Paolo Bossi
Yolanda Escobar
Federico Pea- 1Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health - Medical Oncology, ASST-Spedali Civili, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
- 2Medical Oncology, Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, Spain
- 3Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
- 4Clinical Pharmacology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Sant'Orsola, Bologna, Italy
Background and Objective: Rapid-onset opioids (ROOs) are effective treatments for breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) given their rapid onset of action and relatively short duration of analgesia. The aim of this article is to describe specific considerations for the use of ROOs in daily practice, focusing on dose titration and treatment of specific populations.
Type of Review: We conducted a narrative review on the use of ROOs for BTcP. We selected papers according to the following search terms: “breakthrough cancer pain” and “rapid onset opioids”.
Results: ROOs may be considered as the most suitable drugs to treat BTcP and can be used “on-demand”. Several fentanyl formulations are available and have been associated with control of BTcP and with improvement in quality of life. Various titration schemes have been used to optimize ROO dosing; however, a dose-proportional scheme could be considered safe and effective in most patients. Specific formulations may be more suitable for specific patient subgroups; for example, patients with oral mucositis may prefer intranasal to oral formulations. Moreover, elderly patients or those without caregivers should be clearly educated on the use of these formulations. A key element in achieving successful treatment of BTcP is awareness of the barriers to pain management, including poor overall assessment, patient reluctance to take opioids or report pain, and physician reluctance to prescribe opioids.
Conclusion: A personalized approach is fundamental when prescribing a medication for BTcP, and careful attention should be given to drug choice and route of administration, and to the need for alternative therapeutic options.
Introduction
While seemingly increased attention is being paid to adequate treatment of cancer pain, the proportion of cancer patients experiencing pain has changed little in recent years, with a high proportion still suffering from moderate to severe pain (1, 2). In addition to background cancer pain, in the last two decades much effort has been made to identify and treat breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). BTcP can be broadly defined as pain that breaks through otherwise well controlled background cancer pain (3). Overall, the etiology of BTcP is likely similar to that of chronic cancer pain, and may be related to tissue destruction by the cancer, tumor treatment, and other cancer-related conditions (3). Episodes of BTcP are characterized by their rapid onset, high intensity, and short duration (4).
BTcP can be categorized into spontaneous and incident, where the former is idiopathic and the latter has a trigger such as movement or voiding (3). Incident BTcP can be further subclassified as: (i) volitional (e.g., brought on by walking); (ii) non-volitional (e.g., invoked by an involuntary act such as coughing); or (iii) procedural (e.g., resulting from a therapeutic intervention such as dressing a wound). BTcP is not a single well-defined entity, but rather a number of entities that present differently in each patient. Unfortunately, at present, BTcP remains an undertreated yet challenging entity to manage despite the availability of rapid and effective analgesics (5, 6).
Rapid-onset opioids (ROOs) have become a mainstay in the treatment of BTcP. In this article, we review the management of BTcP with the aim of providing specific considerations for daily practice, with a focus on dose titration and the treatment of specific patient groups. We performed a narrative review utilizing PubMed and Google Scholar Databases and identifying papers between 2000 and 2021, with the following search terms: “breakthrough cancer pain” and “rapid onset opioids”.
Prevalence and Characteristics of BTCP
The prevalence of BTcP depends on the individual patient and the specific type of cancer, but it is broadly reported by 40–80% of patients. In a large, pooled analysis of 19 studies, BTcP was reported by 59.2% of patients (7). In an observational study involving 1,000 oncology patients, BTcP was reported by the vast majority, with 44% reporting incident pain, 42% spontaneous pain, and 14.5% a combination of both (4). BTcP has been reported in more than 89% of hospice patients with pain, and the prevalence rate among this patient population is generally higher than observed in outpatients (7, 8). These percentages are also reflected in a recent Spanish analysis, where, among 371 cancer patients, 38% reported episodic pain without a defined trigger and 49% described pain associated with a triggering event (9).
As far as the characteristics of BTcP are concerned, the Italian Oncologic Pain multiSetting Multicentric Survey (IOPS-MS) study showed that among 1,500 patients BTcP occurred with a mean of 2.5 episodes per day, had a mean intensity of 7.5 on a scale from 0 to 10, and a mean duration of 43 min. Moreover, BTcP was predictable in one-third of cases (10). Some subgroups of patients may be at higher risk of developing BTcP, as demonstrated in the sub-analysis of the IOPS-MS study (11). Patients with head and neck cancer had the highest number of episodes per day (2.8/day) (11). The episodes were linked to food/liquid ingestion, and thus were complicated by nutritional issues. Consequently, it is advisable to assess and monitor these patients in different ways. Regardless, BTcP may markedly interfere with daily activities in almost all patients, significantly impairing their quality of life (12).
Roos for Treatment of BTCP
BTcP is characterized by rapid onset and short duration over a background of well controlled persistent pain. Oral morphine should not be considered for the treatment of unpredictable BTcP, as the time to pain relief is usually more than 30 min (13), so would not be effective in controlling idiopathic or non-volitional incident pain (14). Conversely, ROOs may be considered as the most suitable drugs to counteract BTcP (15, 16). ROOs have a typical onset of action within minutes and a duration of action of only few hours (14). ROOs can be consistently used “on demand”, which is valuable considering that BTcP is often unpredictable (14, 15). On the other hand, either ROOs or oral morphine could have a role when the BTcP could be foreseen (this indication is not included in the summaries of product characteristics), such as in the case of procedural or volitional BTcP, although data and studies on the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of these treatments when used in this manner are lacking and further research is required (17).
A number of formulations of fentanyl are currently approved for the treatment of BTcP. These include oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (lollipop format), fentanyl buccal tablet, fentanyl buccal soluble film, and sublingual fentanyl, in addition to nasal transmucosal formulations (18). A large number of clinical trials and meta-analyses have documented the efficacy of fentanyl formulations in controlling BTcP, with a rapid onset of pain relief (within 15 min) and superiority over oral morphine (14, 19). In a meta-analysis by Zeppetella et al., the difference in pain intensity control compared with placebo 15 min after intake was greater with all formulations of fentany than with other BTcP medications (20). Moreover, a reduction in the number of BTcP episodes was documented and patient satisfaction was rated as excellent or good (21, 22). Patient satisfaction was also rated as high with fentanyl pectin nasal spray (23). While some reports suggested that fentanyl buccal tablet may have some advantages over other fentanyl formulations, this has not been consistently demonstrated (24). Compared with subcutaneous morphine, fentanyl sublingual tablets did not show non-inferiority in a randomized double-blind trial; however, most patients preferred the sublingual route of administration (25). Importantly, rapid-onset fentanyl has also been associated with significant improvement in health-related quality of life. In the BEST observational study, among 154 patients in palliative care units with stable control of background pain who received transmucosal fentanyl for BTcP, almost all physical and emotional domains measured with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative Care (QLQ-C15-PAL) showed significant improvement; exceptions were nausea, vomiting, and dyspnea (26).
Dose Titration
It is widely believed that the dose of all opioid rescue medications should be determined by individual titration (27). When testing the starting dose, four different scenarios may be considered. If the pain is well controlled without adverse effects, then the same dose may be used for future episodes. If the pain is well controlled but adverse effects occur, the dose should be decreased. If the pain is uncontrolled and no adverse effect occurs, the dose should be increased. Lastly, if the pain is uncontrolled and adverse effects appear, drug treatment should be changed.
The use of a dose titration scheme and the titration protocol itself have varied somewhat among different studies. In some trials, the effective dose was considered as that allowing successful treatment of two consecutive episodes of BTcP (28).
Furthermore, there has been some discussion about the use of proportional dosing (29, 30). It has been suggested that proportional dosing may have several benefits, such as being applicable across all doses of baseline opioid treatment and in a variety of settings (29). Proportional dosing has also been supported by a number of studies, including some conducted in home settings and in highly tolerant patients, and is generally well tolerated (31, 32). Indeed, doses that are proportional to the baseline opioid regimen used for background pain appear to be both effective and safe in most patients (33). This has been confirmed in a relatively recent study in which administration of fentanyl buccal soluble film at proportional doses based on current regimen for baseline pain resulted in only 12% of patients requiring dose titration in the per-protocol population (34).
Treatment Considerations in Specific Subpopulations
Each of the available formulations of rapid-onset fentanyl has characteristics and advantages that may render it more suited for some specific patient groups as highlighted below (35). However, it should be acknowledged that we cannot fully dissect all the factors possibly leading to different responses to ROOs. As an example, the sex and gender differences in ROOs use have not been fully investigated, while some works underlined how these differences are important in pain perception (36).
Mucositis or Oral Intolerance
Many patients undergoing radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy will experience painful oral mucositis to different degrees (37). The rate of fentanyl absorption from the buccal tablet was similar in patients with or without mucositis (38). Thus, this may definitely be a valid option in patient with mucositis who are still able to take oral formulations. For patients who find oral formulations of fentanyl difficult to use (35), an intranasal formulation may represent a more suitable and better accepted option (39). During curative radiotherapy, patients with head and neck cancer (irrespective of whether or not they are receiving chemotherapy) have been shown to benefit from the use of intranasal fentanyl, with a decrease in the frequency of incidental BTcP caused by food/liquid swallowing (40). Very recently, high rates of patient satisfaction were also shown with an intranasal formulation of fentanyl in patients undergoing radiotherapy who are at high risk of mucositis (23).
Patients Without Caregivers
In patients without caregivers, the choice of formulation obviously depends on the patient's preferences and functional abilities (35). All oral transmucosal fentanyl formulations can be used by those who find it difficult to swallow. However, it has been noted that the drug and delivery system could be ingested and should thus be avoided in some cases (35). In addition, there is the potential risk of dental decay with the “lollipop” formulation. Intranasal formulations can be proposed, depending on the patient's dexterity.
Elderly
The proportion of elderly people who experience pain is already high in those without cancer, but increases further in the presence of cancer (41, 42). Treatment of BTcP in the elderly is challenging due to comorbidities, cognitive decline, polypharmacy, and decreased hepatic and renal function. It is important to carefully titrate the background pain medication, and ROOs may be considered for BTcP. Some authors have advocated that other medications such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may be an option for BTcP in the elderly (42). It has been suggested that the initial dose of BTcP medications should be one-sixth of the patient's total daily opioid, and can then be titrated (42). It is clear that BTcP treatment decisions in elderly patients should be highly personalized, taking into account the global profile of each individual patient. In 2019, using the Delphi process, a Spanish group issued a set of recommendations on the management of BTcP in the elderly (43). There was a high degree of consensus that transmucosal fentanyl coupled with a “start slow and go slow” dosing method is the most suitable treatment approach for BTcP in this patient group.
Patients on Polypharmacy
Many patients with cancer are likely to be treated for comorbidities and/or may receive anti-cancer medications and, as such, polypharmacy is common in this group. Fentanyl is metabolized mainly via the human cytochrome P450 3A4 isoenzyme system (CYP3A4), and thus potential drug-drug interactions may occur in patients cotreated with drugs that are CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers (44). Use of fentanyl with strong or moderate CYP3A4 inhibitors may result in increased fentanyl plasma concentrations. As such, patients receiving such co-medications should be carefully monitored for adverse events.
In patients receiving CNS depressants, the dose and duration of concomitant fentanyl use should be limited. Moreover, the concomitant use of partial opioid agonists/antagonists (e.g., buprenorphine, nalbuphine, and pentazocine) should be avoided. Lastly, it has been reported that drug interactions are unlikely to alter the onset or duration of analgesia, but they may affect its duration (44).
Psychological symptoms such as anxiety and depression are common in cancer patients and have a significant negative impact on daily activities and functioning (45). While adequate treatment of BTcP can improve the patient's health-related quality of life (26), it is nonetheless clear that a substantial proportion of patients will still suffer from a range of psychological symptoms that warrant treatment. When administering psychotropic medications to patients with cancer, careful attention should be paid to the side effect profile and potential for drug interactions (45). Caution is needed during co-administration of fentanyl-based ROOs with a serotoninergic agent because of the potential for interactions. Prescribers should be aware that selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine re-uptake inhibitors, and monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) may increase the risk of serotoninergic syndrome. Moreover, fentanyl-based formulations should be avoided in patients who have received MAOIs in the previous 14 days, since this may lead to severe and unpredictable potentiation of the MAOI effect. Before prescribing a ROO or a psychotropic agent, the patient's current medication regimen should be carefully reviewed to ensure that no risk of drug interaction exists.
Idiopathic vs. Incident Pain
While idiopathic BTcP is unpredictable, incident BTcP can be predicted. Any episode of pain that is linked to diagnostic or therapeutic procedures may be considered as BTcP. Often this pain is underestimated because diagnostic procedures and therapies are considered the main objective, so providers may give less consideration to procedure-related symptoms experienced by patients. Examples of these types of pain have been reported in detail, and can occur during procedures such as lumbar puncture, bone biopsy, endoscopy, and tumor embolization (46). Since the BTcP associated with these procedures can be predicted, providers should be aware of them and try to minimize patient discomfort. Thus, by knowing that some movements or procedures may trigger BTcP in some patients, administration of rescue medication before starting them could prevent triggering of BTcP.
The Role of Physician's Education
As in all fields of medicine, adequate knowledge is key in achieving successful treatment. Pain is a complex issue, and its treatment warrants a multidisciplinary approach (47). Physicians need to be aware of potential barriers to effective pain management, such as poor overall assessment, patient reluctance in taking opioids or in reporting pain, and physician reluctance in prescribing opioids (48).
A survey of eight clinical vignettes among 570 oncologists highlighted knowledge deficiencies in the management of cancer pain, underscoring the need for improving knowledge on pain management through educational activities (49). Likewise, in a survey of 2000 oncologists in the USA in 2011, only 10% of oncologists said that they would have recommended a ROO for BTcP (50). In another survey of Korean physicians in 2014, it was noted that knowledge of guidelines for the control of cancer pain was associated with improved pain management, although general compliance with guidelines was lacking (51). The lack of compliance with guidelines on BTcP was also highlighted in a more recent survey of oncologists in Spain, in which 99% agreed that guidelines provide the best scientific evidence, but a lower percentage of prescribers (76–92%) were compliant with those guidelines (52). This suggests that educational activities may be helpful in improving the implementation of current guidelines. Other recent surveys of pain specialists in Spain showed that ROOs are still underused (53, 54).
While there is some evidence to suggest that overall knowledge is improving, gaps still remain and more education is needed in order to increase adherence to current guidelines and to optimize management of BTcP, especially considering that a number of valuable therapeutic options are currently available.
Considerations for Daily Practice
A personalized approach is fundamental when prescribing a medication for BTcP, and careful attention should be given to drug choice and route of administration, and to the need for alternative therapeutic options. Clinicians should be confident that background pain medication has been optimized before prescribing any drug for BTcP. Attention should be given to the specific characteristics of the BTcP (onset, predictability, severity, and duration), possible clustering, underlying disease, adherence to medication regimens, and formulation preferences. In this regard, some patients may find inhalatory medications difficult or uncomfortable to use, and patients with severe mucositis may prefer to avoid oral formulations.
Any decision regarding the use of a specific rescue medication for treatment of BTcP, usually an ROO formulation, should be based on four factors: (1) the characteristics of the BTcP, including duration and time to peak intensity; (2) the drug's characteristics, attempting to match the pharmacokinetic profile to the patient's BTcP; (3) previous responses to opioid therapy (e.g., efficacy and tolerability); and (4) the patient's preference for route of administration. Additionally, more attention should be focused on the inappropriate use and misprescribing of all opioids. Patients must be evaluated for possible misuse, and be carefully assessed for risk factors of abuse and aberrant behavior (55). Some centers have adopted specific measures aimed at minimizing abuse (55).
Looking forward to the future, recent studies have suggested that the optimal dose of BTcP opioids might depend on the dose of background opioids (56). If confirmed, this would allow prescribers to personalize therapy for BTcP based on the characteristics of each patient and further define a more precise strategy for its management.
There are still a few unanswered questions regarding the management of BTcP and the possible impact of an optimal pain control on anticancer treatment tolerability and treatment intensity. It has not still been clearly defined whether a better pain management, including background and breakthrough cancer pain, could translate into greater adherence to oncologic therapy and definitely into higher possibility of obtaining tumor response.
Another debate regards the possible immune depressing activity of opioids, thus potentially harming cancer patients under immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) treatment. This possible interaction has been demonstrated both as a repressive effect on the immune system and as a dysregulation of gut microbiota leading to an indirect effect on ICI effectiveness (57). While these aspects need to be further elucidated, no study has specifically investigated the impact of ROOs on the immune system of patients ongoing anticancer treatments.
Conclusions
ROOs have proven efficacy in the treatment of BTcP and they are available in a variety of formulations including for administration via the oral (buccal and sublingual) and nasal transmucosal routes, thus allowing for a personalized approach when prescribing these medications. Careful attention should be paid to drug choice, route of administration and dose titration, as well as the need for alternative therapeutic options, as the tailoring of treatment approaches is essential to allow patients with BTcP to experience good pain control and thus improved quality of life. There are still a few unanswered questions about the interaction between opioid use and anticancer treatments that need to be fully investigated.
Author Contributions
The paper was designed by and written with the contribution of all the authors. All authors discussed the content, commented on all drafts of the manuscript, contributed to the article, and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This study was supported by an unrestricted grant from Angelini Pharma. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.
Author Disclaimer
The authors are fully responsible for all content and editorial decisions for this manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
PB has participated in advisory boards or received conference honoraria from Angelini and Molteni. YE has participated in advisory boards or received conference honoraria from Angelini, Kiowa Kirin, Grunenthal, Ferrer, Mundipharma, Vifor Pharma, Tesaro, Mylan, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dome, BMS, Sanofi Aventis, and Astra Zeneca. FP has participated in the speaker bureau for Angelini, Basilea Pharmaceutica, Gilead, Hikma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, and Sanofi Aventis, and in advisory boards for Angelini, Basilea Pharmaceutica, Correvio, Gilead, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, and Thermo-Fisher.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Patrick Moore, who provided editorial support in the preparation of the manuscript on behalf of Springer Healthcare Communications. We also thank Catherine Rees, of Springer Healthcare Communications, who edited the manuscript prior to submission.
References
1. Fallon M, Giusti R, Aielli F, Hoskin P, Rolke R, Sharma M, et al. Management of cancer pain in adult patients: esmo clinical practice guidelines. Ann Oncol. (2018) 29(Suppl. 4):iv166–91. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy152
2. van den Beuken-van Everdingen MHJ, van Kuijk SMJ, Janssen DJA, Joosten EAJ. Treatment of pain in cancer: towards personalised medicine. Cancers. (2018) 10:502. doi: 10.3390/cancers10120502
3. Mercadante S, Portenoy RK. Breakthrough cancer pain: twenty-five years of study. Pain. (2016) 157:2657–63. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000721
4. Davies A, Buchanan A, Zeppetella G, Porta-Sales J, Likar R, Weismayr W, et al. Breakthrough cancer pain: an observational study of 1000 european oncology patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. (2013) 46:619–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2012.12.009
5. Margarit C, Juliá J, López R, Anton A, Escobar Y, Casas A, et al. Breakthrough cancer pain - still a challenge. J Pain Res. (2012) 5:559–66. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S36428
6. Mercadante S. Treating breakthrough pain in oncology. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. (2018) 18:445–9. doi: 10.1080/14737140.2018.1443813
7. Deandrea S, Corli O, Consonni D, Villani W, Greco MT, Apolone G. Prevalence of breakthrough cancer pain: a systematic review and a pooled analysis of published literature. J Pain Symptom Manage. (2014) 47:57–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.02.015
8. Zeppetella G, O'Doherty CA, Collins S. Prevalence and characteristics of breakthrough pain in cancer patients admitted to a hospice. J Pain Symptom Manage. (2000) 20:87–92. doi: 10.1016/S0885-3924(00)00161-5
9. Reis-Pina P, Acharya A, Barbosa A, Lawlor PG. Episodic cancer pain: patient reporting, prevalence, and clinicodemographic associations at initial cancer pain clinic assessment. Pain Res Manag. (2020) 2020:6190862. doi: 10.1155/2020/6190862
10. Mercadante S, Marchetti P, Cuomo A, Caraceni A, Mediati RD, Mammucari M, et al. Breakthrough cancer pain: preliminary data of the italian oncologic pain multisetting multicentric survey (Iops-Ms). Adv Ther. (2017) 34:120–35. doi: 10.1007/s12325-016-0440-4
11. Mercadante S, Masedu F, Valenti M, Aielli F. Breakthrough pain in patients with head & neck cancer. A secondary analysis of Iops Ms study. Oral Oncol. (2019) 95:87–90. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2019.06.006
12. Mercadante S, Marchetti P, Cuomo A, Caraceni A, Mediati RD, Vellucci R, et al. Factors influencing the clinical presentation of breakthrough pain in cancer patients. Cancers. (2018) 10:175. doi: 10.3390/cancers10060175
13. Zeppetella G. Dynamics of breakthrough pain vs. pharmacokinetics of oral morphine: implications for management. Eur J Cancer Care. (2009) 18:331–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2008.01009.x
14. Smith H A. Comprehensive review of rapid-onset opioids for breakthrough pain. CNS Drugs. (2012) 26:509–35. doi: 10.2165/11630580-000000000-00000
15. Davies A, Zeppetella G, Andersen S, Damkier A, Vejlgaard T, Nauck F, et al. Multi-Centre European study of breakthrough cancer pain: pain characteristics and patient perceptions of current and potential management strategies. Eur J Pain. (2011) 15:756–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2010.12.004
16. Simon SM, Schwartzberg LS. A review of rapid-onset opioids for breakthrough pain in patients with cancer. J Opioid Manag. (2014) 10:207–15. doi: 10.5055/jom.2014.0209
17. Kuo KL, Saokaew S, Stenehjem DD. The pharmacoeconomics of breakthrough cancer pain. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. (2013) 27:167–75. doi: 10.3109/15360288.2013.787137
18. Schug SA, Ting S. Fentanyl formulations in the management of pain: an update. Drugs. (2017) 77:747–63. doi: 10.1007/s40265-017-0727-z
19. Bornemann-Cimenti H, Wejbora M, Szilagyi IS, Sandner-Kiesling A. Fentanyl for the treatment of tumor-related breakthrough pain. Dtsch Arztebl Int. (2013) 110:271–7. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2013.0271
20. Zeppetella G, Davies A, Eijgelshoven I, Jansen JP. A network meta-analysis of the efficacy of opioid analgesics for the management of breakthrough cancer pain episodes. J Pain Symptom Manage. (2014) 47:772–85.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.05.020
21. Jandhyala R, Fullarton JR, Bennett MI. Efficacy of rapid-onset oral fentanyl formulations vs. oral morphine for cancer-related breakthrough pain: a meta-analysis of comparative trials. J Pain Symptom Manage. (2013) 46:573–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2012.09.009
22. Masel EK, Landthaler R, Gneist M, Watzke HH. Fentanyl buccal tablet for breakthrough cancer pain in clinical practice: results of the non-interventional prospective study erkentnis. Support Care Cancer. (2018) 26:491–7. doi: 10.1007/s00520-017-3853-y
23. Pointreau Y, Bensadoun RJ, Bera G, Sire C, Ruffier A, Janoray G, et al. Patient satisfaction with fentanyl pectin nasal spray in breakthrough cancer pain management during radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Patient Prefer Adherence. (2020) 14:859–68. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S246757
24. Jandhyala R, Fullarton J. Various formulations of oral transmucosal fentanyl for breakthrough cancer pain: an indirect mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. BMJ Support Palliat Care. (2012) 2:156–62. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2011-000139
25. Zecca E, Brunelli C, Centurioni F, Manzoni A, Pigni A, Caraceni A. Fentanyl sublingual tablets versus subcutaneous morphine for the management of severe cancer pain episodes in patients receiving opioid treatment: a double-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial. J Clin Oncol. (2017) 35:759–65. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.9504
26. Cuomo A, Cascella M, Forte CA, Bimonte S, Esposito G, De Santis S, et al. Careful breakthrough cancer pain treatment through rapid-onset transmucosal fentanyl improves the quality of life in cancer patients: results from the best multicenter study. J Clin Med. (2020) 9:1003. doi: 10.3390/jcm9041003
27. Davies AN, Dickman A, Reid C, Stevens AM, Zeppetella G, Science Committee of the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland. The management of cancer-related breakthrough pain: recommendations of a task group of the science committee of the association for palliative medicine of Great Britain and Ireland. Eur J Pain. (2009) 13:331–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2008.06.014
28. Nalamachu S, Hassman D, Wallace MS, Dumble S, Derrick R, Howell J. Long-term effectiveness and tolerability of sublingual fentanyl orally disintegrating tablet for the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain. Curr Med Res Opin. (2011) 27:519–30. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2010.545380
29. Hans GH. Treatment of breakthrough cancer pain: to titrate or to proportionate? Curr Med Res Opin. (2013) 29:1523–6. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2013.837816
30. Kleeberg UR, Filbet M, Zeppetella G. Fentanyl buccal tablet for breakthrough cancer pain: why titrate? Pain Pract. (2011) 11:185–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2010.00414.x
31. Mercadante S, Ferrera P, Adile C, Casuccio A. Fentanyl buccal tablets for breakthrough pain in highly tolerant cancer patients: preliminary data on the proportionality between breakthrough pain dose and background dose. J Pain Symptom Manage. (2011) 42:464–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.12.010
32. Mercadante S, Porzio G, Aielli F, Averna L, Ficorella C, Casuccio A. The use of fentanyl buccal tablets for breakthrough pain by using doses proportional to opioid basal regimen in a home care setting. Support Care Cancer. (2013) 21:2335–9. doi: 10.1007/s00520-013-1799-2
33. Mercadante S, Gatti A, Porzio G, Lo Presti C, Aielli F, Adile C, et al. Dosing fentanyl buccal tablet for breakthrough cancer pain: dose titration versus proportional doses. Curr Med Res Opin. (2012) 28:963–8. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2012.683112
34. Yen TY, Chiou JF, Chiang WY, Su WH, Huang MY, Hu MH, et al. Proportional dose of rapid-onset opioid in breakthrough cancer pain management: an open-label, multicenter study. Medicine. (2018) 97:e11593. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011593
35. Smith HS. Considerations in selecting rapid-onset opioids for the management of breakthrough pain. J Pain Res. (2013) 6:189–200. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S40745
36. Fillingim RB, King CD, Ribeiro-Dasilva MC, Rahim-Williams B, Riley III JL. Sex, gender, and pain: a review of recent clinical and experimental findings. J Pain. (2009) 10:447–85. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2008.12.001
37. Ps SK, Balan A, Sankar A, Bose T. Radiation induced oral mucositis. Indian J Palliat Care. (2009) 15:95–102. doi: 10.4103/0973-1075.58452
38. Finn AL, Hill WC, Tagarro I, Gever LN. Absorption and tolerability of fentanyl buccal soluble film (Fbsf) in patients with cancer in the presence of oral mucositis. J Pain Res. (2011) 4:245–51. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S22641
39. Chang A, Roeland EJ, Atayee RS, Revta C, Ma JD. Transmucosal immediate-release fentanyl for breakthrough cancer pain: opportunities and challenges for use in palliative care. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. (2015) 29:247–60. doi: 10.3109/15360288.2015.1063560
40. Bossi P, Locati L, Bergamini C, Mirabile A, Granata R, Imbimbo M, et al. Fentanyl pectin nasal spray as treatment for incident predictable breakthrough pain (Btp) in oral mucositis induced by chemoradiotherapy in head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol. (2014) 50:884–7. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2014.06.013
41. Davis MP, Srivastava M. Demographics, assessment and management of pain in the elderly. Drugs Aging. (2003) 20:23–57. doi: 10.2165/00002512-200320010-00003
42. Pautex S, Vogt-Ferrier N, Zulian GB. Breakthrough pain in elderly patients with cancer: treatment options. Drugs Aging. (2014) 31:405–11. doi: 10.1007/s40266-014-0181-5
43. López Alarcón MD, Estévez FV, Cabezón-Gutiérrez L, Padrós MC, Martín-Arroyo JMT, Rebollo MA, et al. Expert consensus on the management of breakthrough cancer pain in older patients. A Delphi study. J Geriatr Oncol. (2019) 10:643–52. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2019.03.012
44. Kharasch ED, Whittington D, Hoffer C. Influence of hepatic and intestinal cytochrome P4503a activity on the acute disposition and effects of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate. Anesthesiology. (2004) 101:729–37. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200409000-00022
45. Bail JR, Traeger L, Pirl WF, Bakitas MA. Psychological symptoms in advanced cancer. Semin Oncol Nurs. (2018) 34:241–51. doi: 10.1016/j.soncn.2018.06.005
46. Ripamonti CI, Bossi P, Santini D, Fallon M. Pain related to cancer treatments and diagnostic procedures: a no man's land? Ann Oncol. (2014) 25:1097–106. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu011
47. Holdcroft A, Power I. Recent developments: management of pain. BMJ. (2003) 326:635–9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7390.635
48. Pergolizzi JV, Gharibo C, Ho KY. Treatment considerations for cancer pain: a global perspective. Pain Pract. (2015) 15:778–92. doi: 10.1111/papr.12253
49. Breuer B, Chang VT, Von Roenn JH, von Gunten C, Neugut AI, Kaplan R, et al. How well do medical oncologists manage chronic cancer pain? A national survey. Oncologist. (2015) 20:202–9. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0276
50. Breuer B, Fleishman SB, Cruciani RA, Portenoy RK. Medical oncologists' attitudes and practice in cancer pain management: a national survey. J Clin Oncol. (2011) 29:4769–75. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.35.0561
51. Kim DY, Ahn JS, Lee KH, Kim YC, Lee J, Kim SY, et al. Nationwide survey of knowledge of and compliance with cancer pain management guidelines by korean physicians. Cancer Res Treat. (2014) 46:131–40. doi: 10.4143/crt.2014.46.2.131
52. López López R, Camps Herrero C, Khosravi-Shahi P, Guillem Porta V, Carrato Mena A, Garcia-Foncillas J, et al. Oncologist's knowledge and implementation of guidelines for breakthrough cancer pain in Spain: Conoce study. Clin Transl Oncol. (2018) 20:613–8. doi: 10.1007/s12094-017-1756-5
53. Estévez FV, Alarcón MDL, Mayoral V, de Madariaga M, Margarit C, Duran JA, et al. Current management of breakthrough cancer pain according to physicians from pain units in Spain. Clin Transl Oncol. (2019) 21:1168–76. doi: 10.1007/s12094-019-02044-8
54. García-Mata J, Álamo C, de Castro J, Contreras J, Gálvez R, Jara C, et al. A survey of perceptions, attitudes, knowledge and practices of medical oncologists about cancer pain management in Spain. Clin Transl Oncol. (2018) 20:1061–71. doi: 10.1007/s12094-017-1826-8
55. Olarte. Breakthrough Cancer Pain and Rational Drug Use. Support Care Cancer. (2017) 25(Suppl. 1):11–7. doi: 10.1007/s00520-017-3636-5
56. Pantano F, Manca P, Armento G, Zeppola T, Onorato A, Iuliani M, et al. Breakthrough cancer pain clinical features and differential opioids response: a machine learning approach in patients with cancer from the Iops-Ms study. JCO Precis Oncol. (2020) 4:1339–49. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.e24150
Keywords: breakthrough cancer pain, fentanyl, management, rapid-onset opioids, personalized approach
Citation: Bossi P, Escobar Y and Pea F (2022) Rapid-Onset Opioids for Management of Breakthrough Cancer Pain: Considerations for Daily Practice. Front. Pain Res. 3:893530. doi: 10.3389/fpain.2022.893530
Received: 10 March 2022; Accepted: 18 April 2022;
Published: 26 May 2022.
Edited by:
David Balayssac, Université Clermont Auvergne, FranceReviewed by:
Dupoiron Denis, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest (ICO), FranceNicole N. Scheff, University of Pittsburgh, United States
Copyright © 2022 Bossi, Escobar and Pea. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Paolo Bossi, paolo.bossi@unibs.it
†ORCID: Paolo Bossi orcid.org/0000-0003-0135-0224
Yolanda Escobar orcid.org/0000-0001-5492-6739
Federico Pea orcid.org/0000-0002-6966-7167