1
|
Koide Y, Shindo Y, Nagai N, Kitagawa T, Aoyama T, Shimizu H, Hashimoto S, Tachibana H, Kodaira T. Classification of Patients With Painful Tumors to Predict Response to Palliative Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2024; 120:79-88. [PMID: 38493900 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.03.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2023] [Revised: 02/22/2024] [Accepted: 03/07/2024] [Indexed: 03/19/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aimed to identify factors affecting pain response to develop a patient classification system for palliative radiation therapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS Our prospective observational study (UMIN000044984) provided data on patients who received palliative RT for painful tumors. The eligibility criteria were having a numerical rating scale (NRS) score of 2 or more before treatment and receiving palliative RT between August 2021 and September 2022. Post-RT follow-up was scheduled prospectively at 2, 4, 12, 24, 36, and 52 weeks. Pain response was assessed using the International Consensus Pain Response Endpoints criteria, with the primary outcome being the response rate within 12 weeks. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors affecting pain response and develop the classification system. Each class evaluated the differences in response rate, time to response, and progression. RESULTS Of the 488 registered lesions, 366 from 261 patients met the criteria. Most patients had bone metastases (75%), of whom 72% were using opioids and 22% underwent reirradiation. Conventional RT (eg, 8-Gy single fraction, 20 Gy in 5 fractions) was administered to 93% of patients. Over a median of 6.8 months of follow-up, the average NRS decreased from 6.1 to 3.4 at 12 weeks for 273 evaluable lesions, with a 60% response rate. Opioid use and reirradiation negatively affected the response rate in multivariate analysis (P < .01). Lesions were categorized into class 1 (no opioid use and no reirradiation; 89 lesions), class 2 (neither class 1 nor 3; 211 lesions), and class 3 (opioid use and reirradiation; 66 lesions), with respective response rates of 75%, 61%, and 36% (P < .001). Time to response was similar across the classes (P = .91), but the progression rates at 24 weeks differed (11%, 27%, and 63%, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Opioid use and reirradiation are factors leading to significant variations in pain response rates and time to progression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yutaro Koide
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Japan.
| | - Yurika Shindo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Naoya Nagai
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Tomoki Kitagawa
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Takahiro Aoyama
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Hidetoshi Shimizu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Shingo Hashimoto
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Hiroyuki Tachibana
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Takeshi Kodaira
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Alcorn S, Cortés ÁA, Bradfield L, Brennan M, Dennis K, Diaz DA, Doung YC, Elmore S, Hertan L, Johnstone C, Jones J, Larrier N, Lo SS, Nguyen QN, Tseng YD, Yerramilli D, Zaky S, Balboni T. External Beam Radiation Therapy for Palliation of Symptomatic Bone Metastases: An ASTRO Clinical Practice Guideline. Pract Radiat Oncol 2024; 14:377-397. [PMID: 38788923 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2024.04.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2024] [Revised: 04/24/2024] [Accepted: 04/25/2024] [Indexed: 05/26/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for palliative external beam radiation therapy (RT) in symptomatic bone metastases. METHODS The ASTRO convened a task force to address 5 key questions regarding palliative RT in symptomatic bone metastases. Based on a systematic review by the Agency for Health Research and Quality, recommendations using predefined consensus-building methodology were established; evidence quality and recommendation strength were also assessed. RESULTS For palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases, RT is recommended for managing pain from bone metastases and spine metastases with or without spinal cord or cauda equina compression. Regarding other modalities with RT, for patients with spine metastases causing spinal cord or cauda equina compression, surgery and postoperative RT are conditionally recommended over RT alone. Furthermore, dexamethasone is recommended for spine metastases with spinal cord or cauda equina compression. Patients with nonspine bone metastases requiring surgery are recommended postoperative RT. Symptomatic bone metastases treated with conventional RT are recommended 800 cGy in 1 fraction (800 cGy/1 fx), 2000 cGy/5 fx, 2400 cGy/6 fx, or 3000 cGy/10 fx. Spinal cord or cauda equina compression in patients who are ineligible for surgery and receiving conventional RT are recommended 800 cGy/1 fx, 1600 cGy/2 fx, 2000 cGy/5 fx, or 3000 cGy/10 fx. Symptomatic bone metastases in selected patients with good performance status without surgery or neurologic symptoms/signs are conditionally recommended stereotactic body RT over conventional palliative RT. Spine bone metastases reirradiated with conventional RT are recommended 800 cGy/1 fx, 2000 cGy/5 fx, 2400 cGy/6 fx, or 2000 cGy/8 fx; nonspine bone metastases reirradiated with conventional RT are recommended 800 cGy/1 fx, 2000 cGy/5 fx, or 2400 cGy/6 fx. Determination of an optimal RT approach/regimen requires whole person assessment, including prognosis, previous RT dose if applicable, risks to normal tissues, quality of life, cost implications, and patient goals and values. Relatedly, for patient-centered optimization of treatment-related toxicities and quality of life, shared decision making is recommended. CONCLUSIONS Based on published data, the ASTRO task force's recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Alcorn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
| | - Ángel Artal Cortés
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain
| | - Lisa Bradfield
- American Society for Radiation Oncology, Arlington, Virginia
| | | | - Kristopher Dennis
- Division of Radiation Oncology, Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Dayssy A Diaz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Yee-Cheen Doung
- Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | - Shekinah Elmore
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Lauren Hertan
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Candice Johnstone
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
| | - Joshua Jones
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Rochester Regional Health, Rochester, New York
| | - Nicole Larrier
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Simon S Lo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Quynh-Nhu Nguyen
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas - MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Yolanda D Tseng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Divya Yerramilli
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Sandra Zaky
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
| | - Tracy Balboni
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hoskin PJ, Malhi A, Reczko K, Hackshaw A. Urinary biomarkers in metastatic bone pain: Results from a multicentre randomized trial of ibandronate compared to single dose radiotherapy for localized metastatic bone pain in prostate cancer (RIB). J Bone Oncol 2024; 47:100624. [PMID: 39148581 PMCID: PMC11325800 DOI: 10.1016/j.jbo.2024.100624] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2024] [Revised: 06/24/2024] [Accepted: 07/13/2024] [Indexed: 08/17/2024] Open
Abstract
Background The Radiotherapy IBandronate (RIB) trial compared single dose radiotherapy and a single infusion of ibandronate in 470 bisphosphonate naïve patients with metastatic bone pain from prostate cancer randomised into a non-inferiority two arm study. Results for the primary endpoint of pain score response at 4 weeks showed that the ibandronate arm was non-inferior to single dose radiotherapy. Patients and method In addition to pain assessments including analgesic use made at baseline, 4, 8, 12, 26 and 52 weeks, urine was collected at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks. It was subsequently analysed for urinary N-telopeptide (NTx) and cystatin C. Linear regression models were used to compare the continuous outcome measures for urinary markers within treatment arms and baseline measurements were included as covariates. Interaction terms were fitted to allow for cross-treatment group comparisons. Results The primary endpoint of the RIB trial was worst pain response at 4 weeks and there was no treatment difference seen. Urine samples and paired pain scores at 4 weeks were available for 273 patients (radiotherapy 168; ibandronate 159)The baseline samples measured for the RIB trial had an average concentration of 193 nM BCE/mM creatinine (range of 7.3-1871) compared to the quoted normal range of 33 nM BCE/mM creatinine (3 to 63). In contrast the average value of Cystatin C was 66 ng/ml (ranges ND - 1120 ng/ml) compared to the quoted normal range of 62.9 ng/ml (ranges 12.6-188 ng/ml). A statistically significant reduction in NTx concentrations between baseline and 4 weeks was seen in the ibandronate arm but not in the radiotherapy arm. No correlation between pain response and urinary marker concentration was seen in either the ibandronate or radiotherapy cohort at any time point. Conclusion NTx was significantly raised compared to the normal range consistent with a role as a biomarker for bone metastases from prostate cancer. A significant reduction in NTx 4 weeks after ibandronate is consistent with its action in osteoclast inhibition which was not seen after radiotherapy implying a different mode of action for radiation. There was no correlation between bone biomarker levels and pain response.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P J Hoskin
- Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, UK
| | - Aman Malhi
- CRUK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre, London, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Zhou W, Zhang W, Yan S, Zhang K, Wu H, Chen H, Shi M, Zhou T. Novel Therapeutic Targets on the Horizon: An Analysis of Clinical Trials on Therapies for Bone Metastasis in Prostate Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:627. [PMID: 38339378 PMCID: PMC10854912 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16030627] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2023] [Revised: 12/03/2023] [Accepted: 12/11/2023] [Indexed: 02/12/2024] Open
Abstract
In the absence of early detection and initial treatment, prostate cancer often progresses to an advanced stage, frequently spreading to the bones and significantly impacting patients' well-being and healthcare resources. Therefore, managing patients with prostate cancer that has spread to the bones often involves using bone-targeted medications like bisphosphonates and denosumab to enhance bone structure and minimize skeletal complications. Additionally, researchers are studying the tumor microenvironment and biomarkers to understand the mechanisms and potential treatment targets for bone metastases in prostate cancer. A literature search was conducted to identify clinical studies from 2013 to 2023 that focused on pain, performance status, or quality of life as primary outcomes. The analysis included details such as patient recruitment, prior palliative therapies, baseline characteristics, follow-up, and outcome reporting. The goal was to highlight the advancements and trends in bone metastasis research in prostate cancer over the past decade, with the aim of developing strategies to prevent and treat bone metastases and improve the quality of life and survival rates for prostate cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wenhao Zhou
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Fourth People’s Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai 200434, China; (W.Z.); (S.Y.); (K.Z.); (H.W.)
| | - Wei Zhang
- Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai 200433, China;
| | - Shi Yan
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Fourth People’s Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai 200434, China; (W.Z.); (S.Y.); (K.Z.); (H.W.)
| | - Kaixuan Zhang
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Fourth People’s Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai 200434, China; (W.Z.); (S.Y.); (K.Z.); (H.W.)
| | - Han Wu
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Fourth People’s Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai 200434, China; (W.Z.); (S.Y.); (K.Z.); (H.W.)
| | - Hongyu Chen
- School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China;
| | - Minfeng Shi
- Reproduction Center, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai 200433, China
| | - Tie Zhou
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Fourth People’s Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai 200434, China; (W.Z.); (S.Y.); (K.Z.); (H.W.)
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Archer Goode E, Wang N, Munkley J. Prostate cancer bone metastases biology and clinical management (Review). Oncol Lett 2023; 25:163. [PMID: 36960185 PMCID: PMC10028493 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2023.13749] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2022] [Accepted: 02/09/2023] [Indexed: 03/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most prominent causes of cancer-related mortality in the male population. A highly impactful prognostic factor for patients diagnosed with PCa is the presence or absence of bone metastases. The formation of secondary tumours at the bone is the most commonly observed site for the establishment of PCa metastases and is associated with reduced survival of patients in addition to a cohort of life-debilitating symptoms, including mobility issues and chronic pain. Despite the prevalence of this disease presentation and the high medical relevance of bone metastases, the mechanisms underlying the formation of metastases to the bone and the understanding of what drives the osteotropism exhibited by prostate tumours remain to be fully elucidated. This lack of in-depth understanding manifests in limited effective treatment options for patients with advanced metastatic PCa and culminates in the low rate of survival observed for this sub-set of patients. The present review aims to summarise the most recent promising advances in the understanding of how and why prostate tumours metastasise to the bone, with the ultimate aim of highlighting novel treatment and prognostic targets, which may provide the opportunity to improve the diagnosis and treatment of patients with PCa with bone metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily Archer Goode
- Newcastle University Centre for Cancer, Newcastle University Institute of Biosciences, International Centre for Life, Newcastle NE1 3BZ, UK
| | - Ning Wang
- The Mellanby Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Department of Oncology and Metabolism, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2RX, UK
| | - Jennifer Munkley
- Newcastle University Centre for Cancer, Newcastle University Institute of Biosciences, International Centre for Life, Newcastle NE1 3BZ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Pain Response Rates After Conventional Radiation Therapy for Bone Metastases Assessed Using International Consensus Pain Response Endpoints: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Initial Radiation Therapy and Reirradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023:S0360-3016(23)00099-8. [PMID: 36736920 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.01.050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2022] [Revised: 12/20/2022] [Accepted: 01/21/2023] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
Previous meta-analysis of conventional radiation therapy for painful bone metastases showed overall response (OR) rates of 72% to 75% (evaluable patients), 61% to 62% (intent-to-treat patients) for initial radiation therapy, and 68% for reirradiation (evaluable patients). However, the definition of pain response differed among the studies included. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the pain response rates assessed by the International Consensus Pain Response Endpoints (ICPRE) for both initial radiation therapy and reirradiation. The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for articles published between 2002 and 2021. The inclusion criteria were (1) prospective studies or studies based on prospectively collected data and (2) studies in which pain response was assessed using ICPRE. Our primary outcomes of interest were the OR rates (sum of the complete and partial response rates) for both initial radiation therapy and reirradiation. Of the 6470 articles identified in our database search, 32 and 3 met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of initial radiation therapy and reirradiation, respectively. The OR rates of initial radiation therapy in evaluable patients (n = 4775) and intent-to-treat patients (n = 6775) were 60.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55.2-65.4) and 45.4% (95% CI, 38.7-52.4), respectively. The OR rates of reirradiation in evaluable patients (n = 733) and intent-to-treat patients (n = 1085) were 70.8% (95% CI, 15.7-96.9) and 62.2% (95% CI, 5.3-98.0), respectively. Subgroup analyses of initial radiation therapy including the comparison of randomized and nonrandomized studies showed no significant differences in any comparison, indicating similar response rates across different study designs. For initial radiation therapy, we determined the ICPRE-assessed response rates, which were lower than previously reported. The OR and complete response rates should be benchmarks for future randomized and nonrandomized studies. For reirradiation, the wide CIs demonstrate that the response rates based on ICPRE require further investigation.
Collapse
|
7
|
Takei D, Tagami K. Management of cancer pain due to bone metastasis. J Bone Miner Metab 2022; 41:327-336. [PMID: 36418587 DOI: 10.1007/s00774-022-01382-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2022] [Accepted: 10/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Bone metastases frequently occur in patients with cancer. Skeletal-related events (SREs), including pain, impaired mobility, hypercalcemia, pathological fracture, spinal cord and nerve root compression, and bone marrow infiltration, can decrease the quality of life of the patients and increase the risk of morbidity. The mechanism of pain due to bone metastasis is complicated and involves various interactions among tumor cells, bone cells, activated inflammatory cells, and bone-innervating neurons. Cancer pain due to bone metastasis can be crippling and a chronic state that causes sarcopenia. For pain management, it is important to diagnose whether the pain is based on background pain or breakthrough pain due to bone metastasis. In addition, the management goal of cancer pain due to bone metastasis is not only to achieve pain relief but also to prevent pain progression and SREs. Pain mechanisms should be applied to achieve optimal management. This review aims to discuss the mechanisms of cancer pain due to bone metastasis and review the recommended drug therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daisuke Takei
- Department of Pharmacy, Saitama Cancer Center, Saitama, Japan.
| | - Keita Tagami
- Department of Palliative Medicine, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
He Y, Xu W, Xiao YT, Huang H, Gu D, Ren S. Targeting signaling pathways in prostate cancer: mechanisms and clinical trials. Signal Transduct Target Ther 2022; 7:198. [PMID: 35750683 PMCID: PMC9232569 DOI: 10.1038/s41392-022-01042-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 30.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2022] [Revised: 05/25/2022] [Accepted: 05/30/2022] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) affects millions of men globally. Due to advances in understanding genomic landscapes and biological functions, the treatment of PCa continues to improve. Recently, various new classes of agents, which include next-generation androgen receptor (AR) signaling inhibitors (abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide), bone-targeting agents (radium-223 chloride, zoledronic acid), and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib, rucaparib, and talazoparib) have been developed to treat PCa. Agents targeting other signaling pathways, including cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6, Ak strain transforming (AKT), wingless-type protein (WNT), and epigenetic marks, have successively entered clinical trials. Furthermore, prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) targeting agents such as 177Lu-PSMA-617 are promising theranostics that could improve both diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic efficacy. Advanced clinical studies with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown limited benefits in PCa, whereas subgroups of PCa with mismatch repair (MMR) or CDK12 inactivation may benefit from ICIs treatment. In this review, we summarized the targeted agents of PCa in clinical trials and their underlying mechanisms, and further discussed their limitations and future directions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yundong He
- Shanghai Key Laboratory of Regulatory Biology, School of Life Sciences, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China.
| | - Weidong Xu
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Shanghai, China
| | - Yu-Tian Xiao
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Shanghai, China.,Department of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital, Shanghai, China
| | - Haojie Huang
- Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Di Gu
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
| | - Shancheng Ren
- Department of Urology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Shanghai, China.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kapoor R, Saxena AK, Vasudev P, Sundriyal D, Kumar A. Cancer induced bone pain: current management and future perspectives. Med Oncol 2021; 38:134. [PMID: 34581894 DOI: 10.1007/s12032-021-01587-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2021] [Accepted: 09/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
Recent improvements in the therapeutic armamentarium of oncology by the addition of targeted and immunotherapeutic agents have led to an increase in the life expectancy of advanced-stage cancer patients. This has led to an increased number of patients presenting with bone metastasis and experiencing episodes of cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP). CIBP is a crippling, chronic, morbid state interfering significantly with the functional capacity and the quality of life (QoL). CIBP is characterized by a complex multifactorial pathophysiological mechanism involving tumor cells, bone cells, inflammatory microenvironment, and the neuronal tissue. It may not be possible to mitigate pain completely; therefore, the aim should be to reach the lowest possible level of pain that allows for an acceptable QoL to the patient. Multimodality approach of surgical, radiation, medical and behavioral techniques is thus recommended to manage CIBP. This review discusses the pathogenesis and pathophysiological mechanism accompanying bone metastasis and CIBP, currently approved therapies for the management of CIBP, and the future perspective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ruchi Kapoor
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University College of Medical Sciences and GTB Hospital, New Delhi, India
| | - Ashok Kumar Saxena
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University College of Medical Sciences and GTB Hospital, New Delhi, India
| | - Prerna Vasudev
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University College of Medical Sciences and GTB Hospital, New Delhi, India
| | - Deepak Sundriyal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Hematology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India.
| | - Arvind Kumar
- Department of Pathology and Lab Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Romero-Morelos P, Ruvalcaba-Paredes E, Garciadiego-Cázares D, Pérez-Santos M, Reyes-Long S, Alfaro-Rodriguez A, Salcedo M, Mancilla-Ramírez J, Bandala C. Neurophysiological Mechanisms Related to Pain Management in Bone Tumors. Curr Neuropharmacol 2021; 19:308-319. [PMID: 33176655 PMCID: PMC8033964 DOI: 10.2174/1570159x18666201111112748] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2020] [Revised: 08/24/2020] [Accepted: 10/22/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Primary and metastatic bone tumor incidence has increased in the previous years. Pain is a common symptom and is one of the most important related factors to the decrease of quality of life in patients with bone tumor. Different pain management strategies are not completely effective and many patients afflicted by cancer pain cannot be controlled properly. In this sense, we need to elucidate the neurophysiology of cancer-induced pain, contemplating other components such as inflammation, neuropathies and cognitive components regarding bone tumors, and thus pave the way for novel therapeutic approaches in this field. AIM This study aims to identify the neurophysiology of the mechanisms related to pain management in bone tumors. METHODS Advanced searches were performed in scientific databases: PubMed, ProQuest, EBSCO, and the Science Citation index to get information about the neurophysiology mechanisms related to pain management in bone tumors. RESULTS The central and peripheral mechanisms that promote bone cancer pain are poorly understood. Studies have shown that bone cancer could be related to neurochemicals produced by tumor and inflammatory cells, coupled with peripheral sensitization due to nerve compression and injury caused by tumor growth. The activity of mesolimbic dopaminergic neurons, substance P, cysteine/ glutamate antiporter, and other neurochemical dynamics brings us putative strategies to suggest better and efficient treatments against pain in cancer patients. CONCLUSION Cancer-induced bone pain could include neuropathic and inflammatory pain, but with different modifications to the periphery tissue, nerves and neurochemical changes in different neurological levels. In this sense, we explore opportunity areas in pharmacological and nonpharmacological pain management, according to pain-involved mechanisms in this study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Cindy Bandala
- Address correspondence to this author at the Departament of Neurosciences, Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación “Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra”, Calzada México-Xochimilco 289, Col. Arenal de Guadalupe, Del. Tlalpan, 14389 Ciudad de México, México; Tel: (+52) (55) 5999 1000, ext. 19303; E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Abstract
Bone is the most frequent site for metastasis for many cancers, notably for tumours originating in the breast and the prostate. Tumour cells can escape from the primary tumour site and colonize the bone microenvironment. Within the bone, these disseminated tumour cells, as well as those arising in the context of multiple myeloma, may assume a state of dormancy, remaining quiescent for years before resuming proliferation and causing overt metastasis, which causes bone destruction via activation of osteoclast-mediated osteolysis. This structural damage can lead to considerable morbidity, including pain, fractures and impaired quality of life. Although treatment of bone metastases and myeloma bone disease is rarely curative, disease control is often possible for many years through the use of systemic anticancer treatments on a background of multidisciplinary supportive care. This care should include bone-targeted agents to inhibit tumour-associated osteolysis and prevent skeletal morbidity as well as use of appropriate local treatments such as radiation therapy, orthopaedic surgery and specialist palliative care to minimize the impact of metastatic bone disease on physical functioning. In this Primer, we provide an overview of the clinical features, the pathophysiology and the specific treatment approaches to prevent and treat bone metastases from solid tumours as well as myeloma bone disease.
Collapse
|
12
|
Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, Fanti S, Fossati N, Gandaglia G, Gillessen S, Grivas N, Grummet J, Henry AM, der Kwast THV, Lam TB, Lardas M, Liew M, Mason MD, Moris L, Oprea-Lager DE, der Poel HGV, Rouvière O, Schoots IG, Tilki D, Wiegel T, Willemse PPM, Mottet N. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II-2020 Update: Treatment of Relapsing and Metastatic Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 2020; 79:263-282. [PMID: 33039206 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 634] [Impact Index Per Article: 158.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2020] [Accepted: 09/24/2020] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2016-2019). The guidelines were updated, and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the literature. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography scanning has developed an increasingly important role in men with biochemical recurrence after local therapy. Early salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy appears as effective as adjuvant radiotherapy and, in a subset of patients, should be combined with androgen deprivation. New treatments have become available for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PCa), nonmetastatic CRPC, and metastatic CRPC, along with a role for local radiotherapy in men with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa. Also included is information on quality of life outcomes in men with PCa. CONCLUSIONS The knowledge in the field of advanced and metastatic PCa and CRPC is changing rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines are first endorsed by the EANM and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office or online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/). PATIENT SUMMARY This article summarises the guidelines for the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. These guidelines are evidence based and guide the clinician in the discussion with the patient on the treatment decisions to be taken. These guidelines are updated every year; this summary spans the 2017-2020 period of new evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philip Cornford
- Department of Urology, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK.
| | | | | | | | | | - Maria De Santis
- Department of Urology, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany; Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Stefano Fanti
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Policlinico S. Orsola, University of Bologna, Italy
| | - Nicola Fossati
- Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Unit of Urology, Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Silke Gillessen
- Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Bellinzona, Switzerland; Università della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland; University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Nikolaos Grivas
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jeremy Grummet
- Department of Surgery, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Caulfield North, Victoria, Australia
| | - Ann M Henry
- Leeds Cancer Centre, St. James's University Hospital and University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Thomas B Lam
- Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Michael Lardas
- Department of Urology, Metropolitan General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Matthew Liew
- Department of Urology, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust, Wigan, UK
| | - Malcolm D Mason
- Division of Cancer & Genetics, School of Medicine Cardiff University, Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK
| | - Lisa Moris
- Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Laboratory of Molecular Endocrinology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Daniela E Oprea-Lager
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Henk G van der Poel
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Olivier Rouvière
- Hospices Civils de Lyon, Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France; Faculté de Médecine Lyon Est, Université de Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Thomas Wiegel
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Peter-Paul M Willemse
- Department of Urology, Cancer Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Nicolas Mottet
- Department of Urology, University Hospital, St. Etienne, France
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Chapman EJ, Edwards Z, Boland JW, Maddocks M, Fettes L, Malia C, Mulvey MR, Bennett MI. Practice review: Evidence-based and effective management of pain in patients with advanced cancer. Palliat Med 2020; 34:444-453. [PMID: 31980005 DOI: 10.1177/0269216319896955] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pain of a moderate or severe intensity affects over half of patients with advanced cancer and remains undertreated in at least one-third of these patients. AIM The aim of this study was to provide a pragmatic overview of the evidence supporting the use of interventions in pain management in advanced cancer and to identify where encouraging preliminary results are demonstrated but further research is required. DESIGN A scoping review approach was used to examine the evidence supporting the use of guideline-recommended interventions in pain management practice. DATA SOURCES National or international guidelines were selected if they described pain management in adult cancer patients and were written within the last 5 years in English. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2014 to January 2019) was searched for 'cancer' AND 'pain' in the title, abstract or keywords. A MEDLINE search was also made. RESULTS A strong opioid remains the drug of choice for treating moderate or severe pain. Bisphosphonates and radiotherapy are also effective for cancer-related bone pain. Optimal management requires a tailored approach, support for self-management and review of treatment outcomes. There is likely a role for non-pharmacological approaches. Paracetamol should not be used in patients taking a strong opioid to treat pain. Cannabis-based medicines are not recommended. Weak opioids, ketamine and lidocaine are indicated in specific situations only. CONCLUSION Interventions commonly recommended by guidelines are not always supported by a robust evidence base. Research is required to evaluate the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, corticosteroids, some invasive anaesthetic techniques, complementary therapies and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma J Chapman
- Academic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, Leeds, UK
| | - Zoe Edwards
- Academic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, Leeds, UK
| | - Jason W Boland
- Wolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK
| | - Matthew Maddocks
- Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Lucy Fettes
- Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK
| | | | - Matthew R Mulvey
- Academic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, Leeds, UK
| | - Michael I Bennett
- Academic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Simcock R, Thomas TV, Estes C, Filippi AR, Katz MA, Pereira IJ, Saeed H. COVID-19: Global radiation oncology's targeted response for pandemic preparedness. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol 2020; 22:55-68. [PMID: 32274425 PMCID: PMC7102593 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2020.03.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 126] [Impact Index Per Article: 31.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2020] [Revised: 03/22/2020] [Accepted: 03/22/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
As the global COVID-19 pandemic escalates there is a need within radiation oncology to work to support our patients in the best way possible. Measures are required to reduce infection spread between patients and within the workforce. Departments need contingency planning to create capacity and continue essential treatments despite a reduced workforce. The #radonc community held an urgent online journal club on Twitter in March 2020 to discuss these issues and create some consensus on crucial next steps. There were 121 global contributors. This document summarises these discussions around themes of infection prevention, rationalisation of workload and working practice in the presence of infection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Andrea R Filippi
- Radiation Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo and University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Toller CS, Charlesworth S, Mihalyo M, Howard P, Wilcock A. Bisphosphonates: AHFS 92:24. J Pain Symptom Manage 2019; 57:1018-1030. [PMID: 30738144 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.01.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2019] [Accepted: 01/29/2019] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
Therapeutic Reviews aim to provide essential independent information for health professionals about drugs used in palliative and hospice care. Additional content is available via www.medicinescomplete.com. The series editors welcome feedback on the articles (hq@palliativedrugs.com).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Stark Toller
- Countess Mountbatten House (C.S.T.), University Hospital Southampton; Pharmaceutical Press (S.C.), London, United Kingdom; Mylan School of Pharmacy (M.M.), Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Mountbatten Hospice (P.H.), Isle of Wight, United Kingdom; and University of Nottingham (A.W.), Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah Charlesworth
- Countess Mountbatten House (C.S.T.), University Hospital Southampton; Pharmaceutical Press (S.C.), London, United Kingdom; Mylan School of Pharmacy (M.M.), Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Mountbatten Hospice (P.H.), Isle of Wight, United Kingdom; and University of Nottingham (A.W.), Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Mary Mihalyo
- Countess Mountbatten House (C.S.T.), University Hospital Southampton; Pharmaceutical Press (S.C.), London, United Kingdom; Mylan School of Pharmacy (M.M.), Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Mountbatten Hospice (P.H.), Isle of Wight, United Kingdom; and University of Nottingham (A.W.), Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Paul Howard
- Countess Mountbatten House (C.S.T.), University Hospital Southampton; Pharmaceutical Press (S.C.), London, United Kingdom; Mylan School of Pharmacy (M.M.), Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Mountbatten Hospice (P.H.), Isle of Wight, United Kingdom; and University of Nottingham (A.W.), Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew Wilcock
- Countess Mountbatten House (C.S.T.), University Hospital Southampton; Pharmaceutical Press (S.C.), London, United Kingdom; Mylan School of Pharmacy (M.M.), Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Mountbatten Hospice (P.H.), Isle of Wight, United Kingdom; and University of Nottingham (A.W.), Nottingham, United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Fallon M, Giusti R, Aielli F, Hoskin P, Rolke R, Sharma M, Ripamonti CI. Management of cancer pain in adult patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann Oncol 2018; 29:iv166-iv191. [PMID: 30052758 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdy152] [Citation(s) in RCA: 433] [Impact Index Per Article: 72.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/08/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- M Fallon
- Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre, IGMM, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - R Giusti
- Medical Oncology Unit, Sant'Andrea Hospital of Rome, Rome
| | - F Aielli
- Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - P Hoskin
- Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, Hertfordshire, UK
| | - R Rolke
- Department of Palliative Medicine, Medical Faculty RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
| | - M Sharma
- The Walton Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - C I Ripamonti
- Department of Onco-Haematology, Fondazione IRCCS, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Eaton LH, Brant JM, McLeod K, Yeh C. Nonpharmacologic Pain Interventions: A Review of Evidence-Based Practices for Reducing Chronic Cancer Pain
. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2018; 21:54-70. [PMID: 28524909 DOI: 10.1188/17.cjon.s3.54-70] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pain is a common issue for patients with cancer and can be challenging to manage effectively. Healthcare professionals need to be knowledgeable about evidence-based nonpharmacologic interventions.
. OBJECTIVES This systematic review critically appraises the strength and quality of the empirical evidence for nonpharmacologic interventions in reducing chronic cancer pain.
. METHODS Intervention studies were critically appraised and summarized by an Oncology Nursing Society Putting Evidence Into Practice team of RNs, advanced practice nurses, and nurse scientists. A level of evidence and a practice recommendation was assigned to each intervention.
. FINDINGS Based on evidence, recommended interventions to reduce chronic cancer pain are celiac plexus block for pain related to pancreatic and abdominal cancers and radiation therapy for bone pain. Although psychoeducational interventions are considered likely to be effective, the effective components of these interventions and their dose and duration need to be determined through additional research.
Collapse
|
18
|
Affiliation(s)
- Katie Spencer
- Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9NL, UK
| | - Rhona Parrish
- Garforth Medical Centre, Garforth, Leeds LS25 1HB, UK
| | - Rachael Barton
- Queen's Centre for Oncology and Haematology, Castle Hill Hospital, Cottingham HU16 5JQ, UK
| | - Ann Henry
- Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9NL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Mohme M, Riethdorf S, Dreimann M, Werner S, Maire CL, Joosse SA, Bludau F, Mueller V, Neves RPL, Stoecklein NH, Lamszus K, Westphal M, Pantel K, Wikman H, Eicker SO. Circulating Tumour Cell Release after Cement Augmentation of Vertebral Metastases. Sci Rep 2017; 7:7196. [PMID: 28775319 PMCID: PMC5543076 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-07649-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2017] [Accepted: 06/28/2017] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Cement augmentation via percutaneous vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty for treatment of spinal metastasis is a well-established treatment option. We assessed whether elevated intrametastatic pressure during cement augmentation results in an increased dissemination of tumour cells into the vascular circulation. We prospectively collected blood from patients with osteolytic spinal column metastases and analysed the prevalence of circulating tumour cells (CTCs) at three time-points: preoperatively, 20 minutes after cement augmentation, and 3–5 days postoperatively. Enrolling 21 patients, including 13 breast- (61.9%), 5 lung- (23.8%), and one (4.8%) colorectal-, renal-, and prostate-carcinoma patient each, we demonstrate a significant 1.8-fold increase of EpCAM+/K+ CTCs in samples taken 20 minutes post-cement augmentation (P < 0.0001). Despite increased mechanical CTC dissemination due to cement augmentation, follow-up blood draws demonstrated that no long-term increase of CTCs was present. Array-CGH analysis revealed a specific profile of the CTC collected 20 minutes after cement augmentation. This is the first study to report that peripheral CTCs are temporarily increased due to vertebral cement augmentation procedures. Our findings provide a rationale for the development of new prophylactic strategies to reduce the increased release of CTC after cement augmentation of osteolytic spinal metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Malte Mohme
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
| | - Sabine Riethdorf
- Department of Tumour Biology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Marc Dreimann
- Department of Trauma-, Hand- and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Stefan Werner
- Department of Tumour Biology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Cecile L Maire
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Simon A Joosse
- Department of Tumour Biology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Frederic Bludau
- Department for Trauma Surgery, University Medical Centre Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Volkmar Mueller
- Department of Gynecology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Rui P L Neves
- Department of General, Visceral and Pediatric Surgery, University Hospital and Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine University Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany
| | - Nikolas H Stoecklein
- Department of General, Visceral and Pediatric Surgery, University Hospital and Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine University Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany
| | - Katrin Lamszus
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Manfred Westphal
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Klaus Pantel
- Department of Tumour Biology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Harriet Wikman
- Department of Tumour Biology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Sven O Eicker
- Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Odonkor CA, Kim G, Erdek M. Global cancer pain management: a systematic review comparing trials in Africa, Europe and North America. Pain Manag 2017; 7:299-310. [PMID: 28699421 DOI: 10.2217/pmt-2016-0047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM Despite the rise in cancer survivorship, few reviews have examined the quality of studies of cancer pain management and practices around the globe. With a void in trials spanning multiple geographical settings, this review evaluates the quality of cancer trials across three continents. MATERIALS & METHODS A literature review and search of established databases was conducted to identify eligible studies. The Cochrane method, the Jadad Score and a cancer pain-specific ad hoc tool were used to evaluate quality of studies. RESULTS Eighteen studies representing a total of 4693 individuals were included in the review. Study quality correlated positively with study sample size and palliative care index. Trials in all three continents were prone to use opioids for pain management, whereas trials in Europe and North America utilized other adjuvant therapies such as antidepressants and steroids. CONCLUSION This review underscores the need for better multidimensional quality assessment tools for cancer pain trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles A Odonkor
- Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA
| | - Gabriel Kim
- Department of Internal Medicine, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC 20059, USA
| | - Michael Erdek
- Division of Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology & Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Improving quality of life in patients with advanced cancer: Targeting metastatic bone pain. Eur J Cancer 2017; 71:80-94. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.10.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 61] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2016] [Accepted: 10/22/2016] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
|
22
|
Lutz S, Balboni T, Jones J, Lo S, Petit J, Rich SE, Wong R, Hahn C. Palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases: Update of an ASTRO Evidence-Based Guideline. Pract Radiat Oncol 2016; 7:4-12. [PMID: 27663933 DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2016.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 292] [Impact Index Per Article: 36.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2016] [Revised: 07/15/2016] [Accepted: 08/03/2016] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose is to provide an update the Bone Metastases Guideline published in 2011 based on evidence complemented by expert opinion. The update will discuss new high-quality literature for the 8 key questions from the original guideline and implications for practice. METHODS AND MATERIALS A systematic PubMed search from the last date included in the original Guideline yielded 414 relevant articles. Ultimately, 20 randomized controlled trials, 32 prospective nonrandomized studies, and 4 meta-analyses/pooled analyses were selected and abstracted into evidence tables. The authors synthesized the evidence and reached consensus on the included recommendations. RESULTS Available literature continues to support pain relief equivalency between single and multiple fraction regimens for bone metastases. High-quality data confirm single fraction radiation therapy may be delivered to spine lesions with acceptable late toxicity. One prospective, randomized trial confirms both peripheral and spine-based painful metastases can be successfully and safely palliated with retreatment for recurrence pain with adherence to published dosing constraints. Advanced radiation therapy techniques such as stereotactic body radiation therapy lack high-quality data, leading the panel to favor its use on a clinical trial or when results will be collected in a registry. The panel's conclusion remains that surgery, radionuclides, bisphosphonates, and kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty do not obviate the need for external beam radiation therapy. CONCLUSION Updated data analysis confirms that radiation therapy provides excellent palliation for painful bone metastases and that retreatment is safe and effective. Although adherence to evidence-based medicine is critical, thorough expert radiation oncology physician judgment and discretion regarding number of fractions and advanced techniques are also essential to optimize outcomes when considering the patient's overall health, life expectancy, comorbidities, tumor biology, anatomy, previous treatment including prior radiation at or near current site of treatment, tumor and normal tissue response history to local and systemic therapies, and other factors related to the patient, tumor characteristics, or treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen Lutz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Eastern Woods Radiation Oncology, 15990 Medical Drive South, Findlay, Ohio 45840.
| | - Tracy Balboni
- Department of Radiation Oncology, and Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Joshua Jones
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Simon Lo
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
| | - Joshua Petit
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado Health, Fort Collins, Colorado
| | - Shayna E Rich
- Hospice and Palliative Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Rebecca Wong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Carol Hahn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| |
Collapse
|