, from 0 to 10) at admission and 1 week after admission were prospectively collected. Multilevel mixed‐effect regression models were used to analyze the variations and the impact of organizational‐level factors on 2 pain management outcomes (ie, reduction in average pain score and achievement of adequate pain control at 1 week after admission).

RESULTS:

In total, 1711 patients with terminal cancer were included in the analyses. The mean reduction in the pain score was 0.69 to 1.91 after 1 week, and most patients (82.8%) achieved adequate pain control. There were significant variations in pain management outcomes among palliative care centers. Higher composite scores for human resources adequacy were associated significantly with a greater reduction in pain score (β, 0.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.01‐0.21), and achievement of adequate pain control (adjusted odds ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.10‐1.45).

CONCLUSIONS:

There were significant variations in pain management outcomes among inpatient palliative care centers, and they were affected by organizational factors, such as human resources adequacy. Cancer 2011. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

经鞘内镇痛系统按需注射吗啡治疗癌性疼痛的效果观察

目的探讨癌性疼痛患者经鞘内镇痛系统按需注射吗啡治疗癌性疼痛的效果。方法选取2018年5月至2020年5月间盘锦市辽油宝石花医院收治的120例癌性疼痛患者,依照患者采用镇痛方式的不同将患者分为对照组和研究组,每组60例。对照组采用硬膜外注射吗啡镇痛治疗,研究组采用经鞘内镇痛系统按需注射吗啡镇痛治疗,对比两组临床治疗与镇痛效果。结果研究组患者镇痛起效时间低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P <0.05);研究组患者镇痛后1周、3周、6周视觉模拟评分(VAS)低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P <0.05)。对照组患者并发症发生率为11.7%(7/60)低于对照组1.7%(1/60),差异有统计学意义(P <0.05)。研究组患者镇痛后1周、3周、6周生活量表评分均高于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(均P <0.05)。结论经鞘内镇痛系统按需注射吗啡治疗癌性疼痛效果显著,患者经过镇痛治疗后疼痛明显好转,且不良反应发生率低,患者生活质量提高,适于临床推广。     

Frequency,Predictors, and Medical Record Documentation of Chemical Coping Among Advanced Cancer Patients

Background.

In this prospective study, we determined the frequency of opioid-related chemical coping among advanced cancer patients, as diagnosed by palliative medicine specialists. We also determined predictors for chemical coping and the concordance between the physician’s diagnosis and documentation in the medical records.

Patients and Methods.

Palliative medicine specialists evaluated and diagnosed consecutive patients seen for chemical coping. The proportion of patients identified as chemically coping was compared with the proportion documented in the medical records. Demographic data; cancer diagnosis; history of smoking; substance abuse; psychiatric disease; morphine equivalent daily dosage; Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire scores; and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System scores were also collected.

Results.

A total of 432 patients were evaluated. Overall, 76 patients (18%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 14%–21%) were diagnosed as chemically coping. Documentation of chemical coping in the medical records was reported for only 15 patients (4%; 95% CI: 2%–6%). CAGE positivity (odds ratio [OR]: 2.89), younger age (OR: 0.97 per year), better performance status (OR: 0.68 per point), pain (OR: 1.20 per point), and well-being (OR: 1.28 per point) were found to be significant predictors of chemical coping by protocol definition. After recursive partitioning, 21 of 50 patients (42%) who were CAGE positive and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2 were diagnosed as chemically coping.

Conclusion.

Approximately 18% of palliative care patients seen were diagnosed as chemically coping by palliative medicine specialists. The frequency of documentation in the medical records was significantly lower. Better and safer ways for physicians to assess and report chemical coping are needed.

Implications for Practice:

Cancer pain is a multidimensional symptom for which opioids are the mainstay of treatment. However, opioids can have a double effect resulting in drug-seeking behaviors. Chemical coping occurs when a patient uses opioids in a nonprescribed way to cope with various stressful events. This can lead to misuse of opioids and complications including neurotoxicities, respiratory depression, and death. Proper diagnosis and documentation is needed to ensure proper management of pain and to avoid unnecessary harm. The findings of this study suggest that ∼18% of advanced cancer patients seen by a palliative care service were diagnosed as chemical coping, but only 4% were documented in the medical records.     

Achievement of personalized pain goal in cancer patients referred to a supportive care clinic at a comprehensive cancer center

BACKGROUND:

Cancer pain initiatives recommend using the personalized pain goal to tailor pain management. This study was conducted to examine the feasibility and stability of personalized pain goal, and how it compares to the clinical pain response criteria.

METHODS:

Records of 465 consecutive cancer patients seen in consultation at the Supportive Care Clinic were reviewed. Pain relief was assessed as clinical response (≥30% or ≥2 point pain reduction) and personalized pain goal response (pain ≤ personalized pain goal).

RESULTS:

One hundred fifty‐two (34%), 95 (21%), and 163 (37%) patients presented with mild (1‐4), moderate (5‐6), and severe (7‐10) pain, respectively. Median age (59 years), males (52%), and advanced cancer status (84%) did not differ by pain category. Median personalized pain goal at initial clinic consult was 3 (interquartile range, 2‐3), was similar across pain groups, and remained unchanged (P = .57) at follow‐up (median, 14 days). Clinical response was higher among patients with severe pain (60%) as compared with moderate (40%) and mild pain (33%, P < .001). Personalized pain goal response was higher among patients with mild pain (63%) as compared with moderate (44%) and severe pain (27%, P < .001). By using personalized pain goal response as the gold standard for pain relief, the sensitivity of clinical response was highest (98%) among patients with severe pain, but it had low specificity (54%). In patients with mild pain, clinical response was most specific for pain relief (98%), but had low sensitivity (52%).

CONCLUSIONS:

Personalized pain goal is a simple patient‐reported outcome for pain goals. The majority of patients were capable of stating their desired level for pain relief. The median personalized pain goal was 3, and it was highly stable at follow‐up assessment. Cancer 2012. © 2011 American Cancer Society.     

羟考酮控释片治疗中重度癌痛72例的临床观察

目的:观察盐酸羟考酮控释片(奥施康定)治疗中重度癌痛的疗效,不良反应及患者生活质量改善情况.方法:应用羟考酮控释片治疗72例中重度癌痛患者,对其治疗疗效,不良反应,生活质量进行观察和评估.根据疼痛程度羟考酮控释片初始剂量为5mg/次或10mgg/次,每12小时一次口服.如果每日出现爆发性疼痛超过2次,则调整下次用药剂量.对于起始剂量5mg可以直接增加至10mg,对于起始剂量大于或等于10mg的患者,每次增加的剂量在原有剂量的基础上增加25%～50%.出现爆发性疼痛时用即释吗啡片解救.结果:72例中重度癌痛患者口服羟考酮控释片经过个体化滴定后最终剂量范围10～100mg/天,其中12例(16.7%)获得完全缓解,52例(72.2%)获得部分缓解,6例(8.3%)获得轻微缓解,总的疼痛缓解率88.9%.主要不良反应为便秘,恶心呕吐,头晕,嗜睡,排尿困难.全组KPS评分12例(16.7%)明显改善,20例(27.7%)有改善,40例(55.6%)达到稳定.结论:盐酸羟考酮控释片治疗中重度癌痛疗效稳定,不良反应少,耐受性良好,能显著改善患者生活质量.     

CT引导下腹腔神经丛射频热凝术治疗晚期胰腺癌顽固性疼痛的临床分析

目的:探讨CT引导下腹腔神经丛射频热凝术治疗晚期胰腺癌顽固性疼痛的临床镇痛效果。方法:选取2016年6月至2018年6月70例晚期胰腺癌顽固性疼痛患者为研究对象,按随机数字表法分为对照组和观察组各35例。对照组:采用芬太尼透皮贴剂4.125 mg/贴×2/72 h 外用+加巴喷丁胶囊 200 mg po 3/d;观察组:采用CT引导下腹腔神经丛射频热凝术,射频治疗参数设置为:3 min,70 ℃。评价两组晚期胰腺癌顽固性疼痛患者镇痛效果。结果:治疗后3 d、6 d、21 d、60 d两组患者VAS评分均呈下降趋势（P<0.05),且观察组治疗后各时间点VAS评分均低于对照组,疼痛缓解率均高于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。两组患者治疗前躯体功能评分、情绪功能评分、社会功能评分、总健康状况评分差异均无统计学意义（P>0.05）。治疗后3 d、6 d、21 d、60 d观察组较对照组躯体功能评分、情绪功能评分、社会功能评分呈下降趋势,总健康状况评分呈上升改变,两组差异有统计学意义（P<0.05)。治疗前1 d两组患者血清炎性因子TNF-α、IL-6、CRP含量比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。治疗后1 d、3 d,观察组血清TNF-α、IL-6、CRP含量均明显低于对照组,两组差异有统计学意义（P<0.05)。结论:CT引导下腹腔神经丛射频热凝术治疗晚期胰腺癌顽固性疼痛镇痛效果确切,具有操作简单、创伤小、见效快、安全有效等优势。     

Clinical experience with transdermal and orally administered opioids in palliative care patients--a retrospective study

BACKGROUND: Transdermal fentanyl is a widely used opioid for the treatment of cancer pain. Simplicity of use and high patient compliance are the main advantages of this opioid. However, based on our clinical experience, transdermal fentanyl is often not efficacious in terminally ill palliative care patients. We thus retrospectively examined the pain management and need for opioid switching in cancer patients admitted to our palliative care unit. METHODS: Of 354 patients admitted to our palliative care unit from 2004 through 2005, 81 patients were pre-treated with transdermal fentanyl. Demographic and cancer-related data (diagnosis, symptoms, pain score on a numeric rating scale (NRS)), analgesic dose at admission and discharge were compared. Statistics: mean +/- SD, ANOVA, Wilcoxon's test was used for inter-group comparisons, significance P < 0.05, adjusted for multiple testing. Pain scores are given in median (range). RESULTS: Mean transdermal fentanyl dose at admission was 81.0 +/- 55.8 microg/h. In 79 patients transdermal fentanyl treatment was discontinued. In two patients, analgesic treatment according to WHO I provided sufficient pain relief. The other 77 patients were switched to other opioids: 33 patients to oral morphine and 44 to oral hydromorphone. In patients switched to morphine the dose at discharge (104.7 +/- 89.0 mg) was lower than at admission (165.5 mg morphine equivalence). In patients switched to hydromorphone the dose of 277.8 +/- 255.0 mg morphine equivalent was higher at discharge than at admission (218.2 +/- 131.4 mg morphine equivalence--considering an equianalgesic conversion ratio morphine: hydromorphone = 7.5: 1). Pain scores decreased significantly after opioid rotation (NRS at rest/on exertion: 4 (0-10)/7 (2-10) versus 1 (0-3)/2 (0-5); P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the patient group switched to morphine, sufficient pain relief was achieved by lower equianalgesic morphine doses, compared with the doses at admission. In the patient group switched to hydromorphone, higher equianalgesic morphine doses were needed at discharge, considering an equianalgesic conversion ratio of morphine: hydromorphone = 7.5: 1. Patients with far advanced cancer often suffer from sweating and cachexia, which may have negative effects on the absorption of transdermal fentanyl. Opioid switching to oral morphine or hydromorphone was well tolerated and proved to be an efficacious option for cancer pain treatment.