Safe, effective, and evidence-based management of cancer-related pain is a cornerstone of comprehensive cancer care. Despite increasing interest in and efforts to improve its management, pain remains poorly controlled in nearly half of all patients with cancer, with little change in the past 20 years. Limited training in pain assessment and management, overestimation of providers' own skills to treat pain, and failure to refer patients to pain specialists can result in suboptimal pain management with devastating effects on quality of life, physical functioning, and increased psychological distress. From a thorough assessment of cancer-related pain to appropriate treatments that may include opiates, adjuvant medications, nerve blocks, and nondrug interventions, this article is intended as a brief overview of the mechanisms and types of pain as well as a review of current, new, and promising approaches to its management.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) affects 30% to 40% of patients with cancer with long-lasting disability. Scrambler therapy (ST) appeared to benefit patients in uncontrolled trials, so we performed a randomized sham-controlled Phase II trial of ST. Methods: The primary end point was “average pain” after 28 days on the Numeric Rating Scale. Each received ten 30-minute sessions of ST on the dermatomes above the painful areas, or sham treatment on the back, typically at L3-5 where the nerve roots would enter the spinal cord. Outcomes included the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)-CIPN and the EORTC CIPN-20 scale. Patients were evaluated before treatment (day 0), day 10, and days 28, 60, and 90. Results: Data regarding pain as a primary outcome were collected for 33 of the 35 patients. There were no significant differences between the sham and the “real” ST group at day 10, 28, 60, or 90, for average pain, the BPI, or EORTC CIPN-20. Individual responses were noted during the ST treatment on the real arm, but most dissipated by day 30. There was improvement in the sensory subscale of the CIPN-20 at 2 months in the “real” group ( P = .14). All “real” patients wanted to continue treatment if available. Discussion: We observed no difference between sham and real ST CIPN treatment. Potential reasons include at least the following: ST does not work; the sham treatment had some effect; small sample size with heterogeneous patients; misplaced electrodes on an area of nonpainful but damaged nerves; or a combination of these factors.

Goals-of-care conversations led by the oncologist are key to advancing the prognostic awareness of the patient and family, but too frequently do not occur or are ineffective in leading to advance care planning and appropriate planning for end-of-life care. At our institution, a phase 3 trial of palliative care added to usual care of phase 1 clinical trial patients gave us the opportunity to develop an electronic medical record–based goals-of-care template for discussions. We can complete all or parts of the form with patients, use it to ensure full coverage of important tasks such as planning for transition to hospice and legacy work, and make sure all the providers are “on the same page” about treatment plans. We have this within our EMR as a SmartPhrase that can be brought up for completion, and have found that it helps to clarify patient understanding. The form can also be used to document advance care planning for both clinical care and billing. Although this tool has not been formally tested, we have found that it is effective in day-to-day practice as well as in research, and we share it here.