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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Building a comparative evidence framework for breakthrough cancer pain.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Impact of a Nurse-Led Cancer Pain Management Model on Breakthrough Pain and Patient Satisfaction: A Quasi-Experimental Before-After Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
41793478What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.