Adjuvant Agents in Cancer Pain

Local Anesthetic Lidocaine and Cancer: Insight Into Tumor Progression and Recurrence

Cancer is a leading contributor to deaths worldwide. Surgery is the primary treatment for resectable cancers. Nonetheless, it also results in inflammatory response, angiogenesis, and stimulated metastasis. Local anesthetic lidocaine can directly and indirectly effect different cancers. The direct mechanisms are inhibiting proliferation and inducing apoptosis via regulating PI3K/AKT/mTOR and caspase-dependent Bax/Bcl2 signaling pathways or repressing cytoskeleton formation. Repression invasion, migration, and angiogenesis through influencing the activation of TNFα-dependent, Src-induced AKT/NO/ICAM and VEGF/PI3K/AKT signaling pathways. Moreover, the indirect influences are immune regulation, anti-inflammation, and postoperative pain relief. This review summarizes the latest evidence that revealed potential clinical benefits of lidocaine in cancer treatment to explore the probable molecular mechanisms and the appropriate dose.

Gabapentin enhances the antinociceptive effect of intrathecal morphine in refractory cancer pain patients

PURPOSE

Morphine infusion through Intrathecal Drug Delivery System (IDDS) is widely used to relieve refractory cancer pain. However, continuous escalation of morphine dose caused by opioid tolerance and/or progress of cancer was commonly observed. Combining morphine with medications of different analgesic mechanisms is applied to blunt the rate of morphine increase. The purpose of this study was to determine the analgesic efficacy and safety of combining gabapentin with morphine after IDDS implantation.

METHODS

This study compared patients that received IDDS implantation from January 1, 2017 to November 10, 2018 in our institute. Key outcomes included change in mean pain score, dose of morphine used in patients, percentage of patients with 30% and 50% reduction in mean pain score, Patient Global Impression of Change scores, breakthrough pain characters and side effects.

RESULTS

34 patients in the combination group (morphine + gabapentin) and 40 patients in the monotherapy group(morphine)were analyzed. The results showed that both therapy groups achieved similar analgesic efficacy, demonstrated by Numerical rating scale (2.42 ± 0.88 vs 2.57 ± 0.85; Combination vs Monotherapy), PGIC and responder status. Mean daily dose of morphine was significantly lower in combination group compared to monotherapy group (3.54 ± 1.29 mg vs 4.64 ± 1.28 mg, P = 0.007). More patients experienced dizziness and somnolence after receiving combination therapy compared to morphine-alone treatment although no statistical significance was found (P = 0.49).

CONCLUSION

Addition of gabapentin achieved similar analgesic efficacy with lower dose of morphine compared to morphine alone accompanying with higher incidence of dizziness and somnolence.

The combined analgesic effect of pregabalin and morphine in the treatment of pancreatic cancer pain, a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Pregabalin is commonly used to relieve neuropathic pain. However, data are lacking on its efficacy for the treatment of chronic cancer pain. The purpose of this study was to determine the analgesic efficacy of pregabalin combined with morphine in the management of pancreatic cancer pain.

METHODS

This study reviewed patients who were prescribed morphine and 150 mg/d pregabalin between 1 January 2017 and 10 November 2018 in our institute. The primary outcomes of this study were the average pain score and dose of morphine. Secondary outcomes included characters of breakthrough cancer pain, functional interference related to pain, anxiety/depression status, and incidence of treatment-related adverse events during the study.

RESULTS

A total of 240 patients with pain related to pancreatic cancer were included in the study. The results showed that patients of both combination therapy group (pregabalin+morphine) and monotherapy group (morphine) achieved similar analgesic efficacy, demonstrated by NRS (2.4 ± 0.9 vs. 2.6 ± 0.9; combination vs. monotherapy) at the end of the study. Mean daily dose of morphine used in the combination group was significant lower compared to monotherapy group (39.5 ± 16.0 mg vs. 61.5 ± 19.3 mg, net difference 23.5, 95% CI: 18.4-28.6, p <  0.001). The change of functional interference score related to pain was significantly different between combination and monotherapy group (12.0 ± 0.4 vs. 9.8 ± 4.9; net difference, 2.3; 95% CI: 1.1-3.3; p < 0.001). Patients in combination therapy group had experienced shorter duration of breakthrough cancer pain than those in monotherapy group (X² p < 0.001, Cramer's V:0.36). The incidence of somnolence, dizziness, and cognitive dysfunction were significantly higher in the combination group compared to monotherapy group. No serious treatment-related side effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study supported the use of pregabalin with morphine to relieve pain in patients of pancreatic cancer.

Pain management of the cancer patient

INTRODUCTION

Cancer pain is one of the most important symptoms of malignant disease, which has a major impact on the quality of life of cancer patients. Therefore, it needs to be treated appropriately after a careful assessment of the types and causes of pain.

AREAS COVERED

The mainstay of cancer pain management is systemic pharmacotherapy. This is, in principle, still based on the WHO guidelines initially published in 1986. Although these have been validated, they are not evidence-based. The principles are a stepladder approach using non-opioids, weak and then strong opioids. In addition, adjuvants can be added at any step to address specific situations such as bone or neuropathic pain. Patients, even if they are on long-acting opioids, need to be provided with immediate-release opioids for breakthrough pain. In case of inefficacy or severe adverse effects of one opioid, rotation to another opioid is recommended.

EXPERT OPINION

There is a major need for more and better randomized controlled trials in the setting of cancer pain as the lack of evidence is hampering the improvement of current treatment guidelines.

Can treatment success with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster be predicted in cancer pain with neuropathic components or trigeminal neuropathic pain?

An expert group of 40 pain specialists from 16 countries performed a first assessment of the value of predictors for treatment success with 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster in the management of cancer pain with neuropathic components and trigeminal neuropathic pain. Results were based on the retrospective analysis of 68 case reports (sent in by participants in the 4 weeks prior to the conference) and the practical experience of the experts. Lidocaine plaster treatment was mostly successful for surgery or chemotherapy-related cancer pain with neuropathic components. A dose reduction of systemic pain treatment was observed in at least 50% of all cancer pain patients using the plaster as adjunct treatment; the presence of allodynia, hyperalgesia or pain quality provided a potential but not definitively clear indication of treatment success. In trigeminal neuropathic pain, continuous pain, severe allodynia, hyperalgesia, or postherpetic neuralgia or trauma as the cause of orofacial neuropathic pain were perceived as potential predictors of treatment success with lidocaine plaster. In conclusion, these findings provide a first assessment of the likelihood of treatment benefits with 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster in the management of cancer pain with neuropathic components and trigeminal neuropathic pain and support conducting large, well-designed multicenter studies.

Transformation of acute cancer pain to chronic cancer pain syndromes

For many cancer survivors, disease-related long-term morbidities and the application of advanced cancer treatments have resulted in the development of a chronic pain state. This brief review explores the relationship between what is known about the treatment of active cancer pain syndromes-both continuous pain and breakthrough pain-and persisting pain syndromes in cancer survivors. We also posit that because there is evidence to suggest that poorly treated acute pain can lead to protracted pain conditions, acute pain should be recognized and treated promptly, both for short- and long-term gain. In the short term, better acute pain treatment can improve functionality and psychological well-being, whereas in the long term, mounting evidence suggests that it could prevent of future chronic pain.

Pharmacological treatment of neuropathic cancer pain: a comprehensive review of the current literature

Neuropathic cancer pain (NCP), commonly encountered in clinical practice, may be cancer-related, namely resulting from nervous system tumor invasion, surgical nerve damage during tumor removal, radiation-induced nerve damage and chemotherapy-related neuropathy, or may be of benign origin, unrelated to cancer. A neuropathic component is evident in about 1/3 of cancer pain cases. Although from a pathophysiological perspective NCP may differ from chronic neuropathic pain (NP), such as noncancer-related pain, clinical practice, and limited publications have shown that these two pain entities may share some treatment modalities. For example, co-analgesics have been well integrated into cancer pain-management strategies and are often used as First-Line options for the treatment of NCP. These drugs, including antidepressants and anticonvulsants, are recommended by evidence-based guidelines, whereas, others such as lidocaine patch 5%, are supported by randomized, controlled, clinical data and are included in guidelines for restricted conditions treatment. The vast majority of these drugs have already been proven useful in the management of benign NP syndromes. Treatment decisions for patients with NP can be difficult. The intrinsic difficulties in performing randomized controlled trials in cancer pain have traditionally justified the acceptance of drugs already known to be effective in benign NP for the management of malignant NP, despite the lack of relevant high quality data. Interest in NCP mechanisms and pharmacotherapy has increased, resulting in significant mechanism-based treatment advances for the future. In this comprehensive review, we present the latest knowledge regarding NCP pharmacological management.

A strategy for conversion from subcutaneous to oral ketamine in cancer pain patients: effect of a 1:1 ratio

CONTEXT

No consensus exists about the most appropriate dose ratio for conversion from parenteral to oral ketamine.

OBJECTIVES

To confirm that a 1:1 dose ratio is suitable for converting subcutaneous (s.c.) to oral ketamine in cancer patients.

METHODS

Patients with opioid poorly responsive cancer pain, who responded to 0.4, 0.6, or 0.8 mg s.c. ketamine bolus, were treated with 0.1, 0.15, or 0.2mg/kg/h ketamine infusion, respectively. Switching to the oral route, by applying a 1:1 dose ratio, was carried out in patients who experienced adequate pain relief and continued to need ketamine as a coanalgesic. Pain, somnolence, feelings of insobriety, confusion, and cardiovascular parameters were assessed throughout the process.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients were enrolled in the study. Ketamine infusion decreased pain intensity from severe to no pain or slight pain in 23 of 29 and six of 29 patients, respectively. The median of s.c. ketamine doses was 0.2mg/kg/h (range 0.1-0.5). After oral switching, 27 of 29 patients remained as successfully controlled as when receiving s.c. ketamine. The other two patients needed a slight dose ratio readjustment, to 1:1.3 and 1:1.5, to maintain pain control. The median of oral ketamine doses was 300 mg/day (interquartile range 240-382.5). Seven of 29 patients receiving s.c. ketamine developed moderate and transitory side effects, such as feelings of insobriety and somnolence. No side effects were present while receiving oral ketamine. No significant changes were observed in cardiovascular parameters.

CONCLUSION

A 1:1 dose ratio for conversion from s.c. to oral ketamine is safe and effective in cancer pain patients.

Regional cerebral blood flow in patients with orally localized somatoform pain disorder: a single photon emission computed tomography study

AIM

Somatoform pain disorder is characterized by persistent and chronic pain at one or more sites without an associated general medical condition and in which psychological factors are thought to play a role. This study aimed to investigate the pathological features of somatoform pain disorder localized to the oral region by single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT).

METHODS

Ten patients (nine females and one male; average age 55.0 ± 14.4 years) having somatoform pain disorder with oral symptoms participated. SPECT was performed using N-isopropyl-4-[(123) I] iodoamphetamine intravenous injections, and regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) was assessed by three-dimensional stereotactic surface projections. We also selected 12 healthy individuals (seven females and five males; average age 61.8 ± 13.2 years) to act as controls.

RESULTS

Both the patient and control groups showed no atrophy or infarction on CT or magnetic resonance imaging. The patient group showed higher rCBF in the subcortical area, especially in the thalamus and cingulate gyri, than the control group. In contrast, the patient group showed lower rCBF in the bilateral frontal and occipital lobes as well as in the left temporal lobe.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the biological process involved in somatoform pain disorder of the oral region is characterized by changes in limbic and cortical functions. The finding that somatoform pain disorder with oral symptoms is associated with brain functional changes will help to develop treatment regimes for this disorder and clarify the underlying pathology.

Pharmacological management of neuropathic pain in older adults: an update on peripherally and centrally acting agents

The burden of neuropathic pain in older adults is great and the practitioner is challenged to reduce symptoms and improve quality of life. Many common neuropathic pain syndromes are more prevalent in the older population, and older adults also carry greater sensitivity to certain side effects. The health care professional should have a thorough familiarity with all medications available to treat this difficult group of disorders.

Pregabalin in the treatment of chronic pain: an overview

Chronic 'pathological' pain is sustained by mechanisms of peripheral and central sensitization, which are being increasingly investigated at the molecular and cellular levels. The molecular determinants of nociceptive sensitization are natural targets for potential analgesic drugs used in the treatment of different forms of pain. Most of these determinants are common to all forms of chronic pain, and it is therefore not surprising that drugs specifically targeted for the treatment of neuropathic pain are effective in relieving nociceptive inflammatory pain and vice versa. The molecular mechanisms of sensitization that occur in peripheral nociceptors and the dorsal horns of the spinal cord are putative targets for context-dependent drugs, i.e. drugs that are able to discriminate between 'normal' and 'pathological' pain transmission. Among these, pregabalin and gabapentin bind to the alpha(2)delta subunit of voltage-sensitive Ca2+ channels, which sustain the enhanced release of pain transmitters at the synapses between primary afferent fibres and second-order sensory neurons under conditions of chronic pain. Pregabalin in particular represents a remarkable example of a context-dependent analgesic drug that acts at a critical step of nociceptive sensitization. Preclinical and clinical data suggest that pregabalin is more than a structural and functional analogue of gabapentin and may be effective in the treatment of nociceptive inflammatory pain that is resistant to gabapentin.

Management of chronic pain in cancer survivors

Chronic pain is a frequent complication of cancer and its treatments and is often underreported, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Pain in cancer survivors is caused by residual tissue damage from the cancer and/or the cancer therapy. This pain can be divided into 3 pathophysiologic categories: somatic, visceral, and neuropathic. The most common treatment-induced chronic pain syndromes are neuropathies secondary to surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. Comfort and function are optimized in cancer survivors by a multidisciplinary approach using an individually tailored combination of opioids, coanalgesics, physical therapy, interventional procedures, psychosocial interventions, and complementary and alternative modalities. Management of chronic pain must be integrated into comprehensive cancer care so that cancer patients can fully enjoy their survival.