Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41793478›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026

A scoping review of breakthrough cancer pain: mapping the evidence landscape.

Mellar Davis, Russell Portenoy, Andrew Davies, Sebastiano Mercadante, Akhila Reddy, M R Rajagopal, Eduardo Bruera

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Building a comparative evidence framework for breakthrough cancer pain.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Mellar DavisDepartment of Supportive Oncology, Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, NC, USA. Mellar.Davis@advocatehealth.org.
Russell PortenoyDepartment of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Andrew DaviesTrinity College Dublin, University College Dublin, Our Lady's Hospice Care Services, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Sebastiano MercadanteMain Regional Center for Pain Relief and Palliative Care, La Maddalena Cancer Center, Palermo, Italy.
Akhila ReddyDepartment of Palliative, Rehabilitation, and Integrative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
M R RajagopalPallium India Trust, Aisha Memorial Hospital Building, Paruthikuzhy, India.
Eduardo BrueraDepartment of Palliative, Rehabilitation, Integrative Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreakthrough pain (BTP) in cancer populations is characterized by heterogeneous definitions, assessment approaches, and management strategies. This scoping review mapped the available evidence to characterize BTP concepts, describe the evidence base, and identify knowledge gaps.

methodsFollowing JBI methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for studies published January 1991-June 2025. Included studies employed quantitative designs investigating BTP definition, assessment, characteristics, or pharmacological management in adult cancer patients. BTP was defined conceptually as transient pain exacerbation occurring with controlled background pain; studies using varying operational criteria were included and categorized to examine definitional heterogeneity. Data were extracted by one reviewer using a piloted form and synthesized narratively with stratification by era, definition category, population, and intervention type. Consistent with scoping review standards, formal quality appraisal was not conducted; this review maps evidence without assessing strength or making recommendations.

results146 studies (33 RCTs with 3,471 participants; 113 observational studies with 9,841 participants) were included. While 90% endorsed BTP as transient severe pain on controlled background pain, operational definitions varied substantially regarding pain intensity thresholds (range: no threshold to ≤ 4/10 background, ≥ 7/10 episode), opioid requirements (61% required regular opioids), and temporal criteria (12% specified duration limits). BTP characteristics showed marked heterogeneity: onset seconds to 30 min, duration 3-240 min, frequency 1 to > 10 episodes daily. Prevalence estimates ranged 33-95%, associated with definitional variation. Clinical trials predominantly evaluated transmucosal fentanyl using enriched enrollment (excluding 15-28% non-responders) and focused on pain intensity at 15-30 min. Industry sponsored 82% of trials. Evidence concentrated in resource-rich settings; minimal data from resource-limited regions.

conclusionsThis scoping review maps heterogeneous evidence characterized by inconsistent definitions, selected populations, short-term outcomes, and geographic concentration. Key knowledge gaps include: standardized operational definitions, patient-centered functional outcomes, long-term efficacy and safety data, evidence from diverse settings and populations, and integration of pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. The review provides a descriptive landscape but does not assess evidence quality or support treatment recommendations. Future guidance development requires expert consensus processes incorporating mapped evidence, clinical experience, resource availability, and patient values. Addressing identified gaps through rigorous, pragmatic research will strengthen the evidence base for BTP management.

Indexed as

Breakthrough PainCancer PainNeoplasmsAnalgesics, OpioidEvidence GapsHumansPain ManagementPain MeasurementAnalgesics, OpioidBreakthrough painCancer painEpisodic painEvidence synthesisKnowledge gapsScoping review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.