State of the evidence: Cannabinoids and cancer pain-A systematic review

Narrative bias ("spin") is common in randomised trials and systematic reviews of cannabinoids for pain

ABSTRACT

We define narrative bias as a tendency to interpret information as part of a larger story or pattern, regardless of whether the facts support the full narrative. Narrative bias in title and abstract means that results reported in the title and abstract of an article are done so in a way that could distort their interpretation and mislead readers who had not read the whole article. Narrative bias is often referred to as "spin." It is prevalent in abstracts of scientific papers and is impactful because abstracts are often the only part of an article read. We found no extant narrative bias instrument suitable for exploring both efficacy and safety statements in randomized trials and systematic reviews of pain. We constructed a 6-point instrument with clear instructions and tested it on randomised trials and systematic reviews of cannabinoids and cannabis-based medicines for pain, with updated searches to April 2021. The instrument detected moderate or severe narrative bias in the title and abstract of 24% (8 of 34) of randomised controlled trials and 17% (11 of 64) of systematic reviews; narrative bias for efficacy and safety occurred equally. There was no significant or meaningful association between narrative bias and study characteristics in correlation or cluster analyses. Bias was always in favour of the experimental cannabinoid or cannabis-based medicine. Put simply, reading title and abstract only could give an incorrect impression of efficacy or safety in about 1 in 5 papers reporting on these products.

Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol for Pain Treatment-An Update on the Evidence

In light of the current International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines, the topic of cannabinoids in relation to pain remains controversial, with insufficient research presently available. Cannabinoids are an attractive pain management option due to their synergistic effects when administered with opioids, thereby also limiting the extent of respiratory depression. On their own, however, cannabinoids have been shown to have the potential to relieve specific subtypes of chronic pain in adults, although controversies remain. Among these subtypes are neuropathic, musculoskeletal, cancer, and geriatric pain. Another interesting feature is their effectiveness in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Analgesic benefits are hypothesized to extend to HIV-associated neuropathic pain, as well as to lower back pain in the elderly. The aim of this article is to provide an up-to-date review of the existing preclinical as well as clinical studies, along with relevant systematic reviews addressing the roles of various types of cannabinoids in neuropathic pain settings. The impact of cannabinoids in chronic cancer pain and in non-cancer conditions, such as multiple sclerosis and headaches, are all discussed, as well as novel techniques of administration and relevant mechanisms of action.

Medicinal Cannabis and Implications for Workplace Health and Safety: Scoping Review of Systematic Reviews

PURPOSE

Although medicinal cannabis is prescribed for conditions such as pain, epilepsy, nausea and vomiting during cancer treatment, evidence about associated adverse side effects is still evolving. Because adverse events (AEs) might impact the performance of workers, it is important to consider their implications on workplace health and safety (WHS). This study aimed to map the types and prevalence of the AEs associated with medical cannabis and articulate how those events could impact WHS.

METHODS

A scoping review of systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses published between 2015 and March 2021 was performed to identify the AEs of medicinal cannabis in adults. Publications in English and full text available online were collected from Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science.

RESULTS

Of 1,326 papers identified from the initial search, 31 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. The studies reported various AEs with the most predominant being sedation, nausea/vomiting, dizziness, and euphoria. Acute and chronic pain was the most prevalent disorder under review.

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse events associated with the use of medicinal cannabis could increase workplace risks, including decreased alertness and reaction times, increased absenteeism, reduced ability to safely drive or operate machinery and an increased probability of falling. Focused research into the risk to workers and workplaces from the use of medical cannabis and related human performance impairment is urgently warranted.

Cannabis use among recently treated cancer patients: perceptions and experiences

PURPOSE

To characterize cannabis use among cancer patients, we aimed to describe 1) patterns of cannabis use across multiple cancer sites; 2) perceived goals, benefits, harms of cannabis; and 3) communication about cannabis.

METHODS

Patients with 9 different cancers treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between March and August 2021 completed an online or phone survey eliciting cannabis use, attitudes, and communication about cannabis. Multivariable logistic regression estimated the association of cancer type and cannabis use, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and prior cannabis use.

RESULTS

Among 1258 respondents, 31% used cannabis after diagnosis, ranging from 25% for lung cancer to 59% for testicular cancer. Characteristics associated with cannabis use included younger age, lower education level, and cancer type. In multivariable analysis, compared to lung cancer patients, gastrointestinal cancer patients were more likely to use cannabis (odds ratio [OR] 2.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-5.43). Cannabis use in the year prior to diagnosis was strongly associated with cannabis use after diagnosis (OR 19.13, 95% CI 11.92-30.72). Among users, reasons for use included difficulty sleeping (48%); stress, anxiety, or depression (46%); and pain (42%). Among respondents who used cannabis to improve symptoms, 70-90% reported improvement; < 5% reported that any symptom worsened. Only 25% discussed cannabis with healthcare providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost a third of cancer patients use cannabis, largely for symptom management. Oncologists may not know about their patients' cannabis use. To improve decision making about cannabis use during cancer care, research is needed to determine benefits and harms of cannabis use.

Clinical Research Evidence Supporting Administration and Dosing Recommendations of Medicinal Cannabis as Analgesic in Cancer Patients

The analgesic potential of Cannabis sativa L.-based medicinal cannabis products for treatment of cancer associated chronic pains has gained increased interest in recent years. To ensure a controlled distribution of these products and investigate their therapeutic potential, several countries have established so-called pilot trials. Many doctors, however, are hesitant to prescribe medicinal cannabis primarily due to lack of research evidence regarding the products' efficacy, safety and thus questionable dosing guidelines. This review aims to elucidate clinical research supporting administration of medicinal cannabis in cancer patients for analgesic purposes. The cannabinoids' effects on the endocannabinoid system (ECS) and its implication in pain regulation is included to illustrate the complexity related to this research field. Published clinical studies on medicinal cannabis primarily consist of observational studies and only one pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT), where more RCTs exist on the cannabis-based product, Sativex^® (GW Pharma Ltd., Cambridge, UK). The studies indicate analgesic potential, however non-significantly, for most patients and with acceptable safety profile. Summarizing, high-quality RCTs are scarce in this research field, and the limitations of the observational studies complicates interpretation of clinical outcomes. Despite discrepancy among the studies, they do show indications for administration and dosing regimens providing analgesic effects for some cancer patients.

Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of cannabinoid products in chronic pain conditions and for symptoms associated with multiple sclerosis: what do they tell us?

INTRODUCTION

: To investigate whether published systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials provide sufficient clarity to inform prescribing of cannabinoid products aimed for medicinal use, we examined their features and findings in two well-researched areas: chronic cancer/noncancer pain and multiple sclerosis (MS)-related symptoms.

AREAS COVERED

: Structured searches from January 2011 to 2 February 2021 identified 31 systematic reviews (with/without meta-analyses) that met the inclusion criteria. Support for the efficacy of cannabinoids was minimal in cancer pain, and somewhat stronger in noncancer (especially neuropathic) pain and MS spasticity. All systematic reviews and most meta-analyses grouped cannabinoid products together without appropriate consideration of their differential attributes (active constituent(s), concentration/strength, dosage forms, administration route), dosing regimens or treatment durations. Patient populations and efficacy outcome measures were inhomogeneous, particularly for studies in noncancer pain and MS. Separate results for specific cannabinoid formulations were rarely provided.

EXPERT OPINION

: The therapeutic effect of cannabinoids, as already demonstrated for some products, is not reflected clearly in the current range of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in chronic pain and MS. To truly inform evidence-based practice, future publications should aim to present results by individual product from well-conducted clinical trials using appropriate and homogeneous outcome measures in well-defined patient populations.

Routes of administration, reasons for use, and approved indications of medical cannabis in oncology: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Some patients diagnosed with cancer use medical cannabis to self-manage undesirable symptoms, including nausea and pain. To improve patient safety and oncological care quality, the routes of administration for use of medical cannabis, patients' reasons, and prescribed indications must be better understood.

METHODS

Based on the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines, a scoping review was conducted to map the current evidence regarding the use of medical cannabis in oncological settings based on the experiences of patients diagnosed with cancer and their healthcare providers. A search strategy was developed with a scientific librarian which included five databases (CINAHL, Web of Science, Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO) and two grey literature sources (Google Scholar and ProQuest). The inclusion criteria were: 1) population: adults aged 18 and over diagnosed with cancer; 2) phenomena of interest: reasons for cannabis use and/or the prescribed indications for medical cannabis; 3) context: oncological setting. French- or English-language primary empirical studies, knowledge syntheses, and grey literature published between 2000 and 2021 were included. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and subjected to a thematic analysis. A narrative description approach was used to synthesize and present the findings.

RESULTS

We identified 5,283 publications, of which 163 met the eligibility criteria. Two main reasons for medical cannabis use emerged from the thematic analysis: limiting the impacts of cancer and its side effects; and staying connected to others. Our results also indicated that medical cannabis is mostly used for three approved indications: to manage refractory nausea and vomiting, to complement pain management, and to improve appetite and food intake. We highlighted 11 routes of administration for medical cannabis, with oils and oral solutions the most frequently reported.

CONCLUSION

Future studies should consider the multiple routes of administration for medical cannabis, such as inhalation and edibles. Our review highlights that learning opportunities would support the development of healthcare providers' knowledge and skills in assessing the needs and preferences of patients diagnosed with cancer who use medical cannabis.

Efficacy and safety of therapeutic use of cannabis derivatives and their synthetic analogs: Overview of systematic reviews

The debate on the use of cannabinoids for therapeutic purposes is constantly on the rise. This overview aimed to map the evidence on the therapeutic effects of cannabis derivatives and their synthetic analogs. Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized trials were identified through a comprehensive search in several databases, and their methodological quality were evaluated with AMSTAR-2. The results for main outcomes are presented, prioritizing those from updated and better quality SRs. Finally, 68 SRs, addressing 37 different health conditions, were included. The methodological quality was high for eight SRs. The evidence certainty (GRADE) for the effects of cannabinoids is not high for any of the outcomes identified. Evidence certainty was moderate for the following: (a) cannabidiol appears to be beneficial for quality of life but increases the risk of adverse events in ulcerative colitis; (b) cannabinoids in general appear to have no clinically important benefit for chronic non-oncologic pain, spasticity-related pain in multiple sclerosis, or for acute post-operative pain; (c) cannabinoids in general appear to have a benefit in reducing chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting. For all other outcomes from remaining comparisons, the evidence certainty was low, very low, or not evaluated, which prevents recommendations for or against their routine use.

Cannabidiol: Knowledge, Beliefs, and Experiences of Patients With Cancer

BACKGROUND

Cannabidiol (CBD) is purported to work for a variety of therapeutic indications. Interest in CBD products has significantly increased as patients with cancer seek ways to improve symptom control and quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to explore patients' knowledge of and experience with CBD.

METHODS

A panel of oncology nurse practitioners, an oncologist, and oncology pharmacy specialists developed a survey to capture information about patient knowledge and use of CBD. The initial survey was pilot tested and further refined, resulting in the final item survey. The final survey was administered to 100 participants undergoing or having completed cancer treatment and being followed in a supportive oncology care clinic at a large academic medical center.

FINDINGS

Most patients learned about CBD through a family member or friend. The majority of patients had never tried CBD. The most common reported indications were pain, anxiety, and nausea. Of those who had not tried CBD, the most common reasons included lack of knowledge about CBD and providers not recommending CBD.

Cannabis and pain: a scoping review

For centuries, cannabis has been used with many different purposes, including medicinal use, usually bypassing any formal approval process. However, during the last decade, interest in cannabis in medicine has been increasing, and several countries, including the United States and Canada, have produced their own legislation about marihuana and cannabis-based medicines. Because of this, interest in research has been increasing and evidence about its medical effects is becoming necessary. We conducted a review examining the evidence of cannabis in pain. Cannabis had been shown to be useful in acute and chronic pain, however recently, these results have been controverted. Within the different types of chronic pain, it has a weak evidence for neuropathic, rheumatic pain, and headache, modest evidence for multiple sclerosis related pain, and as adjuvant therapy in cancer pain. There is no strong evidence to recommend cannabis in order to decrease opioids in patients with chronic use. Even though cannabis-based medications appear to be mostly safe, mild adverse effects are common; somnolence, sedation, amnesia, euphoric mood, hyperhidrosis, paranoia, and confusion may limit the use of cannabis in clinical practice. Risks have not been systematically analyzed. Special concern arises on how adverse effect might affect vulnerable population such as elderly patients. More research is needed in order to evaluate benefits and risks, as well as the ideal administration route and dosages. As cannabis use increases in several countries, answers to these questions might be coming soon.

Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines for pain management: an overview of systematic reviews

ABSTRACT

Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines (CBM) are increasingly used to manage pain, with limited understanding of their efficacy and safety. We assessed methodological quality, scope, and results of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of these treatments. Several search strategies sought self-declared systematic reviews. Methodological quality was assessed using both AMSTAR-2 and techniques important for bias reduction in pain studies. Of the 106 articles read, 57 were self-declared systematic reviews, most published since 2010. They included any type of cannabinoid, cannabis, or CBM, at any dose, however administered, in a broad range of pain conditions. No review examined the effects of a particular cannabinoid, at a particular dose, using a particular route of administration, for a particular pain condition, reporting a particular analgesic outcome. Confidence in the results in the systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 definitions was critically low (41), low (8), moderate (6), or high (2). Few used criteria important for bias reduction in pain. Cochrane reviews typically provided higher confidence; all industry-conflicted reviews provided critically low confidence. Meta-analyses typically pooled widely disparate studies, and, where assessable, were subject to potential publication bias. Systematic reviews with positive or negative recommendation for use of cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in pain typically rated critically low or low (24/25 [96%] positive; 10/12 [83%] negative). Current reviews are mostly lacking in quality and cannot provide a basis for decision-making. A new high-quality systematic review of randomised controlled trials is needed to critically assess the clinical evidence for cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in pain.

A Mapping Literature Review of Medical Cannabis Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Evidence in Approved Conditions in the USA from 2016 to 2019

In 2017, a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) report comprehensively evaluated the body of evidence regarding cannabis health effects through the year 2016. The objectives of this study are to identify and map the most recently (2016-2019) published literature across approved conditions for medical cannabis and to evaluate the quality of identified recent systematic reviews, published following the NASEM report. Following the literature search from 5 databases and consultation with experts, 11 conditions were identified for evidence compilation and evaluation: amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, autism, cancer, chronic noncancer pain, Crohn's disease, epilepsy, glaucoma, human immunodeficiency virus/AIDS, multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's disease, and posttraumatic stress disorder. A total of 198 studies were included after screening for condition-specific relevance and after imposing the following exclusion criteria: preclinical focus, non-English language, abstracts only, editorials/commentary, case studies/series, and non-U.S. study setting. Data extracted from studies included: study design type, outcome definition, intervention definition, sample size, study setting, and reported effect size. Few completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. Studies classified as systematic reviews were graded using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 tool to evaluate the quality of evidence. Few high-quality systematic reviews were available for most conditions, with the exceptions of MS (9 of 9 graded moderate/high quality; evidence for 2/9 indicating cannabis improved outcomes; evidence for 7/9 indicating cannabis inconclusive), epilepsy (3 of 4 graded moderate/high quality; 3 indicating cannabis improved outcomes; 1 indicating cannabis inconclusive), and chronic noncancer pain (12 of 13 graded moderate/high quality; evidence for 7/13 indicating cannabis improved outcomes; evidence from 6/7 indicating cannabis inconclusive). Among RCTs, we identified few studies of substantial rigor and quality to contribute to the evidence base. However, there are some conditions for which significant evidence suggests that select dosage forms and routes of administration likely have favorable risk-benefit ratios (i.e., epilepsy and chronic noncancer pain). The body of evidence for medical cannabis requires more rigorous evaluation before consideration as a treatment option for many conditions, and evidence necessary to inform policy and treatment guidelines is currently insufficient for many conditions.

Cannabis for Symptom Management in Older Adults

The purpose of this article is to present evidence on the efficacy and safety of medical cannabis as a therapy for symptom management in palliative care. This article provides an overview of the evidence on the risks and benefits of using medical cannabis for the indications of chronic pain, cancer-related pain, cancer cachexia, dementia, and Alzheimer's disease. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness and safety of cannabinoids for most reviewed indications, with the exception of chronic pain. Future research is required before palliative care clinicians can make evidence-based decisions on the integration of medical cannabis as adjunct therapies.

Benefits and harms of medical cannabis: a scoping review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

There has been increased interest in the role of cannabis for treating medical conditions. The availability of different cannabis-based products can make the side effects of exposure unpredictable. We sought to conduct a scoping review of systematic reviews assessing benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines for any condition.

METHODS

A protocol was followed throughout the conduct of this scoping review. A protocol-guided scoping review conduct. Searches of bibliographic databases (e.g., MEDLINE®, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library) and gray literature were performed. Two people selected and charted data from systematic reviews. Categorizations emerged during data synthesis. The reporting of results from systematic reviews was performed at a high level appropriate for a scoping review.

RESULTS

After screening 1975 citations, 72 systematic reviews were included. The reviews covered many conditions, the most common being pain management. Several reviews focused on management of pain as a symptom of conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS), injury, and cancer. After pain, the most common symptoms treated were spasticity in MS, movement disturbances, nausea/vomiting, and mental health symptoms. An assessment of review findings lends to the understanding that, although in a small number of reviews results showed a benefit for reducing pain, the analysis approach and reporting in other reviews was sub-optimal, making it difficult to know how consistent findings are when considering pain in general. Adverse effects were reported in most reviews comparing cannabis with placebo (49/59, 83%) and in 20/24 (83%) of the reviews comparing cannabis to active drugs. Minor adverse effects (e.g., drowsiness, dizziness) were common and reported in over half of the reviews. Serious harms were not as common, but were reported in 21/59 (36%) reviews that reported on adverse effects. Overall, safety data was generally reported study-by-study, with few reviews synthesizing data. Only one review was rated as high quality, while the remaining were rated of moderate (n = 36) or low/critically low (n = 35) quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from the included reviews were mixed, with most reporting an inability to draw conclusions due to inconsistent findings and a lack of rigorous evidence. Mild harms were frequently reported, and it is possible the harms of cannabis-based medicines may outweigh benefits.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The protocol for this scoping review was posted in the Open Access (https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/37247).

Molecular Basis of Cancer Pain Management: An Updated Review

Pain can have a significantly negative impact on the quality of life of patients. Therefore, patients may resort to analgesics to relieve the pain. The struggle to manage pain in cancer patients effectively and safely has long been an issue in medicine. Analgesics are the mainstay treatment for pain management as they act through various methods on the peripheral and central pain pathways. However, the variability in the patient genotypes may influence a drug response and adverse drug effects that follow through. This review summarizes the observed effects of analgesics on UDP-glucuronosyl (UGT) 2B7 isoenzyme, cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6, μ-opioid receptor μ 1 (OPRM1), efflux transporter P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and ATP-binding cassette B1 ABCB1/multiple drug resistance 1 (MDR1) polymorphisms on the mechanism of action of these drugs in managing pain in cancer. Furthermore, this review article also discusses the responses and adverse effects caused by analgesic drugs in cancer pain management, due to the inter-individual variability in their genomes.

Pharmacological evidence of medicinal cannabis in oncology: a systematic review

PURPOSE

This systematic literature review examines research into the use of medicinal cannabis in cancer management. The aim was to identify the gaps in knowledge on the dose, dosing schedule and absorption of the administration routes of medicinal cannabis use in oncology.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted across six databases to identify original data reporting the pharmacology of medicinal cannabis in oncology.

RESULTS

Eighteen articles were selected for review. Of the selected articles, ten were identified as randomised control trials, two experimental studies, two retrospective cohort studies and four case studies. Four articles reported absorption data and one drug interaction study was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence reported in the literature on the absorption of medicinal cannabis in cancer populations. Various reasons are explored for the lack of pharmacokinetic studies for medicinal cannabis in cancer populations, including the availability of assays to accurately assess cannabinoid levels, lack of clinical biomarkers and patient enrolment for pharmacokinetic studies.

Compliance with Opioid Therapy: Distinguishing Clinical Characteristics and Demographics Among Patients with Cancer Pain

Background

Because an increase of patients who misuse opioids has been identified in our cancer clinical setting through urine drug testing (UDT) and the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patient's with Pain-Short Form (SOAPP-SF), we conducted this retrospective cohort study to identify patient characteristics that are associated with UDT that indicates noncompliance.

Methods

Over a two-year period, 167 of 8,727 patients (2.4%) seen in the pain clinic and who underwent UDT were evaluated to determine compliance with prescribed opioid regimens. Descriptive clinical and demographic data were collected, and group differences based on compliance with opioid therapy were evaluated.

Results

Fifty-eight percent of the patients were noncompliant with their prescribed opioid therapy. Noncompliant patients were younger than compliant patients, with a median age of 46 vs 49 years (P = 0.0408). Noncompliant patients were more likely to have higher morphine equivalent daily doses; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Patients with a history of alcohol (ETOH) (P = 0.0332), illicit drug use (P = 0.1014), and smoking (P = 0.4184) were more likely noncompliant. Univariate regression analysis showed that a history of ETOH use (P = 0.034), a history of anxiety (P = 0.027), younger age (P = 0.07), and a SOAPP-SF score of 4 or higher (P = 0.05) were associated with an abnormal UDT.

Conclusions

History of ETOH use, anxiety, high SOAPP-SF score, and younger age were associated with UDT that indicates noncompliance. Given the very small percentage of UDT testing, it is quite likely that a significant number of patients who did not undergo UDT were also nonadherent with treatment recommendations.

Prospects for the Use of Cannabinoids in Oncology and Palliative Care Practice: A Review of the Evidence

There is an increased interest in the use of cannabinoids in the treatment of symptoms in cancer and palliative care patients. Their multimodal action, in spite of limited efficacy, may make them an attractive alternative, particularly in patients with multiple concomitant symptoms of mild and moderate intensity. There is evidence to indicate cannabis in the treatment of pain, spasticity, seizures, sleep disorders, nausea and vomiting, and Tourette syndrome. Although the effectiveness of cannabinoids is limited, it was confirmed in neuropathic pain management and combination with opioids. A relatively favorable adverse effects profile, including no depressive effect on the respiratory system, may make cannabis complement a rather narrow armamentarium that is in the disposition of a palliative care professional.

Potential of Endocannabinoids to Control Bladder Pain

Bladder-related pain is one of the most common forms of visceral pain, and visceral pain is among the most common complaints for which patients seek physician consultation. Despite extensive studies of visceral innervation and treatment of visceral pain, opioids remain a mainstay for management of bladder pain. Side effects associated with opioid therapy can profoundly diminish quality of life, and improved options for treatment of bladder pain remain a high priority. Endocannabinoids, primarily anandamide (AEA) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG), are endogenously-produced fatty acid ethanolamides with that induce analgesia. Animal experiments have demonstrated that inhibition of enzymes that degrade AEA or 2-AG have the potential to prevent development of visceral and somatic pain. Although experimental results in animal models have been promising, clinical application of this approach has proven difficult. In addition to fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH; degrades AEA) and monacylglycerol lipase (MAGL; degrades 2-AG), cyclooxygenase (COX) acts to metabolize endocannabinoids. Another potential limitation of this strategy is that AEA activates pro-nociceptive transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) channels. Dual inhibitors of FAAH and TRPV1 or FAAH and COX have been synthesized and are currently undergoing preclinical testing for efficacy in providing analgesia. Local inhibition of FAAH or MAGL within the bladder may be viable options to reduce pain associated with cystitis with fewer systemic side effects, but this has not been explored. Further investigation is required before manipulation of the endocannabinoid system can be proven as an efficacious alternative for management of bladder pain.

Optimal pain management for patients with cancer in the modern era

Pain is a common symptom among patients with cancer. Adequate pain assessment and management are critical to improve the quality of life and health outcomes in this population. In this review, the authors provide a framework for safely and effectively managing cancer-related pain by summarizing the evidence for the importance of controlling pain, the barriers to adequate pain management, strategies to assess and manage cancer-related pain, how to manage pain in patients at risk of substance use disorder, and considerations when managing pain in a survivorship population. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:182-196. © 2018 American Cancer Society.