A comprehensive review of the literature yielded 22 outcome measures that assessed pain in adults with a diagnosis of cancer. Of these, 3 measures received the highest rating (4 = highly recommend) and 4 received the second highest rating (3 = recommend). Eleven measures are recommended as reasonable to use, but it is important to note that there are limited studies using these measures in the cancer population to support a higher recommendation. Three of the outcomes reviewed are not recommended because they have poor psychometric properties and/or poor clinical utility. The ratings of the 22 assessed outcome measures are presented in Table 4.
The purposes of this review were to systematically identify and analyze outcome measures for assessing pain in the adult cancer population and to recommend outcome measures with adequate psychometric properties and clinical usefulness. Two of the recommended measures are unidimensional in nature and typically investigate pain intensity or severity, whereas 5 are considered multidimensional and investigate additional characteristics such as pain quality and interference with daily activity. Three measures were highly recommended, and 4 additional measures were recommended. The clinical utility (Table 3) and psychometric properties (Table 4) of the highly recommended and recommended measures are discussed in the following text.
The MPQ-SF has been found to be sensitive to change in 3 groups of patients administered different types of analgesia—epidural anesthetic for labor pain, transcutaneous nerve stimulation for musculoskeletal pain, and analgesic drugs for postsurgical pain.11 There is no described MDC, but an MCID has been reported for a mean improvement in total scores of more than 5 on the 0 to 45 score for the 15 pain descriptors.9 , 18 The MPQ-SF has been administered in studies of a variety of cancer diagnoses including breast, colorectal, lymphoma, prostate, lung, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecological, head and neck, kidney, and melanoma.15 , 19
Psychometrics for the NRS have been reported in a number of patient conditions, including a variety of cancers. In adults with a diagnosis of cancer, Jensen23 reported good stability for the NRS rating of worst pain (r = 0.93) and average pain (r = 0.78) but not for current pain (r = 0.59) during a 2-day period. In another study, the coefficient α for the NRS used for measuring present, average, worst, and least pain in a population with cancer was 0.81.24 Reproducibility was 0.86 (Cohen's K) when measuring pain exacerbations in a population of patients with advanced cancer with pain.25 Convergent validity of the NRS compared with the VAS is strong (r = 0.847, P = .001) in a population with cancer.26 The NRS has demonstrated good criterion validity through significant correlations with analgesic medication and other specific cancer-related symptoms.23 A reported 2-point change represents a clinically meaningful difference.27 , 28 Responses on the NRS were able to predict decreases in functioning in patients with various cancer diagnoses.29 For cancer pain, NRS scores can be categorized as mild (1-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10).24 , 30 Scores that are greater than 5 may have an adverse effect on health-related quality of life.31
The NRS has been used extensively in both clinical and research settings, with numerous studies involving patients with the following cancer diagnoses: chronic cancer pain, breast cancer, neuropathic cancer pain, head and neck, palliative care, liver, pancreatic, gastric, colorectal, hematologic, lung, genitourinary, and multiple myeloma.23–26 , 29 , 30 The NRS has the disadvantages of many unidimensional measures in that it measures only one aspect of the pain experience (intensity) where the overall pain experience in adults with a diagnosis of cancer may require a more multidimensional measurement tool.32
Despite the strong reported psychometric properties for the VAS, there is evidence that this tool may be more difficult than other pain measures for patients to understand and complete.23 One study found that 16% of 101 palliative care patients were unable to complete the VAS even with assistance from a nurse, and this number increased to 84% as the disease progressed.37 Research has shown that administering the VAS to elderly patients is associated with a higher failure of completion rates than other unidimensional tools such as the NRS.38 , 39 In addition, many cancer survivors are prescribed opioids for pain from cancer and/or treatments; difficulty understanding the VAS has been found when patients are taking this type of medication.40
The PDI has been used in 3 cross-sectional studies in women with a diagnosis of breast cancer.79–82 Reliability of the PDI when administered to the general chronic pain population was 0.87 (Cronbach α).72 The PDI has been shown to have acceptable concurrent and construct validity in individuals with chronic pain.72 The PDI has a reported MCID of 6 points for individuals with low back pain.83 While the PDI was developed for patients with chronic pain from multiple causes, including cancer-related pain, published psychometrics for the PDI when administered to only a cancer population could not be found. The PDI has been used in individuals with breast and metastatic cancers. Since the measure has good psychometric properties in mixed chronic pain populations, it is therefore still a recommended measure.
There are a variety of factors that should be considered when interpreting the Task Force recommendations. An outcome measure may have been excluded in this review because of a lack of published data; the authors are aware that new studies may have been published after August 15, 2016. For measures not recommended at this time, additional information may become available that might elevate the Task Force recommendation in the future. The literature search was limited to English-language journals; therefore, journals in other languages were not reviewed and could limit the number of measures reviewed. Researchers and clinicians are encouraged to review the Task Force recommendations, as well as each specific outcome measure, for more extensive information. While this article can serve as a guide, ultimately, it is up to clinicians and researchers to identify the best available evidence in addition to patient values and expectations in order to appropriately administer the correct pain outcome measure in the cancer population.84
The authors thank Sarah Foley, SPT, Megan Hass, SPT, and librarian John Mitchell, for their assistance with the literature search and EDGE forms.
1. International Association for the Study of Pain
. IASP taxonomy. In: Merskey H, Bogduk N, eds. Part III: Pain
Terms, A Current List With Definitions and Notes on Usage. IASP Press; 2012.
2. Nijs J, Leysen L, Adriaenssens N, et al Pain
treatment: guidelines for the clinical classification of predominant neuropathic, nociceptive and central sensitization pain
. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(6):659–663.
3. Rietman JS, Dijkstra PU, Debreczeni R, Geertzen JH, Robinson DP, de Vries J. Impairments, disabilities and health related quality of life after treatment for breast cancer
: a follow-up study 2.7 years after surgery. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26(2):78–84.
4. International Association for the Study of Pain
. Global Year Against Cancer Pain
. IASP Press; 2008.
5. van den Beuken-van MH, Hochstenbach LM, Joosten EA, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Janssen DJ. Update on prevalence of pain
in patients with cancer
: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain
Symptom Manage. 2016;51(6):1070.e1079–1090.e1079.
6. Burton AW, Chai T, Smith LS. Cancer pain
assessment. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2014;8(2):112–116.
7. Dalal S, Bruera E. Assessing cancer pain
. Curr Pain
Headache Rep. 2012;16(4):314–324.
8. Harrington S, Gilchrist L, Sander A. Breast Cancer EDGE
Task Force outcomes: clinical measures of pain
. Rehabil Oncol. 2014;32(1):13–21.
9. Burckhardt CS, Jones KD. Adult measures of pain
: the McGill Pain
Questionnaire (MPQ), Rheumatoid Arthritis Pain
Scale (RAPS), Short-Form McGill Pain
Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Verbal Descriptive Scale (VDS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and West Haven-Yale Multidisciplinary Pain
Inventory (WHYMPI). Arthritis Care Res. 2003;49(S5):S96–S104.
10. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain
: Visual Analog Scale for pain
), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain
), McGill Pain
Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain
Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain
Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain
Scale (SF-36 BPS), and measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain
(ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(S11):S240-S252.
11. Melzack R. The Short-Form McGill Pain
12. Adelmanesh F, Arvantaj A, Rashki H, Ketabchi S, Montazeri A, Raissi G. Results from the translation and adaptation of the Iranian Short-Form McGill Pain
Questionnaire (I-SF-MPQ): preliminary evidence of its reliability, construct validity and sensitivity in an Iranian pain
population. Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Ther Technol. 2011;3(1):27.
13. McDonald DD, Weiskopf CS. Adult patients' postoperative pain
descriptions and responses to the Short-Form McGill Pain
Questionnaire. Clin Nurs Res. 2001;10(4):442–452.
14. Burckhardt C, Bjelle A. A Swedish version of the Short-Form McGill Pain
Questionnaire. Scand J Rheumatol. 1994;23(2):77–81.
15. Dudgeon D, Raubertas RF, Rosenthal SN. The Short-Form McGill Pain
Questionnaire in chronic cancer pain
. J Pain
Symptom Manage. 1993;8(4):191–195.
16. Hollen PJ, Gralla RJ, Kris MG, et al Measurement of quality of life in patients with lung cancer
in multicenter trials of new therapies. Psychometric assessment of the Lung Cancer
Symptom Scale. Cancer
17. Shin H, Kim K, Kim YH, Chee W, Im E-O. A comparison of two pain
measures for Asian American cancer
patients. West J Nurs Res. 2008;30(2):181–196.
18. Strand LI, Ljunggren AE, Bogen B, Ask T, Johnsen TB. The Short-Form McGill Pain
Questionnaire as an outcome measure
: test-retest reliability and responsiveness to change. Eur J Pain
19. Gauthier LR, Young A, Dworkin RH, et al Validation of the Short-Form McGill Pain
Questionnaire-2 in younger and older people with cancer pain
. J Pain
20. Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain
intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain
21. Jensen MP, Turner JA, Romano JM, Fisher LD. Comparative reliability and validity of chronic pain
intensity measures. Pain
22. Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF, et al Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain
intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain
Symptom Manage. 2011;41(6):1073–1093.
23. Jensen MP. The validity and reliability of pain
measures in adults with cancer
. J Pain
24. Paul SM, Zelman DC, Smith M, Miaskowski C. Categorizing the severity of cancer pain
: further exploration of the establishment of cutpoints. Pain
25. Brunelli C, Zecca E, Martini C, et al Comparison of numerical and verbal rating scales to measure pain
exacerbations in patients with chronic cancer pain
. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:42.
26. Paice JA, Cohen FL. Validity of a verbally administered Numeric Rating Scale to measure cancer pain
27. Childs JD, Piva SR, Fritz JM. Responsiveness of the numeric pain
rating scale in patients with low back pain
. Spine. 2005;30(11):1331–1334.
28. Farrar JT, Young JP, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole RM. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain
intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain
rating scale. Pain
29. Dodd MJ, Miaskowski C, Paul SM. Symptom clusters and their effect on the functional status of patients with cancer
. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2001;28(3):465–470.
30. Serlin RC, Mendoza TR, Nakamura Y, Edwards KR, Cleeland CS. When is cancer pain
mild, moderate or severe? Grading pain
severity by its interference with function. Pain
31. Katz J, Poleshuck EL, Andrus CH, et al Risk factors for acute pain
and its persistence following breast cancer
32. Clark WC, Ferrer-Brechner T, Janal MN, Carroll JD, Yang JC. The dimensions of pain
: a multidimensional scaling comparison of cancer
patients and healthy volunteers. Pain
33. Scott J, Huskisson E. Graphic representation of pain
34. Gallagher EJ, Liebman M, Bijur PE. Prospective validation of clinically important changes in pain
severity measured on a Visual Analog Scale. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;38(6):633–638.
35. Kremer E, Atkinson JH, Ignelzi R. Measurement of pain
: patient preference does not confound pain
36. Fernández-Lao C, Cantarero-Villanueva I, Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Del-Moral-Ávila R, Menjón-Beltrán S, Arroyo-Morales M. Widespread mechanical pain
hypersensitivity as a sign of central sensitization after breast cancer
surgery: comparison between mastectomy and lumpectomy. Pain
37. Bruera E, Kuehn N, Miller MJ, Selmser P, Macmillan K. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): a simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. J Palliat Care. 1991;7(2):6–9.
38. Gagliese L. Assessment of pain
in elderly people. In: Turk DC, Melzack R, eds. Handbook of Pain
Assessment. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2002:119–133.
39. Jensen M, Karoly P, Turk D, Melzack R. Handbook of Pain
Assessment. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2001.
40. Walsh T. Practical problems in pain
41. Cleeland C, Ryan K. Pain
assessment: global use of the Brief Pain
Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1994;23(2):129–138.
42. Caraceni A, Mendoza TR, Mencaglia E, et al A validation study of an Italian version of the Brief Pain
Inventory (Breve Questionario per la Valutazione del Dolore). Pain
43. Cleeland CS, Nakamura Y, Mendoza TR, Edwards KR, Douglas J, Serlin RC. Dimensions of the impact of cancer pain
in a four country sample: new information from multidimensional scaling. Pain
44. Tan G, Jensen MP, Thornby JI, Shanti BF. Validation of the Brief Pain
Inventory for chronic nonmalignant pain
. J Pain
46. Daut RL, Cleeland CS, Flanery RC. Development of the Wisconsin Brief Pain
Questionnaire to assess pain
and other diseases. Pain
47. Wu JS, Beaton D, Smith PM, Hagen NA. Patterns of pain
and interference in patients with painful bone metastases: a Brief Pain
Inventory validation study. J Pain
Symptom Manage. 2010;39(2):230–240.
48. Atkinson TM, Rosenfeld BD, Sit L, et al Using confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate construct validity of the Brief Pain
Inventory (BPI). J Pain
Symptom Manage. 2011;41(3):558–565.
49. Cleeland S. The Brief Pain
Inventory; User Guide [Online]. Huston, TX: MD Anderson Cancer
50. Kaufman B, Wu Y, Amonkar M, et al Impact of lapatinib monotherapy on QOL and pain
symptoms in patients with HER2+ relapsed or refractory inflammatory breast cancer
. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(5):1065–1073.
51. Lyon DE, Schubert C, Taylor AG. Pilot study of cranial stimulation for symptom management in breast cancer
. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2010;37(4):476–483.
52. Leppert W, Majkowicz M. Polish brief pain
inventory for pain
assessment and monitoring of pain
treatment in patients with cancer
. J Palliat Med. 2010;13(6):663–668.
53. Cleeland CS, Body JJ, Stopeck A, et al Pain
outcomes in patients with advanced breast cancer
and bone metastases. Cancer
54. Ngamkham S, Vincent C, Finnegan L, Holden JE, Wang ZJ, Wilkie DJ. The McGill Pain
Questionnaire as a multidimensional measure in people with cancer
: an integrative review. Pain
Manag Nurs. 2012;13(1):27–51.
55. Graham C, Bond SS, Gerkovich MM, Cook MR. Use of the McGill Pain
Questionnaire in the assessment of cancer pain
: replicability and consistency. Pain
56. Stephen A. Pain
measurement tools for clinical practice and research. AANA J. 1996;64(2):133–140.
57. McGuire DB. Assessment of pain
inpatients using the McGill Pain
Questionnaire. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1984;11(6):32–37.
58. Wilkie DJ, Huang HY, Reilly N, Cain KC. Nociceptive and neuropathic pain
in patients with lung cancer
: a comparison of pain
quality descriptors. J Pain
Symptom Manage. 2001;22(5):899–910.
59. Melzack R. The McGill Pain
Questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods. Pain
60. Kremer EF, Atkinson JH Jr, Ignelzi RJ. Pain
measurement: the affective dimensional measure of the McGill pain
questionnaire with a cancer pain
61. Ahles TA, Martin JB. Cancer pain
: a multidimensional perspective. Hosp J. 1992;8(1/2):25–48.
62. Beck SL. The therapeutic use of music for cancer
. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1990;18(8):1327–1337.
63. Sist TC, Florio GA, Miner MF, Lema MJ, Zevon MA. The relationship between depression and pain
language in cancer
and chronic non-cancer pain
patients. J Pain
Symptom Manage. 1998;15(6):350–358.
64. Boureau F, Doubrere JF, Luu M. Study of verbal description in neuropathic pain
65. Dubuisson D, Melzack R. Classification of clinical pain
descriptions by multiple group discriminant analysis. Exp Neurol. 1976;51(2):480–487.
66. Wagstaff S, Smith OV, Wood PH. Verbal pain
descriptors used by patients with arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1985;44(4):262–265.
67. Wilkie DJ, Keefe FJ. Coping strategies of patients with lung cancer
. Clin J Pain
68. Walsh T, Leber B. Measurement of chronic pain
—Visual Analog Scales and McGill Melzack Pain
Questionnaire compared. Adv Pain
Res Ther. 1982;5:897–899.
69. Wilkie DJ, Savedra MC, Holzemer WL, Tesler MD, Paul SM. Use of the McGill Pain
Questionnaire to measure pain
: a meta-analysis. Nurs Res. 1990;39(1):36–41.
70. Donaldson GW. The factorial structure and stability of the McGill Pain
Questionnaire in patients experiencing oral mucositis following bone marrow transplantation. Pain
71. Fischer DJ, Villines D, Kim YO, Epstein JB, Wilkie DJ. Anxiety, depression, and pain
: differences by primary cancer
. Support Care Cancer
72. Tait RC, Pollard CA, Margolis RB, Duckro PN, Krause SJ. The Pain
Disability Index: psychometric and validity data. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1987;68(7):438–441.
73. Tait RC, Chibnall JT, Krause S. The Pain
Disability Index: psychometric properties. Pain
74. Pollard CA. Preliminary validity study of the Pain
Disability Index. Percept Mot Skills. 1984;59(3):974.
75. Tait RC, Chibnall JT. Factor structure of the Pain
Disability Index in workers' compensation claimants with low back injuries. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(6):1141–1146.
76. Cook AJ, Roberts DA, Henderson MD, Van Winkle LC, Chastain DC, Hamill-Ruth RJ. Electronic pain
questionnaires: a randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain
77. Mewes R, Rief W, Stenzel N, Glaesmer H, Martin A, Brähler E. What is “normal” disability? An investigation of disability in the general population. Pain
78. Soer R, Köke AJ, Vroomen PC, et al Extensive validation of the Pain
Disability Index in 3 groups of patients with musculoskeletal pain
. Spine. 2013;38(9):E562–E568.
79. Ugurlu M, Ugurlu GK, Erten Ş, Kaymak SU, Çaykoylu A. Reliability and factorial validity of the Turkish version of the Pain
Disability Index in rheumatic patients with chronic pain
. Arch Rheumatol. 2016;31(3):265–271.
80. Kudel I, Edwards RR, Kozachik S, et al Predictors and consequences of multiple persistent postmastectomy pains. J Pain
Symptom Manage. 2007;34(6):619–627.
81. Hack TF, Cohen L, Katz J, Robson LS, Goss P. Physical and psychological morbidity after axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer
. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(1):143–149.
82. Bishop SR, Warr D. Coping, catastrophizing and chronic pain
in breast cancer
. J Behav Med. 2003;26(3):265–281.
83. Hawk C, Rupert RL, Colonvega M, Boyd J, Hall S. Comparison of bioenergetic synchronization technique and customary chiropractic care for older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain
. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006;29(7):540–549.
84. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd ed. London, England: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.