The role of paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in addition to WHO Step III opioids in the control of pain in advanced cancer. A systematic review of the literature

Quality Evaluation of Locally Manufactured Paracetamol Tablets in East Africa

Background: Paracetamol, also known as acetaminophen, is categorized as an analgesic and antipyretic medication and is available as over the counter (OTC) medication. It is commonly used in conditions associated with pain and fever. There is a tendency for community to prefer using imported paracetamol tablets from Europe and United States than from Asia and Africa worrying of the quality of the products. Safety, effectiveness, and efficacy of a medicine can be guaranteed when its quality is reliable; however, there is limited data on the quality of locally manufactured paracetamol tablets, thus necessitating this study. Aim: This study is aimed at assessing the quality of paracetamol tablets 500 mg manufactured by local companies by evaluating their physical parameters, assay results, and dissolution profiles. The compliance of these tablets with the specifications outlined in the British Pharmacopoeia (BP) was analyzed. Additionally, a comparative dissolution test was conducted to assess dissolution profile for innovator product and generics. Method: Five different brands from East African countries with 76 tablets from each brand were compared with the innovator product regarding weight variation, hardness, friability, assay, and dissolution test based on the BP specifications. Results and discussion: All samples of paracetamol tablets 500 mg from the local manufacturers in this study met the specifications set by the BP for physical parameters, including weight variation, friability, hardness, and disintegration tests. The weight variation test, directly related to drug content variation, demonstrated compliance within the acceptable deviation of 5%. Similarly, the assay test, which determines the concentration of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), confirmed that all samples complied with the acceptable concentration range of 90%-110% for paracetamol. The dissolution test, assessing the percentage release of the API within a specified time, demonstrated that at 15 min, two samples (diodol and enamol) exhibited lower concentration releases than the required 80%, indicating potential delays in their bioavailability and onset of action. Conclusion: To conclude, all samples had good quality and they can be used for their therapeutic purposes.

An overview of the current drug treatment strategies for moderate to severe, chronic malignant tumor-related pain

INTRODUCTION

The pharmacological management of cancer pain is a complex issue that requires knowledge and experience in the use of analgesics. The aim of this expert review is to provide a panorama of the pharmacological strategies in cancer pain management.

AREAS COVERED

Opioid dose titration is a delicate process regarding the start of opioid treatment in different clinical conditions. How to improve the opioid response is a fundamental step, which includes different strategies when an initial treatment with opioids fails. The use of adjuvants is another relevant issue that should be considered in some specific circumstances to optimize the management of cancer pain management. Some clinical conditions, such as neuropathic pain and breakthrough pain, deserve a special attention. Relevant literature was selected to provide an overview of cancer pain management strategies.

EXPERT OPINION

Opioid therapy still remains the cornerstone of pharmacological management of cancer pain. Opioids should be used according to the level of tolerance, also personalizing the treatment (route, drug, and dosing). Adjuvant drugs may help in specific conditions, although their use should be balanced with the adverse effects. Breakthrough pain requires expertise in tailoring a treatment according to patient's profile and characteristics of episodes.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for pain in hospice/palliative care: an international pharmacovigilance study

OBJECTIVES

To describe the current, real-world use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for pain and the associated benefits and harms.

METHODS

A prospective, multicentre, consecutive cohort pharmacovigilance study conducted at 14 sites across Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand and the UK including hospital, hospice inpatient and outpatient services. Pain scores and harms were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events at baseline, 2 days and 14 days. Ad-hoc safety reporting continued until day 28.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 92 patients between March 2018 and October 2021. Most patients had cancer (91%) and were coprescribed opioids (90%). At 14 days, 83% of patients had benefit from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and 22% had harm. The most common harms were nausea (8%), vomiting (3%), acute kidney injury (3%) and non-gastrointestinal bleeding (3%); only 2% were severe and no patients ceased their non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs due to toxicity. Overall, 65% had benefit without harm and 3% had harm without benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients benefited from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with only one in five patients experiencing tolerable harm. This suggests that short-term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients receiving palliative care is safer than previously thought and may be underused.

Patient-targeted interventions for opioid deprescribing: An overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing (reduction or cessation) of prescribed opioids can be challenging for both patients and healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize and evaluate evidence from systematic reviews examining the effectiveness and outcomes of patient-targeted opioid deprescribing interventions for all types of pain.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted in five databases with results screened against predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Primary outcomes were (i) reduction in opioid dose, reported as change in oral Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (oMEDD) and (ii) success of opioid deprescribing, reported as the proportion of the sample for which opioid use declined. Secondary outcomes included pain severity, physical function, quality of life and adverse events. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

FINDINGS

Twelve reviews were eligible for inclusion. Interventions were heterogeneous in nature and included pharmacological (n = 4), physical (n = 3), procedural (n = 3), psychological or behavioural (n = 3) and mixed (n = 5) interventions. Multidisciplinary care programmes appeared to be the most effective intervention for opioid deprescribing; however, the certainty of evidence was low, with significant variability in opioid reduction across interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is too uncertain to draw firm conclusions about specific populations who may derive the greatest benefit from opioid deprescribing, warranting further investigation.

Acupuncture vs Massage for Pain in Patients Living With Advanced Cancer: The IMPACT Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Pain is challenging for patients with advanced cancer. While recent guidelines recommend acupuncture and massage for cancer pain, their comparative effectiveness is unknown.

Objective

To compare the effects of acupuncture and massage on musculoskeletal pain among patients with advanced cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A multicenter pragmatic randomized clinical trial was conducted at US cancer care centers consisting of a northeastern comprehensive cancer center and a southeastern cancer institute from September 19, 2019, through February 23, 2022. The principal investigator and study statisticians were blinded to treatment assignments. The duration of follow-up was 26 weeks. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed (linear mixed models). Participants included patients with advanced cancer with moderate to severe pain and clinician-estimated life expectancy of 6 months or more. Patient recruitment strategy was multipronged (eg, patient database queries, mailings, referrals, community outreach). Eligible patients had English or Spanish as their first language, were older than 18 years, and had a Karnofsky score greater than or equal to 60 (range, 0-100; higher scores indicating less functional impairment).

Interventions

Weekly acupuncture or massage for 10 weeks with monthly booster sessions up to 26 weeks.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was the change in worst pain intensity score from baseline to 26 weeks. The secondary outcomes included fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life. The Brief Pain Inventory (range, 0-10; higher numbers indicate worse pain intensity or interference) was used to measure the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life.

Results

A total of 298 participants were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 58.7 [14.1] years, 200 [67.1%] were women, 33 [11.1%] Black, 220 [74.1%] White, 46 [15.4%] Hispanic, and 78.5% with solid tumors). The mean (SD) baseline worst pain score was 6.9 (1.5). During 26 weeks, acupuncture reduced the worst pain score, with a mean change of -2.53 (95% CI, -2.92 to -2.15) points, and massage reduced the Brief Pain Inventory worst pain score, with a mean change of -3.01 (95% CI, -3.38 to -2.63) points; the between-group difference was not significant (-0.48; 95% CI, -0.98 to 0.03; P = .07). Both treatments also improved fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life without significant between-group differences. Adverse events were mild and included bruising (6.5% of patients receiving acupuncture) and transient soreness (15.1% patients receiving massage).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial among patients with advanced cancer, both acupuncture and massage were associated with pain reduction and improved fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life over 26 weeks; however, there was no significant different between the treatments. More research is needed to evaluate how best to integrate these approaches into pain treatment to optimize symptom management for the growing population of people living with advanced cancer.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04095234.

Designing a clinical trial of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for cancer pain: a survey of UK palliative care physicians

OBJECTIVES

Insufficient quality evidence exists to support or refute the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the management of cancer pain. We aimed to determine the most clinically pragmatic design of a future randominsed controlled trial (RCT), based on how NSAIDs are currently used and perceived efficacy.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to members of the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland examining NSAID use, indications and perceived efficacy, as well as duration of respondents' experience in palliative medicine.

RESULTS

23% of 968 members responded. A placebo-controlled trial of NSAIDs as a strong opioid adjunct in cancer-related bone pain was considered the most clinically pragmatic design. Concerning current practice, oral administration was the preferential route (79.4%), dosed regularly (79.5%). Selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors and non-selective COX-2 inhibitors were considered similarly effective by 45% in cancer pain; ibuprofen being the first line oral NSAID of choice (42.6%). Treatment efficacy is generally determined within 1 week (94.3%). On a Likert scale, most physicians consider NSAIDs improve cancer pain either 'sometimes' (57.7%) or 'often' (40%). Years of specialist palliative care experience did not affect perception of efficacy (p=0.353).

CONCLUSIONS

A randomised controlled trial of NSAIDs as opioid adjuncts for cancer-related bone pain would be the most pragmatic design supported by palliative care clinicians to benefit clinical practice.

Is Acetaminophen Beneficial in Patients With Cancer Pain Who are on Strong Opioids? A Randomized Controlled Trial

CONTEXT

Pain is common among cancer patients. The evidence recommends using strong opioids in moderate to severe cancer pain. No conclusive evidence supports the effectiveness of adding acetaminophen to patients with cancer pain who are already using this regime.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy of acetaminophen in hospitalized cancer patients with moderate to severe pain receiving strong opioids.

METHODS

In this randomized blinded clinical trial, hospitalized cancer patients with moderate or severe acute pain managed with strong opioids were randomized to acetaminophen or placebo. The primary outcome was pain intensity difference between baseline and 48 hours using the Visual Numeric Rating Scales (VNRS). Secondary outcomes included change in morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), and patients' perception of improved pain control.

RESULTS

Among 112 randomized patients, 56 patients received placebo, 56 acetaminophen. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) decrease in pain intensity (VNRS) at 48 hours were 2.7 (2.5) and 2.3 (2.3), respectively (95% Confidence Interval (CI) [-0.49; 1.32]; P = 0.37). Mean (SD) change in MEDD was 13.9 (33.0) mg/day and 22.4 (57.7), respectively (95% CI [-9.24; 26.1]; P = 0.35). The proportion of patients perceiving pain control improvement after 48 hours was 82% in the placebo and 80% in the acetaminophen arms (P = 0.81).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with cancer pain on strong opioid regime, acetaminophen may not improve pain control, or decrease total opioid use. These results add to the current evidence available suggesting not to use acetaminophen as an adjuvant for advanced cancer patients with moderate to severe cancer pain who are on strong opioids.

Mechanisms of cancer pain

Personalised and targeted interventions have revolutionised cancer treatment and dramatically improved survival rates in recent decades. Nonetheless, effective pain management remains a problem for patients diagnosed with cancer, who continue to suffer from the painful side effects of cancer itself, as well as treatments for the disease. This problem of cancer pain will continue to grow with an ageing population and the rapid advent of more effective therapeutics to treat the disease. Current pain management guidelines from the World Health Organisation are generalised for different pain severities, but fail to address the heterogeneity of mechanisms in patients with varying cancer types, stages of disease and treatment plans. Pain is the most common complaint leading to emergency unit visits by patients with cancer and over one-third of patients that have been diagnosed with cancer will experience under-treated pain. This review summarises preclinical models of cancer pain states, with a particular focus on cancer-induced bone pain and chemotherapy-associated pain. We provide an overview of how preclinical models can recapitulate aspects of pain and sensory dysfunction that is observed in patients with persistent cancer-induced bone pain or neuropathic pain following chemotherapy. Peripheral and central nervous system mechanisms of cancer pain are discussed, along with key cellular and molecular mediators that have been highlighted in animal models of cancer pain. These include interactions between neuronal cells, cancer cells and non-neuronal cells in the tumour microenvironment. Therapeutic targets beyond opioid-based management are reviewed for the treatment of cancer pain.

Randomized double-blind controlled trial to assess the efficacy of intravenous acetaminophen associated with strong opioids in the treatment of acute pain in adult cancer patients: study protocol

BACKGROUND

Cancer pain is one of the most frequent and relevant symptoms in cancer patients and impacts on patient's quality of life. International and local standards recommend as an initial strategy the use of an analgesic scheme composed of strong opioids associated with adjuvants such as acetaminophen, based upon the assumption that combining drugs could have a better analgesic effect, could allow lowering opioid dosing, and could prevent the occurrence of adverse effects of opioids. However, there is uncertainty about the impact of acetaminophen as an adjuvant in patients who use strong opioids for moderate to severe pain management in cancer patients. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous acetaminophen associated with strong opioids in hospitalized adult cancer patients who have moderate to severe cancer-related pain.

METHODS

We will perform a randomized double-blinded controlled study comparing intravenous acetaminophen 1 g 4 times a day versus placebo for 48 h as an adjuvant to strong opioids. We will assess pain intensity as a primary outcome, using the verbal numerical rating scale (VNRS, I0 to 10 scale with higher scores meaning higher pain intensity), and we will compare the mean difference in pain intensity between baseline and 48 h among the placebo and intervention groups. We estimate that a decrease of 1 point in the VNRS would be clinically significant. Assuming a standard deviation in pain intensity of 1.7 points, an alpha of 0.025, and a power of 0.8, we estimate a sample size of 112 patients, with 56 patients in each arm. Secondary outcomes include the difference in total opioid use between baseline and at 48 h among the groups, and adverse effects such as drowsiness, constipation, nausea, and vomiting would be evaluated.

DISCUSSION

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design is the best strategy to assess the efficacy of acetaminophen as an adjuvant in adult cancer patients with moderate to severe pain who are receiving strong opioids. We expect to contribute to national and international guidelines with these results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04779567 . Registered on March 3, 2021. Retrospectively registered.

Non-opioid Analgesics and Emerging Therapies

Pain is a common and debilitating symptom of cancer. Cancer-related pain can occur at any point along the continuum from diagnosis to treatment to survivorship¹. A systematic review published in 2016 estimated the prevalence of cancer pain to be 55% in those undergoing antineoplastic treatment, 66.4% in advanced cancer, and 39.3% in the post-treatment population. Thirty-eight percent of cancer patients in this pooled analysis experienced moderate to severe pain².

Validation of an oncology-specific opioid risk calculator in cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines recommend that providers risk-stratify patients with cancer before prescribing opioids. Prior research has demonstrated that a simple cancer opioid risk score might help identify to patients with cancer at the time of diagnosis with a high likelihood of long-term posttreatment opioid use. This current project validates this cancer opioid risk score in a generalizable, population-based cohort of elderly cancer survivors.

METHODS

This study identified 44,932 Medicare beneficiaries with cancer who had received local therapy. Longitudinal opioid use was ascertained from Medicare Part D data. A risk score was calculated for each patient, and patients were categorized into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups on the basis of the predicted probability of persistent opioid use. Model discrimination was assessed with receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

In the study cohort, 5.2% of the patients were chronic opioid users 1 to 2 years after the initiation of cancer treatment. The majority of the patients (64%) were at low risk and had a 1.2% probability of long-term opioid use. Moderate-risk patients (33% of the cohort) had a 5.6% probability of long-term opioid use. High-risk patients (3.5% of the cohort) had a 75% probability of long-term opioid use. The opioid risk score had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.869.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that a cancer opioid risk score could accurately identify individuals with a high likelihood of long-term opioid use in a large, generalizable cohort of cancer survivors. Future research should focus on the implementation of these scores into clinical practice and how this could affect prescriber behavior and patient outcomes.

LAY SUMMARY

A novel 5-question clinical decision tool allows physicians treating patients with cancer to accurately predict which patients will persistently be using opioid medications after completing therapy.

Acetaminophen in Patients Receiving Strong Opioids for Cancer Pain

The mainstay of treatment in advanced cancer pain is opioids; however, non-opioid medications such as acetaminophen continue to be included in guidelines despite a lack of clear, convincing evidence for their use. The aim of our study was to determine if acetaminophen improves pain control or reduces opioid utilization in hospitalized patients receiving strong opioids for cancer pain managed by the palliative care consult service (PCCS). We carried out at single-center retrospective cohort study of 194 adult cancer patients seen by the PCCS and who received strong opioids. Patients who received acetaminophen during their admission were compared to those who did not. The primary outcome was a 30% reduction in average daily pain score from admission to discharge using a numeric rating scale. There was no difference between groups in achieving a 30% reduction in pain (35.8% vs. 35.4%, adjusted odds ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46 to 1.63). Acetaminophen was associated with a longer LOS (8 days vs. 6 days, adjusted relative risk 1.67, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.15). In this study of cancer patients receiving strong opioids, acetaminophen use was not associated with improved pain control or reduced opioid utilization, but was associated with a greater LOS.

Oncologic Emergencies: Palliative Care in the Emergency Department Setting

BACKGROUND

Palliative care is an essential component of emergency medicine, as many patients with terminal illness will present to the emergency department (ED) for symptomatic management at the end of life (EOL).

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review evaluates palliative care in the ED, with a focus on the literature behind management of EOL symptoms, especially dyspnea and cancer-related pain.

DISCUSSION

As the population ages, increasing numbers of patients present to the ED with severe EOL symptoms. An understanding of the role of palliative care in the ED is crucial to effectively communicating with these patients to determine their goals and provide medical care in line with their wishes. Beneficence, nonmaleficence, and patient autonomy are essential components of palliative care. Patients without medical decision-making capacity may have an advance directive, do not resuscitate or do not intubate order, or Portable Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment available to assist clinicians. Effective and empathetic communication with patients and families is vital to EOL care discussions. Two of the most common and distressing symptoms at the EOL are dyspnea and pain. The most effective treatment of EOL dyspnea is opioids, with literature showing little efficacy for other therapies. The most effective treatment for cancer-related pain is opioids, with expeditious pain control achievable with a rapid fentanyl titration. It is also important to address nausea, vomiting, and secretions, as these are common at the EOL.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency clinicians play a vital role in EOL patient care. Clear, empathetic communication and treatment of EOL symptoms are essential.

Approaches and Best Practices for Managing Cancer Pain within the Constraints of the COVID-19 Pandemic in India

Novel corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an ongoing pandemic that has impacted the entire world. The Indian government has responded strongly and very stringently to the crisis, through a nationwide lockdown. The health-care (HC) systems in the country are striving hard to maintain equitable care across illness spectra, while responding the emergencies imposed by the COVID-19 crisis. Under these circumstances, guidelines for managing several diseases including that for cancer care have been modified. As modified guidelines for cancer care have their focus on disease management, cancer pain management and maintaining continuity of care for patients with advanced progressive disease have taken a backseat in the available cancer care guidelines. This article describes the challenges, approaches to solutions with evidence-based practices that can be utilized to ensure competent management of cancer pain during the COVID-19 pandemic in India. It provides an overview of adapting to telehealth consultations for identification, evaluation and management of cancer pain, safe and rational use of analgesics and adjuvant drugs, recognizing and responding to holistic care needs and addressing the total pain, ensuring continuity of pain management, and strategies when complying with narcotic drug regulations, while ensuring safety of patients and HC providers.

Selected pathobiological features and principles of pharmacological pain management

Pain induced by inflammation and nerve injury arises from abnormal neural activity of primary afferent nociceptors in response to tissue damage, which causes long-term elevation of the sensitivity and responsiveness of spinal cord neurons. Inflammatory pain typically resolves following resolution of inflammation; however, nerve injury-either peripheral or central-may cause persistent neuropathic pain, which frequently manifests as hyperalgesia or allodynia. Neuralgias, malignant metastatic bone disease, and diabetic neuropathy are some of the conditions associated with severe, often unremitting chronic pain that is both physically and psychologically debilitating or disabling. Therefore, optimal pain management for patients with chronic neuropathic pain requires a multimodal approach that comprises pharmacological and psychological interventions. Non-opioid analgesics (e.g., paracetamol, aspirin, or other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) are first-line agents used in the treatment of mild-to-moderate acute pain, while opioids of increasing potency are indicated for the treatment of persistent, moderate-to-severe inflammatory pain. N-methyl D-aspartate receptor antagonists, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, or a combination of these should be considered for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. This review discusses the various neural signals that mediate acute and chronic pain, as well as the general principles of pain management.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and pain in cancer patients: a systematic review and reappraisal of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Emerging data highlights the potential role of cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors in the primary prevention of malignancy, reducing metastatic spread and improving overall mortality. Despite nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) forming a key component of the WHO analgesic ladder, their use in cancer pain management remains relatively low. This review re-appraises the current evidence regarding the efficacy of COX inhibitors as analgesics in cancer pain, providing a succinct resource to aid clinicians' decision making when determining treatment strategies.

METHODS

Medline® and Embase® databases were searched for publications up to November 2018. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and double-blind controlled studies considering the use of NSAIDs for management of cancer-related pain in adults were included. Animal studies, case reports, and retrospective observational data were excluded.

RESULTS

Thirty studies investigating the use of NSAIDs in cancer pain management were identified. There is a lack of high-quality evidence regarding the analgesic efficacy of NSAIDs in cancer pain, with short study durations and heterogeneity in outcome measures limiting the ability to draw meaningful conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the renewed interest in these cost-effective, well-established medications in cancer treatment outcomes, there is a paucity of data from the past 15 yr regarding their efficacy in cancer pain management. However, when analgesic strategies in the cancer population are being formulated, it is important that the potential benefits of this class of drug are considered. Further work investigating the role of NSAIDs in cancer pain management is undoubtedly warranted.

Real-life management of patients with breakthrough cancer pain caused by bone metastases in Spain

Purpose: We aimed to explore the characteristics, and real-life therapeutic management of patients with breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) caused by bone metastases in Spain, and to evaluate physicians’ opinion of and satisfaction with prescribed BTcP therapy.

Participants and methods: For the purposes of this study, an ad-hoc questionnaire was developed consisting of two domains: a) organizational aspects and care standards; b) clinical and treatment variables of bone metastatic BTcP patients. In addition, physicians’ satisfaction with their prescribed BTcP therapy was assessed. Specialists collected data from up to five patients receiving treatment for BTcP caused by bone metastasis, all patients gave their consent to participate prior to inclusion.

Results: A total of 103 cancer pain specialists (radiation oncologists [38.8%], pain specialists [33.0%], and palliative care (PC) specialists [21.4%]) were polled, and data on 386 BTcP patients with bone metastatic disease were collected. Only 33% of the specialists had implemented specific protocols for BTcP management, and 19.4% had established referral protocols for this group of patients. Half of all participants (50.5%) address quality of life and quality of care in their patients; however, only 27.0% did so from the patient’s perspective, as they should do. Most patients had multiple metastases and were prescribed rapid-onset fentanyl preparations (71.2%), followed by immediate-release morphine (9.3%) for the treatment of BTcP. Rapid-onset fentanyl was prescribed more often in PC units (79.0%) than in pain units (75.9%) and radiation oncology units (61.1%) (p<0.01). Furthermore, most physicians (71.8%) were satisfied with the BTcP therapy prescribed.

Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the need for routine assessment of quality of life in patients with bone BTcP. These findings also underscore the necessity for a multidisciplinary therapeutic strategy for breakthrough pain in clinical practice in Spain.

Symptom Burden and End-of-Life Palliative Treatments during the Last Two Weeks of Life in Patients with Advanced Musculoskeletal Sarcoma

Background: Musculoskeletal sarcomas (MSSs) are rare cancers and often aggressive tumors that originate from mesenchymal tissue. Patients with advanced MSS often report difficulties with symptom burden, which can reduce their health-related quality-of-life. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the patterns of the physical symptoms of MSS patients in the palliative setting and to detail the palliative treatment used in the last two weeks of life. Design: Retrospective study using the electronic patient records from a single institution. Setting/Subjects: A retrospective study was carried out in a sample of 46 consecutive MSS patients with locally advanced/metastatic disease, who were hospitalized and died in our department. The median age of these patients was 56 years at death. Measurements: Symptom burden and medical intervention during the last two weeks of life were collected. Results: The most frequent physical symptoms were pain and dyspnea in 93% and 78% of patients, respectively, while only 17% of patients suffered from nausea. A total of 98% of patients required opioids, and most patients were treated with morphine through either subcutaneous or intravenous continuous injection. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen were administered to 79% of patients. Corticosteroids were administered for the relief of dyspnea to 83% of patients. Of the patients, 46% received palliative chemotherapy within the last two weeks of life, and the oral treatment was continued until a median of 5.6 days before death. In addition, 39% of patients received a sedative treatment during the last two weeks of life for uncontrolled refractory symptoms. Conclusions: The symptom burden experienced by advanced MSS patients is profound at the end of life for all palliative approaches. Therefore, palliative medicine is an important and even crucial component of the continuum of care, allowing for aggressive symptom management with a variety of medical interventions, including palliative sedation.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on non-opioid analgesics in palliative medicine

Non-opioid analgesics are widely used for pain relief in palliative medicine. However, there is a lack of evidence-based recommendations addressing the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of non-opioids in this field. A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis on current evidence can provide a basis for sound recommendations in clinical practice. A database search for controlled trials on the use of non-opioids in adult palliative patients was performed in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE from inception to 18 February 2018. Endpoints were pain intensity, opioid-sparing effects, safety, and quality of life. Studies with similar patients, interventions, and outcomes were included in the meta-analyses. Our systematic search was able to only identify studies dealing with cancer pain. Of 5991 retrieved studies, 43 could be included (n = 2925 patients). There was no convincing evidence for satisfactory pain relief by acetaminophen alone or in combination with strong opioids. We found substantial evidence of moderate quality for a satisfactory pain relief in cancer by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), flupirtine, and dipyrone compared with placebo or other analgesics. There was no evidence for a superiority of one specific non-opioid. There was moderate quality of evidence for a similar pain reduction by NSAIDs in the usual dosage range compared with up to 15 mg of morphine or opioids of equianalgesic potency. The combination of NSAID and step III opioids showed a beneficial effect, without a decreased tolerability. There is scarce evidence concerning the combination of NSAIDs with weak opioids. There are no randomized-controlled studies on the use of non-opioids in a wide range of end-stage diseases except for cancer. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, flupirtine, and dipyrone can be recommended for the treatment of cancer pain either alone or in combination with strong opioids. The use of acetaminophen in the palliative setting cannot be recommended. Studies are not available for long-term use. There is a lack of evidence regarding pain treatment by non-opioids in specific cancer entities.

Subcutaneous administration of paracetamol-Good local tolerability in palliative care patients: An observational study

BACKGROUND

The subcutaneous route is widely used in both palliative care and geriatrics. Numerous compounds are administered by this route, including paracetamol. However, there is no recommendation on which to base this latter practice and, in the absence of published evidence, nothing is known regarding its local tolerability in palliative care patients.

AIM

The main objective of this study was to assess the local tolerability of paracetamol when administered subcutaneously for analgesic or antipyretic purposes in patients hospitalized in the palliative care unit. The secondary objective was to identify the factors favoring the occurrence of local adverse events.

DESIGN

This is a prospective multicenter observational study (NCT02884609).

PARTICIPANTS

Study conducted in 160 patients hospitalized in the palliative care units of three hospitals in metropolitan France from 2014 to 2017.

RESULTS

Of the 160 patients, 44 (28%) presented at least one non-serious local adverse event (edema in 29, erythema in 5, pain in 15, hematoma in 2, pruritus in 1, and local heat in 2). No serious adverse events were observed. Factors associated with the occurrence of local adverse events were younger age, administration in the arm and thorax, and a high number of daily administrations.

CONCLUSION

This first ever study carried out on this subject reveals that subcutaneous administration of paracetamol in palliative care patients was well tolerated locally.

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.

Dipyrone is the preferred nonopioid analgesic for the treatment of acute and chronic pain. A survey of clinical practice in German-speaking countries

PURPOSE

Nonopioid analgesics are frequently used for the treatment of acute and chronic pain. Dipyrone is an alternative to NSAIDs and paracetamol, however, data on the frequency of its usage by anaesthesiologists in the perioperative and chronic pain setting are lacking and its adverse reactions are a matter of debate.

METHODS

The link to a questionnaire on the use of nonopioid analgesics (NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors, paracetamol, dipyrone) and the safety of dipyrone in the perioperative and chronic pain setting was mailed to anaesthesiologists and pain physicians.

RESULTS

A total of 2237 responses were analysed. About 97.4% of the respondents used nonopioid analgesics for the treatment of acute pain, with 93.8% administering dipyrone, 54.0% NSAIDs, 41.8% COX-2 inhibitors and 49.2% paracetamol. Nonopioid analgesics were administered preoperatively by 22.3%, intraoperatively by 86.1% and postoperatively by 73.0% of the respondents. For chronic pain management, 76.7% of the respondents prescribed oral dipyrone in combination with other nonopioid analgesics; 19.9% used dipyrone as sole nonopioid, whereas 2.9% denied its use. Cases of dipyrone-associated agranulocytosis were observed by 3.5% of the respondents of the acute and 1.5% of the chronic pain questionnaire, respectively. The majority of respondents (acute pain: 73.0%, chronic pain 59.3%) performed no blood cell counts to monitor dipyrone therapy. Patients were rarely informed about possible adverse drug reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Dipyrone is the preferred nonopioid analgesic in the perioperative and chronic pain setting. Although cases of agranulocytosis occur, benefits apparently outweigh the risks according to anaesthesiologists. Measures like patient information may improve safety.

SIGNIFICANCE

A survey of anaesthesiologist in German-speaking countries revealed dipyrone as preferred nonopioid analgesic for the treatment of acute and chronic pain. Benefits seem to outweigh the risks, specifically the risk of agranulocytosis. Information of medical staff and patients on adverse drug reactions and symptoms of agranulocytosis should be implemented.

Developing drugs in cancer-related bone pain

INTRODUCTION

Cancer-related bone pain is a frequent and important key problem for metastatic patients that may reduce quality of life, with related limitations in daily activities and morbidity. Often traditional approach to pain may fail given the complex pathophysiology of this phenomenon.

METHODS

The aim of this review is to describe promising therapies for cancer-related bone pain, from the pathophysiology to the clinical trials currently ongoing. Moreover, any new evidence for better approach to cancer-related bone pain with the traditional drugs is also considered.

CONCLUSIONS

In clinical practice opioids remain the most important pharmacologic treatment for severe pain related to bone cancer. Regard developing drugs, anti-NGF and anti-TrkA are the most investigated new drug in this setting, but a future role in clinical practice is still uncertain.

Oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat mild to moderate cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the WHO cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on NSAIDs, updates the evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain in adults and children, and the adverse events reported during its use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to March 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing paracetamol alone with placebo, or paracetamol in combination with an opioid compared with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any intensity. Single-blind and open studies were also eligible for inclusion. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies in adults satisfied the inclusion criteria, lasting up to one week; 122 participants were randomised initially, and 95 completed treatment. We found no studies in children. One study was parallel-group, and two had a cross-over design. All used paracetamol as an add-on to established treatment with strong opioids (median daily morphine equivalent doses of 60 mg, 70 mg, and 225 mg, with some participants taking several hundred mg of oral morphine equivalents daily). Other non-paracetamol medication included non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tricyclic antidepressants, or neuroleptics. All studies were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.None of the studies reported any of our primary outcomes: participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with pain no worse than mild at the end of the treatment period; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). What pain reports there were indicated no difference between paracetamol and placebo when added to another treatment. There was no convincing evidence of paracetamol being different from placebo with regards to quality of life, use of rescue medication, or participant satisfaction or preference. Measures of harm (serious adverse events, other adverse events, and withdrawal due to lack of efficacy) were inconsistently reported and provided no clear evidence of difference.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because studies were at high risk of bias from several sources.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of paracetamol alone or in combination with opioids for the first two steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. It is not clear whether any additional analgesic benefit of paracetamol could be detected in the available studies, in view of the doses of opioids used.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for cancer pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on paracetamol, updates the evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of oral NSAIDs for cancer pain in adults, and the adverse events reported during their use in clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to April 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, single-blind, or open-label studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID alone with placebo or another NSAID, or a combination of NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any pain intensity. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies satisfied inclusion criteria, lasting one week or longer; 949 participants with mostly moderate or severe pain were randomised initially, but fewer completed treatment or had results of treatment. Eight studies were double-blind, two single-blind, and one open-label. None had a placebo only control; eight compared different NSAIDs, three an NSAID with opioid or opioid combination, and one both. None compared an NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of opioid alone. Most studies were at high risk of bias for blinding, incomplete outcome data, or small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.It was not possible to compare NSAIDs as a group with another treatment, or one NSAID with another NSAID. Results for all NSAIDs are reported as a randomised cohort. We judged results for all outcomes as very low-quality evidence.None of the studies reported our primary outcomes of participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). With NSAID, initially moderate or severe pain was reduced to no worse than mild pain after one or two weeks in four studies (415 participants in total), with a range of estimates between 26% and 51% in individual studies.Adverse event and withdrawal reporting was inconsistent. Two serious adverse events were reported with NSAIDs, and 22 deaths, but these were not clearly related to any pain treatment. Common adverse events were thirst/dry mouth (15%), loss of appetite (14%), somnolence (11%), and dyspepsia (11%). Withdrawals were common, mostly because of lack of efficacy (24%) or adverse events (5%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of NSAIDs alone or in combination with opioids for the three steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. There is very low-quality evidence that some people with moderate or severe cancer pain can obtain substantial levels of benefit within one or two weeks.

Is it useful to add acetaminophen to high-potency opioids in cancer-related pain?

Pain is one of the most frequent and relevant symptoms in cancer patients. The World Health Organization's analgesic ladder proposes the use of strong opioids associated with adjuvants such as acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in step III. However, it is unclear whether adding acetaminophen to an analgesic regimen based on strong opioids has any benefit in cancer patients with moderate to severe pain. To answer this question we searched in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources. We identified two systematic reviews including five randomized trials overall. We extracted data and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. We concluded that adding acetaminophen to strong opioids might make little or no difference in improving pain management in cancer patients.

Identifying, highlighting and reducing polypharmacy in a UK hospice inpatient unit using improvement Science methods

Polypharmacy, the concurrent use of multiple medications by one individual is a growing global issue driven by an ageing population and increasing prevalence of multi-morbidity[1]. Polypharmacy can be problematic: interactions between medications, reduced adherence to medication, burden of medication to patients, administration time, increased risk of errors and increased cost. Quality improvement methods were applied to identify and highlight polypharmacy patients with the aim of reducing their average number of regular tablets/capsules per day by 25%.

The project was delivered within a UK based 27 bedded hospice inpatient unit. A series of PDSA cycles studied interventions focusing on the identification of patients with polypharmacy, the highlighting of these patients to prescribers for review and the views of patients about their medication. For the purposes of the study, polypharmacy was defined as greater than ten regular medicines and/or greater than twenty regular tablets/capsules each day. The interventions tested included patients on regular paracetamol and strong opioids being offered a trial without regular paracetamol, a constipation guide promoting the use of combination laxatives, education of prescribers around dose strengths, checklist of recommendations was placed in case notes and a sticker was used on the medicine chart to highlight patients in need of polypharmacy review.

The introduction of a trial without paracetamol and a laxative guide led to reductions in polypharmacy. The sticker and checklist were successful interventions for highlighting patients with polypharmacy.

Quality improvement methods were used to plan, try, test and implement simple interventions for patients on the hospice inpatient unit. This has led to a 25% reduction in the average regular tablet/capsules burden , a 16% reduction in the average number of regular medications and a 30% reduction in the average volume of liquid medication per patient without an increase in the use of ‘as required’ medication or length of stay.

Metamizole/dipyrone for the relief of cancer pain: A systematic review and evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Dipyrone (metamizole) is one of the most widely used non-opioid analgesics for the treatment of cancer pain.

AIM

Because evidence-based recommendations are not yet available, a systematic review was conducted for the German Guideline Program in Oncology to provide recommendations for the use of dipyrone in cancer pain.

DESIGN

First, a systematic review for clinical trials assessing dipyrone in adult patients with cancer pain was conducted. Endpoints were pain intensity, opioid-sparing effects, safety, and quality of life.

DATA SOURCES

The search was performed in MedLine, Embase (via Ovid), and the Cochrane Library (1948-2013) and additional hand search was conducted. Finally, recommendations were developed and agreed in a formal structured consensus process by 53 representatives of scientific medical societies and 49 experts.

RESULTS

Of 177 retrieved studies, 4 could be included (3 randomized controlled trials and 1 cohort study, n = 252 patients): dipyrone significantly decreased pain intensity compared to placebo, even if low doses (1.5-2 g/day) were used. Higher doses (3 × 2 g/day) were more effective than low doses (3 × 1 g/day), but equally effective as 60 mg oral morphine/day. Pain reduction of dipyrone and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs did not differ significantly. Compared to placebo, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and morphine, the incidence of adverse effects was not increased.

CONCLUSION

Dipyrone can be recommended for the treatment of cancer pain as an alternative to other non-opioids either alone or in combination with opioids. It can be preferred over non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs due to the presumably favorable side effect profile in long-term use, but comparative studies are not available for long-term use.

Correlation between liver cancer pain and the HIF-1 and VEGF expression levels

A possible correlation between liver cancer pain and the hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF)-1 and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression levels was examined. From January, 2015 to January, 2016, 30 patients suffering from liver cancer with pain, 30 patients with liver cancer without pain and 30 hepatitis patients with pain were enrolled in the study. Pain level was evaluated by visual analogue scale (VAS), the expression levels of HIF-1 and VEGF mRNA were determined by RT-PCR and the expression levels of HIF-1 and VEGF proteins were examined by ELISA. Before intervention, the VAS in the hepatitis group was significantly higher than that of the liver cancer pain group. However, after intervention the VAS in the two groups was reduced. HIF-1 and VEGF mRNA expression levels in the liver cancer pain group were significantly higher than those in the liver cancer group before and after intervention. The expression levels of HIF-1 and VEGF mRNA in the hepatitis group were the lowest. The expression levels of HIF-1 and VEGF mRNA in the liver cancer pain group considerably increased after intervention. The expression levels of HIF-1 and VEGF mRNA in the other two groups showed no changes before or after intervention. Before and after the intervention, VAS in the liver cancer pain group was positively correlated to the expression levels of HIF-1 and VEGF. Thus, pain occurrence and the pain level in liver cancer patients were correlated with the expression levels of HIF-1 and VEGF. As the regular three-step medicine analgesic ladder is ineffective in these cases, verification of HIF-1 and VEGF expression levels may be considered the new target for pain release.

Skeletal complications in cancer patients with bone metastases

As a result of significant improvements in current therapies, the life expectancy of cancer patients with bone metastases has dramatically improved. Unfortunately, these patients often experience skeletal complications that significantly impair their quality of life. The major skeletal complications associated with bone metastases include: cancer-induced bone pain, hypercalcemia, pathological bone fractures, metastatic epidural spinal cord compression and cancer cachexia. Once cancer cells invade the bone, they perturb the normal physiology of the marrow microenvironment, resulting in bone destruction, which is believed to be a direct cause of skeletal complications. However, full understanding of the mechanisms responsible for these complications remains unknown. In the present review, we discuss the complications associated with bone metastases along with matched conventional therapeutic strategies. A better understanding of this topic is crucial, as targeting skeletal complications can improve both the morbidity and mortality of patients suffering from bone metastases.

Management of Chronic Pain in Survivors of Adult Cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based guidance on the optimum management of chronic pain in adult cancer survivors.

METHODS

An ASCO-convened expert panel conducted a systematic literature search of studies investigating chronic pain management in cancer survivors. Outcomes of interest included symptom relief, pain intensity, quality of life, functional outcomes, adverse events, misuse or diversion, and risk assessment or mitigation.

RESULTS

A total of 63 studies met eligibility criteria and compose the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. Studies tended to be heterogeneous in terms of quality, size, and populations. Primary outcomes also varied across the studies, and in most cases, were not directly comparable because of different outcomes, measurements, and instruments used at different time points. Because of a paucity of high-quality evidence, many recommendations are based on expert consensus.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Clinicians should screen for pain at each encounter. Recurrent disease, second malignancy, or late-onset treatment effects in any patient who reports new-onset pain should be evaluated, treated, and monitored. Clinicians should determine the need for other health professionals to provide comprehensive pain management care in patients with complex needs. Systemic nonopioid analgesics and adjuvant analgesics may be prescribed to relieve chronic pain and/or to improve function. Clinicians may prescribe a trial of opioids in carefully selected patients with cancer who do not respond to more conservative management and who continue to experience distress or functional impairment. Risks of adverse effects of opioids should be assessed. Clinicians should clearly understand terminology such as tolerance, dependence, abuse, and addiction as it relates to the use of opioids and should incorporate universal precautions to minimize abuse, addiction, and adverse consequences. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/chronic-pain-guideline and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.

Update on Prevalence of Pain in Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

Cancer pain has a severe impact on quality of life and is associated with numerous psychosocial responses. Recent studies suggest that treatment of cancer pain has improved during the last decade.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to examine the present status of pain prevalence and pain severity in patients with cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature published between September 2005 and January 2014 was performed using the databases PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Articles in English or Dutch that reported on the prevalence of cancer pain in an adult population were included. Titles and abstracts were screened by two authors independently, after which full texts were evaluated and assessed on methodological quality. Study details and pain characteristics were extracted from the articles with adequate study quality. Prevalence rates were pooled with meta-analysis; meta-regression was performed to explore determinants of pain prevalence.

RESULTS

Of 4117 titles, 122 studies were selected for the meta-analyses on pain (117 studies, n = 63,533) and pain severity (52 studies, n = 32,261). Pain prevalence rates were 39.3% after curative treatment; 55.0% during anticancer treatment; and 66.4% in advanced, metastatic, or terminal disease. Moderate to severe pain (numerical rating scale score ≥5) was reported by 38.0% of all patients.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased attention on assessment and management, pain continues to be a prevalent symptom in patients with cancer. In the upcoming decade, we need to overcome barriers toward effective pain treatment and develop and implement interventions to optimally manage pain in patients with cancer.

Diagnosis and treatment of bone metastasis: comprehensive guideline of the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology, Japanese Orthopedic Association, Japanese Urological Association, and Japanese Society for Radiation Oncology

Diagnosis and treatment of bone metastasis requires various types of measures, specialists and caregivers. To provide better diagnosis and treatment, a multidisciplinary team approach is required. The members of this multidisciplinary team include doctors of primary cancers, radiologists, pathologists, orthopaedists, radiotherapists, clinical oncologists, palliative caregivers, rehabilitation doctors, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, occupational therapists, medical social workers, etc. Medical evidence was extracted from published articles describing meta-analyses or randomised controlled trials concerning patients with bone metastases mainly from 2003 to 2013, and a guideline was developed according to the Medical Information Network Distribution Service Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. Multidisciplinary team meetings are helpful in diagnosis and treatment. Clinical benefits such as physical or psychological palliation obtained using the multidisciplinary team approaches are apparent. We established a guideline describing each specialty field, to improve understanding of the different fields among the specialists, who can further provide appropriate treatment, and to improve patients’ outcomes.

Treatment of Cancer Pain by Targeting Cytokines

Inflammation is one of the most important causes of the majority of cancer symptoms, including pain, fatigue, cachexia, and anorexia. Cancer pain affects 17 million people worldwide and can be caused by different mediators which act in primary efferent neurons directly or indirectly. Cytokines can be aberrantly produced by cancer and immune system cells and are of particular relevance in pain. Currently, there are very few strategies to control the release of cytokines that seems to be related to cancer pain. Nevertheless, in some cases, targeted drugs are available and in use for other diseases. In this paper, we aim to review the importance of cytokines in cancer pain and targeted strategies that can have an impact on controlling this symptom.

Cancer Pain Management

Safe, effective, and evidence-based management of cancer-related pain is a cornerstone of comprehensive cancer care. Despite increasing interest in and efforts to improve its management, pain remains poorly controlled in nearly half of all patients with cancer, with little change in the past 20 years. Limited training in pain assessment and management, overestimation of providers' own skills to treat pain, and failure to refer patients to pain specialists can result in suboptimal pain management with devastating effects on quality of life, physical functioning, and increased psychological distress. From a thorough assessment of cancer-related pain to appropriate treatments that may include opiates, adjuvant medications, nerve blocks, and nondrug interventions, this article is intended as a brief overview of the mechanisms and types of pain as well as a review of current, new, and promising approaches to its management.

Understanding the cancer pain experience

Cancer pain management is a major element of successful cancer survivorship. Regardless of where someone is along the cancer experience, from a newly diagnosed patient to long-term survivor, pain is a potential treatment-related effect that can have a significant impact on a survivor's life. Quality pain management for cancer survivors is complicated by the fact that cancer-related pain can be due to the tumor, surgery, radiation, and/or chemotherapy. Additionally, the pain experience is related to many psychosocial/spiritual factors. Despite almost 40 years of attention devoted to improving cancer pain management, many cancer survivors are less than optimally treated, often owing to survivor and healthcare provider knowledge barriers. This article reviews some of the latest research related to cancer pain management treatment options, measurement/assessment, and interventions. Progress has been made in understanding new aspects of the pain experience, but more work is yet to be done.

Daily subcutaneous parecoxib injection for cancer pain: an open label pilot study

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory analgesics (NSAIDs) are useful in cancer pain but the specific use of subcutaneous parecoxib has not been previously reported.

OBJECTIVE

This pilot study aimed to establish the efficacy and side effect profile of short-term sequential single daily dose subcutaneous parecoxib sodium in patients with severe cancer bone pain.

METHODS

Nineteen hospitalized patients with advanced cancer and uncontrolled malignant bone pain (9 males, 10 females) received 24 courses of one, two, or three days sequential therapy with 'off-label' daily subcutaneous parecoxib. All patients were receiving opioid therapy; the median baseline daily oral equivalent dose (OED) of morphine was 180 mg. Pain was assessed at baseline, 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours. Pain scores as assessed on an 11-point numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), any side effects including subcutaneous site reactions, as well as patient satisfaction rating with analgesia were recorded. A clinically significant decrease in pain scores was defined as a reduction of two or more points on the NPRS.

RESULTS

Median pain score of all patient treatments decreased from 7 to 4.5 at 24 hours (p<0.001) and 4.0 at 48 hours. A response was seen in 17 (71%) of the 24 treatments at 24 hours. There was no difference between median negative change in pain scores in 19 (79%) treatments where pain was either strongly movement related, or in 22 (94%) treatments where local bone tenderness was more pronounced. No major side effects were observed during treatment. One patient died from pulmonary embolism after cessation of concurrent prophylactic low molecular weight heparin prior to staging liver biopsy. Subcutaneous site reactions occurred in 2 (8%) treatments and were mild and self limiting.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term daily subcutaneous parecoxib injection was effective for malignant bone pain when added to existing analgesic therapy and was well tolerated. Further research is warranted into the short-term use of parecoxib in hospitalized patients with intractable malignant bone pain.

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.

Open questions in the treatment of cancer pain: time for a strong evidence-based approach?

Pain affects patients with cancer at any stage of their disease. Yet, it is not adequately treated in a significant percentage of cases. In 1986, the WHO proposed a three-step approach for the treatment of pain in cancer patients (from nonopioids to weak opioids to strong opioids, according to pain intensity) following the recommendations of an international group of experts. The application of the WHO strategy demonstrated that a clear and simple approach is of educational value and ensured worldwide dissemination. However, there is little evidence that the WHO approach is the best, and there are still several points to debate on the treatment of cancer pain.

Management of pain in advanced disease

BACKGROUND

Pain is common in advanced malignancy but also prevalent in other non-malignant life-limiting diseases such as advanced heart disease; end stage renal failure and multiple sclerosis. Patients with renal or liver impairment need specific consideration, as most analgesics rely on either or both for their metabolism and excretion.

SOURCES OF DATA

Recent evidence-based guidelines and the systematic reviews that have informed their recommendations.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

The principles of the WHO (World Health Organisation) analgesic ladder are commonly endorsed as a structured approach to the management of pain. For neuropathic pain, the efficacy of different agents is similar and choice of drug more guided by side effects, drug interactions and cost.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Evidence supporting the WHO analgesic ladder is disputed and alternatives suggested, but no overwhelming evidence for an alternative approach exists to date.

GROWING POINTS

Alternative approaches to the WHO analgesic ladder, new analgesic agents, e.g. rapid onset oral/intranasal fentanyl.

Nonopioid Drugs in the Treatment of Cancer Pain

The WHO analgesic ladder for the treatment of cancer pain provides a three-step sequential approach for analgesic administration based on pain severity that has global applicability. Nonopioids were recommended for mild pain, with the addition of mild opioids for moderate pain and strong opioids for severe pain. Here, we review the evidence for the use of nonopioid analgesic agents in patients with cancer and describe the mode of action of the main drug classes. Evidence supports the use of anti-inflammatory drugs such as acetaminophen/paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for mild cancer pain. Adding an NSAID to an opioid for stronger cancer pain is efficacious, but the risk of long-term adverse effects has not been quantified. There is limited evidence to support using acetaminophen with stronger opioids. Corticosteroids have a specific role in spinal cord compression and brain metastases, where improved analgesia is a secondary benefit. There is limited evidence for adding corticosteroids to stronger opioids when pain control is the primary objective. Systematic reviews suggest a role for antidepressant and anticonvulsant medications for neuropathic pain, but there are methodologic issues with the available studies. Bisphosphonates improve pain in patients with bony metastases in some tumor types. Denosumab may delay worsening of pain compared with bisphosphonates. Larger studies of longer duration are required to address outstanding questions concerning the use of nonopioid analgesia for stronger cancer pain.

An overview of treatment strategies for cancer pain with a focus on interventional strategies and techniques

SUMMARY As the incidence of cancer increases, considerations for pain treatments become more important and varied. While traditional views on pain therapy are successful in treating the majority of cancer-related pain, a continuum has developed to include interventional strategies in addition to pharmacologic management. Further improvements in understanding anatomy in the context of imaging and pathophysiology of cancer-pain syndromes direct our current interventional pain management options. We discuss the current interventional treatment options regularly used in the cancer-pain population.