Pain management of the cancer...
Transcript of Pain management of the cancer...
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ieop20
Download by: [University of Toronto Libraries] Date: 05 September 2017, At: 09:01
Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy
ISSN: 1465-6566 (Print) 1744-7666 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ieop20
Pain management of the cancer patient
Stephan A Schug & Chandani Chandrasena
To cite this article: Stephan A Schug & Chandani Chandrasena (2015) Painmanagement of the cancer patient, Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, 16:1, 5-15, DOI:10.1517/14656566.2015.980723
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/14656566.2015.980723
Published online: 05 Dec 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 826
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 13 View citing articles
1. Introduction
2. Guidelines for treating cancer
pain
3. Management of breakthrough
pain
4. Use of co-analgesics and
adjuvants
5. Conclusions
6. Expert opinion
Review
Pain management of thecancer patientStephan A Schug† & Chandani Chandrasena†The University of Western Australia & Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia
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 pharma-
cotherapy. This is, in principle, still based on the WHO guidelines initially
published in 1986. Although these have been validated, they are not evi-
dence-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 hamper-
ing the improvement of current treatment guidelines.
Keywords: cancer pain, co-analgesics, non-opioids, opioids, WHO guidelines
Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2015) 16(1):5-15
1. Introduction
Cancer is a multifaceted complex condition affecting physical, psychological, socialand spiritual aspects of the life of an individual affected by it. Out of all accompanyingsymptoms, cancer pain has been recognized as one of the most important ones [1].A multidisciplinary evidence-based approach is recommended for its treatment,including pharmacological treatments, psychosocial and behavioral interventions,physical therapy and exercise, interventional procedures and spiritual support [2-4].
1.1 PrevalenceNearly 10 million patients are being diagnosed with cancer annually with an ever-increasing incidence [5,6]. Cancer patients present in 20 -- 50% of cases with painas a symptom [7]. The prevalence of cancer pain depends on the localization andtype of cancer; cancers of the head and neck show the highest pain prevalence of70%. The prevalence increases with progression of cancer and may reach 90% interminal patients [8]. Pain is also common in cancer survivors with a reportedprevalence of 26 -- 54% [7].
1.2 Undertreatment of cancer painDespite a plethora of guidelines and recommendations, cancer pain still is oftenundertreated [9]. According to systemic reviews of the literature, nearly half of thepatients in pain do not receive adequate treatment [10]. Morphine consumptiondata and the pain management index are two indicators, derived from WorldHealth Organization (WHO) guidelines, that have been utilized to assess the effi-cacy of cancer pain treatment; recent studies using these methodologies continueto find undertreatment of cancer pain in multiple settings [9].
10.1517/14656566.2015.980723 © 2015 Informa UK, Ltd. ISSN 1465-6566, e-ISSN 1744-7666 5All rights reserved: reproduction in whole or in part not permitted
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
01 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2017
It is important to identify the reasons for this situation sothat deficiencies can be addressed, ultimately leading toimproved quality of care and thereby quality of life of cancerpatients. Patients’ beliefs such as fear of addiction and of possi-ble side effects of analgesics, misconceptions of pain meaningdisease progression, beliefs that treatment of disease is moreimportant than that of pain are some of the contributing factorsfor not seeking adequate pain treatment [11]. Healthcare pro-viders such as medical practitioners and nurses play a key rolein the delivery of pain management. Here physicians’ lack ofknowledge about cancer pain management, inadequate painassessment and inadequate opioid prescription as well as againfear of causing addiction need to be addressed to achieve betterquality of care [12]. System and institutional factors includeinadequate referral to appropriate specialties, unavailability ofor limited access to certain analgesics, in particular opioids,and inadequate allocation of funds to palliative care [12].
1.3 Characteristics of cancer painThe causes of pain in cancer patients can be classified as:
1) directly related to cancer, for example, direct invasionor compression of structures by the cancer;
2) related to cancer therapy, for example, due to surgery,chemotherapy or radiotherapy;
3) related to effects of cancer, such as bed sores or debility;4) other, often age-related, comorbidities such as chronic
back pain or osteoarthritis in patients with cancer.With current advanced cancer therapy, patients’ sur-vival has increased, and as a result, previous cancerpatients present increasingly with such issues.
From a therapeutic approach, it is important to classify painas either nociceptive or neuropathic. Nociceptive pain isdefined as ‘pain that arises from actual or threatened damageto non-neural tissue and is due to the activation of nociceptors(International Association for the Study of Pain Taxonomy at:http://www.iasppain.org/Education/Content.aspx?Item-Number=1698&navItemNumber=576) The pain originat-ing form somatic structures is described as localized, sharp,
throbbing pain or pressure sensation, whereas visceral pain isdescribed as dull, aching, cramping and diffuse type ofpain [1]. Neuropathic pain is defined as ‘pain caused by a lesionor disease of the somatosensory nervous system’. Cancer-related neuropathic pain could be related to cancer compress-ing or infiltrating nerves as well as related to cancer therapy.For example, nearly 90% of patients receiving neurotoxic che-motherapy experience chemotherapy-induced peripheral neu-ropathy [13]. Patients commonly complain of shooting,tingling or burning type of pain, accompanied by sensory def-icits in the painful area as well as paresthesia, hyperalgesia andallodynia. Often neuropathic pain may coexist with nocicep-tive pain, then commonly called ‘mixed’ pain.
1.4 Cancer pain assessmentCurrently, there are a number of validated cancer assessmenttools that can be applied according to the clinical con-text [14,15]. Because cancer pain is a multidimensional experi-ence, a comprehensive systematic assessment addressing alldomains plays a significant role in cancer pain management.The assessment has to be ongoing, complete and documented.Particular attention should be focused towards the functionalassessment of these patients. The ongoing multidimensionalassessment has to be multidisciplinary, involving other rele-vant specialties in patients care. Clinical practice guidelinesdeveloped by the National Comprehensive Cancer Networkprovide a comprehensive tool for this purpose [1,16].
The severity of pain is assessed either by visual analog scale,numerical rating scale or verbal rating scale. More complexassessment can be performed using the brief pain inventoryand McGill Short Form Questionnaire [17,18].
It is of note that most cancer patients have multiple pains,either at different sites or of different origin (e.g., inflamma-tory and neuropathic) [19]. It is important to consider thisfact when assessing pain, as it will influence treatment strate-gies. A number of rather specific individual pain syndromeshave been described and these may need to be recognized [20].
Breakthrough pain is acute exacerbation of pain of shortduration on the background of stable pain, commonly con-trolled with opioids [21]. A comprehensive assessment ofbreakthrough pain, encompassing the etiology, intensity,mechanisms and impact on patients’ daily activities shouldbe performed [21]. Assessment tools for the assessment ofbreakthrough pain are under development; the BreakthroughAssessment Tool is currently at initial validation stage andmay become a useful tool in pain assessment [22].
For cognitively impaired patients, assessment tools such asthe Abbey pain scale can be applied [23]; furthermore, observa-tion of behavioral patterns is useful [18].
2. Guidelines for treating cancer pain
The original guidelines, published by the WHO in 1986 [24]
and updated in 1996 [25], have governed and improved cancerpain relief worldwide and remain an important tool to
Article highlights.
. Cancer pain is the most important symptom ofmalignant disease.
. Cancer pain is commonly undertreated.
. The treatment of cancer pain should follow validatedestablished guidelines.
. Beside opioid analgesics as the mainstay, non-opioidsand co-analgesics play an important role in thepharmacological management of cancer pain.
. Despite all progress, the evidence base for cancer painmanagement remains limited and future better studiesaddressing multiple areas of uncertainty are required.
This box summarizes key points contained in the article.
S. A. Schug & C. Chandrasena
6 Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2015) 16(1)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
01 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2017
improve the current situation, in particular in the developingworld. Although these guidelines are not evidence-based, theirvalue in clinical practice is well validated [26,27]. According tothese guidelines, overall cancer pain management is based onpharmacological methods as the mainstay and non-pharmacological methods. Pharmacological management isbased on the 3-step analgesic ladder. Step 1 recommendsuse of non-opioids for mild pain, step 2 recommends intro-duction of weak opioids for moderate pain, and in step 3,strong opioids are introduced for severe pain [18,28]. Amongother issues addressed later in the review, one drawback tothe WHO stepladder approach is that drug choices are basedon severity of pain only, but does not provide guidance todosing strategies and temporal variations of pain.
The non-pharmacological methods such as physical, psy-chological and complementary therapies are outside the scopeof this paper [18]. Apart from pharmacotherapy, causal treat-ment options such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunetherapy or surgical interventions should be considered as com-ponents of the pain management strategy; this may requirereferral and involvement of appropriate other specialties [29].
Multiple organizations have recently published guidelines forthemanagement of cancer pain [30]; the European Society ofMed-ical Oncology most recently updated its guidelines [10]. In addi-tion to analgesics recommended by WHO analgesic ladder,these guidelines highlight the role of adjuvant analgesics, pharma-cological management of opioid-related side effects and use ofother non-pharmacologicalmethods.Guidelines like these shouldgovern contemporary cancer pain management. Assessment ofoutcome should not only focus on the provision of pain reliefalone; a simple guidance to outcome assessment should look atthe so-called four As (analgesia, activity, adverse effects and addic-tion), commonly used in non-cancer pain settings.
2.1 Pharmacotherapy for mild cancer pain
(WHO step 1)For the treatment of mild cancer pain, non-opioids such asaspirin, acetaminophen (paracetamol) and NSAIDs are used.NSAIDs, in particular, are recommended as first-line therapyfor bone pain [31].
2.1.1 AcetaminophenAcetaminophen has antipyretic and analgesic properties.There is currently increasing discussion on the limited efficacyof paracetamol and the possibly underestimated adverseeffects [32]. In a systematic review, insufficient evidence wasfound to support the use of acetaminophen in combinationwith strong opioids [33]. Of particular concern are increasingreports of hepatic toxicity with paracetamol, particularly atdoses more than 4 g/day. Most of these overdoses are uninten-tional and related to multiple analgesics containing acetamin-ophen and to acetaminophen/opioid combinations and haveresulted in FDA advice on dose restrictions [34]. Certain anti-cancer drugs and paracetamol may interact to cause increasedhepatotoxicity [1].
2.1.2 NSAIDsNSAIDs inhibit cytokines and chemokines, which are media-tors of inflammation, in addition to their inhibitory effects onbiosynthesis of prostaglandins [35]. This group of drugs exertsanalgesic effects on the central and peripheral nervous system;details are still under evaluation [1]. COX, the enzyme blockedby NSAIDs, has two isoenzymes labeled COX-1 and COX-2.COX-1 is primarily a constitutive enzyme, responsible forsynthesis of protective prostaglandins that maintain integrityof gastric mucosa and platelet function as well as partially per-fusion of compromised kidney. COX-2 is primarily inducibleand mediates pain and inflammation, but is also protective inthe kidney [28]. The analgesic properties of NSAIDs are dose-dependent and have a ceiling effect; however, with increasingdosage, there is an increase in the incidence of side effectswithout a ceiling effect [36]. There is no evidence for oneNSAID being superior to another, but rotation may be usefulin case of poor efficacy; non-selective NSAIDs have similarefficacy to COX-2 selective ones [37]. It is useful to combineNSAIDs with acetaminophen, as the efficacy of the combina-tion is superior to each drug used on its own [38]. There isweak support from a systematic review that NSAIDs addedto strong opioids in cancer pain improve analgesia or reduceopioid requirements [33].
The classical non-selective NSAIDs such as naproxen andibuprofen can cause gastric and intestinal ulceration, renalimpairment and platelet inhibition. Substitution with a selec-tive COX-2 inhibitor such as celecoxib or etoricoxib reducesthe gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity significantly and causes noplatelet inhibition; there may even be a reduced risk of acutekidney injury with COX-2 selective agents [39]. The assumedincreased risk for cardiovascular complications such as myo-cardial infarction and stroke with COX-2 inhibitors [1] couldnot be confirmed [40]; thromboembolic adverse effects are aclass effect of all NSAIDs, and some COX-2 inhibitors suchas celecoxib are actually safer than some non-selectiveNSAIDs such as diclofenac [41].
Even in the elderly, NSAIDs could be an effective treat-ment option in spite of concerns about their safety profile aslong as contraindications are considered; they should be pre-scribed at the lowest effective dosage for the shortest possibleduration [42].
2.2 Pharmacotherapy for moderate cancer pain
(WHO step 2)For the management of moderate cancer pain, the clinicalrelevance of the recommendations of WHO analgesic ladderstep 2 to use so-called weak opioids is increasingly beingdebated [43,44]. Although the guidelines recommend weakopioids such as codeine, dihydrocodeine (DHC) and trama-dol administered orally in combination with non-opioids forthe management of moderate pain, there is increasing supportfor the omission of this step and direct progression to low-dose strong opioids [10]. However, there is ongoing debate
Pain management of the cancer patient
Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2015) 16(1) 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
01 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2017
on this issue [45]; in many countries, weak opioids are animportant option to treat cancer pain in view of poor accessto strong opioids as outlined above.
2.2.1 TramadolTramadol is a centrally acting atypical analgesic, which inhib-its re-uptake of serotonin and more importantly noradrena-line. It is metabolized into O-desmethyl tramadol (M1),which has µ-opioid receptor agonist activity [46,47]. Tramadolis usually administered orally, but can be given parenterally orrectally, if required. Its low abuse potential, worldwide avail-ability, reduced opioid-related adverse events (e.g., constipa-tion) and specific activity in neuropathic pain make it themost useful of the weak opioids [18,48]. However, there is aconcern that tramadol can precipitate serotonergic symptomsup to a serotonin syndrome either with significant overdose orwhen co-administered with other serotonergic drugs.
2.2.2 CodeineCodeine is an inactive prodrug of morphine; its analgesicefficacy relies on liver metabolism by the CYP2D6 enzyme,leading to its active metabolite morphine. Polymorphisms inCYP2D6 result in a range of metabolic patterns from ultra-rapid to ultra-slow metabolizers, who experience anythingfrom significant morphine effects (and adverse effects) to noanalgesia at all [1,49]. Further disadvantages are variable oralbioavailability and a high propensity to induce constipation;overall codeine is not a useful choice in the setting of cancerpain, as long as other opioids are available [18].
2.2.3 DihydrocodeineDHC is a semisynthetic analog of codeine, with an equivalentpotency of 1:3 ratio of subcutaneous DHC to morphine. As itdoes not require metabolic conversion [49], it is a more reliablestep 2 weak opioid than codeine, but advantages over lowdoses of strong opioids have never been shown.
2.3 Pharmacotherapy for severe cancer pain
(WHO step 3)Severe cancer pain is commonly treated with strong opioids, iffeasible by oral administration. Opioids are classified as fullagonists, partial agonists, agonist--antagonists or antagonistsaccording to their interaction with opioid receptors. Opioidswith full agonist properties do not show ceiling effect for anal-gesia and dose increase is limited by side effects. Opioids witheither agonist--antagonist or partial agonist properties haveceiling effect for analgesia; therefore, they may not be idealfor cancer pain management [28]. There is no evidence ofone opioid agonist being superior to another with regard toefficacy [1].
2.3.1 Strong opioids used in cancer pain treatment2.3.1.1 MorphineMorphine is a pure opioid agonist available as oral immediate(IR) or controlled release (CR) preparations (12 or 24 h
duration of effect) and for subcutaneous, intramuscular andintravenous (i.v.) administration as well as rectal administra-tion in most countries. The half-life of IR preparations is2 -- 3 h with 20 -- 30% bioavailability following oral adminis-tration. The oral to parenteral conversion is about 3:1 [50].Morphine is metabolized in the liver into morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G), an active metabolite having analgesicproperties exceeding those of morphine itself and morphine-3-glucuronide (M3G), devoid of analgesia. M6G accumula-tion in renal failure can cause increased adverse effects andpotentially respiratory depression. The neurotoxic and hyper-algesic effects of M3G may be responsible for reduced efficacyand increased adverse effects with escalating dosages of mor-phine. Genetic variability in morphine metabolism may playa role in the manifestation of these effects [28,50], but theeffects are also influenced, as are those of all other opioids,by genetic variants of the OPRM1 gene, encoding theµ-opioid receptor [51].
2.3.1.2 OxycodoneOxycodone is a synthetic opioid with comparatively highk-receptor affinity; the clinical relevance of this effect isdebated. A brain:plasma ratio of 3:1 of unbound drugexplains why oxycodone has relative less affinity for µ recep-tors than morphine, but a higher potency [52]. It is availablein oral IR and CR formulations as well as for parenteral use.Oxycodone has a bioavailability of 60 -- 87% following oraladministration. The half-life of IR oxycodone is about2 -- 3 h. Although oxycodone is metabolized in liver into nor-oxycodone and oxymorphone, analgesia is mainly attributableto the parent drug. The side effect profile of this drug is sim-ilar to morphine, although it causes less nausea, vomiting,pruritus and hallucinations [1,18,49]. Constipation is one ofthe known adverse effects of opioids and often refractory toconventional treatment in cancer patients. Combinationpreparations of slow-release naloxone and slow-release oxyco-done provide analgesia and reduce constipation at the sametime. When administered orally, naloxone acts primarily onGI opioid receptors reducing the constipating effect of oxyco-done. However, due to an extremely high first-pass effect, ithas very low oral bioavailability and does not antagonize theanalgesic effect of oxycodone in the CNS. Two recent studies,one in cancer patients and the other in non-cancer chronicpain patients, show that this combination was well toleratedby both groups, with significantly less GI complications andsimilar analgesic profile to oxycodone [53,54]. There is a recom-mended daily maximum dose of 80 mg to avoid systemic nal-oxone effects. In severe hepatic failure, naloxone may nolonger undergo significant first pass metabolism and may con-sequently antagonize central opioid receptors, impairing theanalgesic effect of oxycodone [6].
2.3.1.3 HydromorphoneHydromorphone is a semisynthetic opioid with mainlyµ-agonist activity. It is 5 -- 10 times more potent compared
S. A. Schug & C. Chandrasena
8 Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2015) 16(1)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
01 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2017
to morphine and therefore particularly useful, when adminis-tration of smaller volumes is preferred, as in subcutaneousinfusion. The half-life is about 2.5 h. CR preparations areavailable [55]. Hydromorphone is metabolized in the livermainly to hydromorphone-3-glucuronide (H3G) and smallamount of 6-hydroxy-hydromorphone. H3G may cause neu-rotoxic side effects, particularly when retained in patients withimpaired renal function and following prolonged use [49].
2.3.1.4 FentanylFentanyl is a lipophilic µ-receptor agonist, 100 times morepotent than morphine. Due to extensive first-pass metabo-lism, oral administration is ineffective. However, differentformulations for other routes of administration are available:parenteral as well as transdermal and transmucosal such asintranasal and sublingual [56]. There may be a reduced side-effect profile compared to morphine (nausea, vomiting,constipation, sedation and pruritus), in particular with trans-dermal use [57]. Fentanyl is metabolized by CYP3A4 into inac-tive metabolites; thus it is a safe option in patients with renalimpairment [58]. For breakthrough pain, IR preparation withrapid response, such as oral transmucosal fentanyl or intrana-sal fentanyl spray, is available [59]. Intranasal fentanyl is partic-ularly useful due to its rapid uptake, even in patients with drymouth [21].
2.3.1.5 MethadoneMethadone is a µ- and d-opioid receptor agonist, but also anNMDA receptor antagonist and a noradrenaline and seroto-nin reuptake inhibitor [60]. These properties might explainthe benefits some patients achieve when rotated from otheropioids to methadone and possibly its efficacy in neuropathicpain. The pharmacokinetics are complicated by large interin-dividual variability of the plasma half-life and is 15 -- 60 h; ittakes about 2 -- 5 days before steady-state plasma levels arereached. Due to this, dose escalation should be done care-fully [60]. In high doses, it may provoke cardiac dysrhythmiasdue to QT prolongation [61]. Compared to morphine, itcauses less nausea, vomiting and constipation. Methadone ismetabolized in the liver and GI tract into inactive metabolites.Drugs commonly used in cancer patients such selective sero-tonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), ketoconazole, omeprazolecan potentiate methadone by inhibiting cytochrome enzymes(mainly CYP2B6) involved in its metabolism [62]. The inac-tive metabolites are eliminated via GI tract and kidneys,thus making it safer in patients with renal impairment. Meth-adone may become an opioid of choice for patients ondialysis [63]. Because of complex pharmacokinetics and equia-nalgesic conversion variability, prescribing should be done byexperts [1,18,49].
2.3.1.6 BuprenorphineBuprenorphine is an opioid agonist-antagonist that is about100 times more potent than morphine. Sharing featuresinherent to this group of drugs, it has potentially a ceiling
effect, but only at extremely high doses. Buprenorphine canbe given by the sublingual (as low oral bioavailability), trans-dermal or parenteral route and can substitute high doses ofother opioids contradicting previous concerns [64]. Buprenor-phine is metabolized in liver to active metabolites andexcreted through GI tract, thus making it safe in patientswith renal impairment. Compared to other opioids, it has bet-ter side effect profile in terms of nausea, vomiting and consti-pation and a lower risk of respiratory depression [65].Although there is increasing use of buprenorphine in cancerpain, data are still limited [66], but suggest potential advan-tages, for example, over transdermal fentanyl [67].
2.3.1.7 TapentadolTapentadol is centrally acting novel synthetic opioid devel-oped for the management of mild-to-moderate pain [68] andhas been used successfully in cancer pain [69]. It has less affin-ity for µ-receptors compared to strong opioids and inhibitoryeffects on central norepinephrine reuptake. Despite an opioidreceptor affinity 20 times less than that of morphine inhumans, a recent prospective study has shown a conversionratio of 1:3.3 between oral morphine and tapentadol bidirec-tionally [70]. The reduced µ-receptor affinity confers lessopioid-related side effects, mainly of GI origin (nausea, vom-iting and constipation) than equianalgesic doses of conven-tional opioids [68]. The monaminergic effects support theconcept of superior efficacy in neuropathic pain [71].
Other opioid agonists such as meperidine (pethidine) andpropoxyphene are not recommended for cancer pain manage-ment due to neurotoxicity of their metabolites. Partial ago-nists are not suitable as well due to their inherent ceilingeffect for analgesia [1].
2.3.2 Practical management of strong opiodsThere is ongoing debate on the method to initiate opioids incancer pain management, but only limited evidence to sup-port one single approach. Opioid titration using sustainedrelease oxycodone and IR morphine has been supported inpilot studies [72]. Subsequent to the titration phase, dosage isadjusted according to patient’s response. Conventionally, thedose increment is calculated 33 -- 50% of average total dailydosage during the preceding few days [73]. Transdermalopioids are recommended as second-line therapy when oraladministration is not applicable. In spite of recommenda-tions, the selection of an opioid is governed by factors suchas clinicians’ experience, patients’ prior experience, cost andavailability of specific opioids [73].
2.3.2.1 Opioid rotationOpioid rotation or opioid switching describes the process ofsubstituting a strong opioid in step 3 with another strong opi-oid [74]. The process is aimed to increase either opioid efficacyor reduce adverse events of opioids. The effectiveness ofanother opioid may be due to the phenomenon of incompletecross-tolerance or the presence of variable responses at
Pain management of the cancer patient
Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2015) 16(1) 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
01 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2017
multiple µ-receptor subtypes [75]. For dose calculation ofequivalency, conversion tables are being used; however, theseare based on data derived from studies on acute pain set-tings [76]. Such tables need to be used with caution due tothe interindividual variability of response to opioids; to min-imize the risk of overdose, dose reduction and clinicaljudgment is important. A careful approach taking into consid-eration other confounding factors such as associated medicaland psychological factors has been proposed [77].
3. Management of breakthrough pain
Breakthrough pain is defined as episodic bursts of pain ofshort duration on the background of stable pain controlledby opioids. Guidelines recommend comprehensive assessmentfollowed by individualized plan for the pain manage-ment [45,78]. IR opioid preparations are recommended as thefirst-line therapy for breakthrough pain. Advantages of IRopioid preparation are ease of administration, relatively fastonset of analgesia and quite extensive experience in theiruse. Morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone, buprenorphineand methadone are available as IR preparations [21]. The otheroptions are intranasal or transmucosal fentanyl [56,59] and i.v.morphine. Studies have demonstrated the efficacy of intrana-sal fentanyl over transmucosal preparation [45]. Intranasal fen-tanyl has a high bioavailability (70 -- 90%) and peak plasmalevels are reached in about 13 min following administra-tion [21]. Two recent meta-analyses showed that transmucosalfentanyl preparations are more efficacious than oral morphinein this setting [79,80].Additionally non-opioid pharmacotherapy such as acet-
aminophen, NSAIDs, bisphosphonates, clonidine and keta-mine lozenges may be useful. In addition, guidelinesrecommend application of non-pharmacological methodssuch as radiotherapy, surgical interventions and regionaltechniques [78].
4. Use of co-analgesics and adjuvants
These are medications not commonly regarded as analgesicsbut can be used to enhance the effect of primary analgesicsor in certain selected situations as primary analgesics. Co-analgesics are used, in particular, in specific diagnoses or clin-ical scenarios such as neuropathic pain, bone pain or visceralpain. These drugs can be incorporated into each step of theanalgesic ladder depending on the clinical situation to achieveoptimum pain relief and relief from symptoms. Adjuvantsmay have other indications apart from achieving analgesia,which should be taken into consideration during prescription.
4.1 AntidepressantsAntidepressants play an important role in the managementof neuropathic pain conditions. Tricyclic antidepressants(TCAs) such as amitriptyline or nortriptyline and selectiveserotonin--norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) such
as duloxetine or venlafaxine are commonly in use. SSRIssuch as fluoxetine have limited application in neuropathicpain due to low efficacy [81].
4.2 Tricyclic antidepressantsTCAs are generally considered first-line therapy in neuro-pathic pain, also in cancer patients. They are very effectivein a number of different neuropathic pain settings such aspain arising from nerve compression and infiltration andpost-chemo- and radiotherapy [81]. The numbers-needed-to-treat (NNTs) for TCAs in neuropathic pain are in the rangeof 2.1 -- 2.8 [13]. As a group, they inhibit reuptake of norepi-nephrine and serotonin thereby enhancing descending inhib-itory pathways of pain with additional effects on NMDAreceptors and sodium channels [81]. The antidepressant effectsmay be additionally beneficial, particularly in cancer patients,who are more prone to depression; furthermore amitriptylineenhances the antihyperalgesic effects of co-administered mor-phine [82]. The analgesic dose required is less than the antide-pressant dose. TCAs have anticholinergic properties causingdry mouth, blurred vision and in high doses can cause cardiacdysrhythmias, conduction abnormalities, narrow-angle glau-coma and prostatic hyperplasia. As a result, TCAs are oftennot suitable for elderly patients and poorly tolerated [1,13,28];they should be started at low doses at night to improve com-pliance. Abrupt discontinuation of higher doses of TCAs maycause withdrawal symptoms [81].
4.3 Serotonin--norepinephrine reuptake inhibitorsSNRIs are showing promising results in the treatment ofcancer-related neuropathic pain [31,81]. Compared to TCAs,these have a better side-effect profile. Both venlafaxine andduloxetine have also been found to be effective for hot flushesin patients on hormonal therapy for breast cancer. Duloxetineinteracts with concomitantly administered tamoxifen, reduc-ing the efficacy of the anticancer medication [1].
4.4 AnticonvulsantsAnticonvulsants are another group of medications that havebecome established as first-line treatment of neuropathicpain. The evidence is limited for older anticonvulsants suchas carbamazepine, phenobarbital and phenytoin with theexception of carbamazepine in trigeminal neuralgia. Theseare also hepatic P450 enzyme inducers and interact therebywith certain anticancer therapies and steroids, which aremetabolized by the same system. In general, anticonvulsantsare used for neuropathic pain at the same dosage as formanagement of seizures [28].
4.5 Gabapentin and pregabalinGabapentin and pregabalin are the two anticonvulsants withthe best evidence base for the treatment of neuropathic pain.Both act as modulators of the a2d subunit of voltage-gatedcalcium channels presynaptically, thereby inhibiting excit-atory neurotransmitter release. For both drugs, NNTs for
S. A. Schug & C. Chandrasena
10 Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2015) 16(1)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
01 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2017
neuropathic pain range from 4.2 to 6.4 [13]. Gabapentin givenorally has low bioavailability and shows non-linear pharmaco-kinetics with increasing dose due to saturation of the transportmechanism. Pregabalin is more potent, better absorbed andhas a linear pharmacokinetic profile [31,81]. Both these drugsare primarily excreted unmetabolized through the kidneyand have minimal drug interactions. Dosages have to bereduced in renal failure. Common side effects are somnolence,dizziness, peripheral edema and weight. Both drugs are alsoeffective in chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-induced mucositisand have significant anxiolytic properties [13,28,31].
4.6 Topical agentsTopical agents for the treatment of neuropathic pain includelidocaine and capsaicin [13]. Lidocaine 5% patches were devel-oped for post-herpetic neuralgia, but are also effective in otherlocalized neuropathies, in particular those accompanied byallodynia [13,31]. The major advantage is the lack of systemicside effects; local skin irritation following application maybe the only relevant complication. Capsaicin, acting on thevanilloid receptor TRPV1 was again found be effective forpost-herpetic neuralgia, when applied as a high-concentrationpatch (8%) [81].
4.7 CorticosteroidsCorticosteroids are widely used as co-analgesics in cancerpatients [81]. They are indicated to alleviate pain in spinalcord compression, superior vena cava syndrome, raised intra-cranial pressure headache, metastatic bone pain, hepatic cap-sular distension and neuropathic pain. Relieved pressure dueto anti-inflammatory effects is the most likely mechanism ofaction. Apart from analgesia, corticosteroids have been usedin cancer patients to improve appetite and mood and as anantiemetic. Dexamethasone has been preferred due to itsreduced mineralocorticoid activity, long duration of actionand potency [81]. With prolonged use, patients have to bemonitored for the well-known complications such hypergly-cemia, peptic ulcers, cushingoid habitus and neurologicalcomplications [1,83].
4.8 KetamineKetamine as an NMDA receptor antagonist is widely used incancer pain. Ketamine can be administered parenterally (i.v.or subcutaneously), but there are also increasing reports onoral, intranasal and transmucosal administration [84]. Thereis contradictory data on its efficacy; a recent randomized con-trolled trial (RCT) may have failed due to inappropriatepatient selection [85]. Use in increasing doses may be limitedby psychomimetic adverse effects and potential other toxicity.
4.9 CannabinoidCannabinoid use for therapeutic purposes in neuropathic painremains controversial with contradictory results on efficacyand potential abuse [50]. However, there are some positiveresults in neuropathic pain caused by cancer and a nasal spray
is licensed in some countries [13]. Other benefits are a potentanti-emetic effect and improvement of appetite.
4.10 BisphosphonatesBisphosphonates are beneficial in cancer-related bone pain, inparticular prostate and breast cancer [81]. They inhibit osteo-clastic activity and hence bone resorption, but further researchis needed to identify the most useful compound andtreatment schedule [86-88].
4.11 DenosumabDenosumab, a human monoclonal antibody against receptoractivator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL), hasbeen shown to reduce bone loss [18]. Positive outcome hasbeen seen in early studies on patients with bone metastases,who have been treated with denosumab. Compared tobisphosphonates, denosumab has better analgesic profile,prevents skeletal-related events and less adverse effects [89].
5. Conclusions
Cancer pain remains one of the most important and mostdistressing symptoms of malignancy. The management ofthis symptom requires proper assessment of the patient andshould establish a pain diagnosis. Often pain occurs in multi-ple locations and can have multiple causes and mechanisms.Treatment of cancer pain relies primarily on systemic phar-macotherapy and is based on guidelines, initially developedby the WHO and then fine-tuned in recent years. Althoughthere is increasing evidence in certain areas of cancer painmanagement, overall treatment is still based on recommenda-tions that rely primarily on weak data and expert opinion.However, this approach has resulted in successful treatmentin many patients. Future developments should focus on a bet-ter evidence base for the guidelines, but also on better accessto medications and appropriate therapies in the developingworld.
6. Expert opinion
The key problem with the whole issue of cancer pain manage-ment is the lack of definitive evidence in many areas. This ismost obvious with regard to the WHO guidelines, whichwere developed on the basis of expert opinion. Althoughthey have been validated and proven to be effective in a largenumber of patients, there is a significant lack of scientific evi-dence supporting many of the concepts including thestepladder approach.
For example, the European Palliative Care ResearchCollaborative attempted to support the concept of combiningopioids, a common clinical practice, by a meta-analysis [90].However, the authors were only able to identify two studieson relatively low evidence levels, which resulted in a weak rec-ommendation with caveats. The reason is the lack of any RCTexamining the issue of combining opioids.
Pain management of the cancer patient
Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2015) 16(1) 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
01 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2017
Similar issues can be found in many other key areas ofcancer pain management [91]. The notion, that morphine isthe first-line opioid for cancer pain treatment, repeated inguideline after guideline, might need to be revised, but gooddata are lacking. Similarly, possibly even more disappointing,dosing recommendations for treatment of breakthrough painhave not been established in RCTs. Again, all recommenda-tions in guidelines are primarily based on expert opinion [91].This list can be continued; the role of COX-2 inhibitors andthe choice of co-analgesics in neuropathic pain states have notbeen established on the basis of RCTs in cancer pain, but onlybased on results in patients with benign conditions. Even theoptimal treatment of bone pain is currently not based onproper scientific evidence and any recommendations onchoice of compound, doses and treatment intervals are againprimarily based on expert opinion.Another example is the concept that non-opioids should be
continued when opioids are started is supported primarily byliterature from acute post-operative pain management, wherethe concept of multimodal analgesia is well established andsupported by RCT and meta-analyses. However, the settingof chronic cancer pain is very different in many aspects.Here the data are very limited and evidence-based guidelinescan only make weak recommendations on the usefulness ofnon-opioids in the cancer pain setting [45].One of the completely unresolved issues in cancer pain
treatment is the role and relevance of the step 2 of theWHO ladder, that is, the use of so-called weak opioids.Already the term ‘weak opioids’ is poorly defined, the separa-tion from strong opioids arbitrary and a specific pharmacody-namic differentiation does not exist. Furthermore, advantagesof one weak opioid over another have not been properly eval-uated; the question of ceiling effects has also not been
addressed. Last but not the least, there remains the key ques-tion if step 2 is actually really a useful step or if it should notbe omitted in favor of low doses of strong opioids [45]. Thishas led some authors to question if the step 2 is only a ‘didacticinstrument’ [43] or an ‘educational substitute for morphine’ [92].In 2014, we are not closer to an answer to these questions; thiswas recently again expressed in an European Association forPalliative Care guideline publication that stated ‘The utilityof step II opioids in the WHO method has been addressed inthree trials, all of which have significant methodological flaws,insufficient statistical power, and selection bias.’ [45].
Overall, shortage of RCTs remains the key concern here.This is to a large extent a result of the difficulties of perform-ing RCTs in a cancer pain population. The reasons for this areobvious and include difficulties in standardizing treatmentsover often heterogeneous patient populations, ethical issuesof enrolling cancer pain patients in yet another clinical trial,the difficulties of identifying appropriate comparators andthe multiple other symptoms in cancer patients.
Nevertheless, continuing attempts need to be made todesign and perform proper RCTs answering key questionsin cancer pain management to permit better evidence-basedguideline development in the future.
Declaration of interest
The Anaesthesiology Unit of the University of WesternAustralia, but none of the authors personally, has receivedresearch and travel funding and speaking and consultinghonoraria from bioCSL, Bionomics, Eli Lilly, Grunenthal,Janssen, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Phosphagenics and iXBiopharma within the last 2 years.
BibliographyPapers of special note have been highlighted as
either of interest (�) or of considerable interest(��) to readers.
1. Paice JA, Ferrell B. The management of
cancer pain. CA Cancer J Clin
2011;61(3):157-82
.. An excellent review of the concepts
underlying cancer pain management.
2. Denlinger CS, Ligibel JA, Are M, et al.
Survivorship: pain version 1.2014. J Natl
Compr Canc Netw 2014;12(4):488-500
3. Puchalski CM. Religion, medicine and
spirituality: what we know, what we
don’t know and what we do. Asian Pac J
Cancer Prev 2010;11(Suppl 1):45-9
4. Choi M, Kim HS, Chung SK, et al.
Evidence-based practice for pain
management for cancer patients in an
acute care setting. Int J Nurs Pract
2014;20(1):60-9
5. Balding L. The World Health
Organisation analgesic ladder: its place in
modern Irish medical practice. Ir Med J
2013;106(4):122-4
6. Gaertner J, Schiessl C. Cancer pain
management: what’s new? Curr Pain
Headache Rep 2013;17(4):328
7. Marcus DA. Epidemiology of cancer
pain. Curr Pain Headache Rep
2011;15(4):231-4
8. Goudas LC, Bloch R, Gialeli-Goudas M,
et al. The epidemiology of cancer pain.
Cancer Invest 2005;23(2):182-90
9. Foley KM. How well is cancer pain
treated? Palliat Med 2011;25(5):398-401
10. Ripamonti CI, Santini D, Maranzano E,
et al. Management of cancer pain:
ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines.
Ann oncol 2012;23(Suppl 7):vii139-54
.. Up-to-date evidence-based guidelines
for cancer pain management -- the
‘must read’ reference.
11. Cohen E, Botti M, Hanna B, et al. Pain
beliefs and pain management of oncology
patients. Cancer Nurs 2008;31(2):E1-8
12. Kwon JH. Overcoming barriers in cancer
pain management. J Clin Oncol
2014;32(16):1727-33
13. Fallon MT. Neuropathic pain in cancer.
Br J Anaesth 2013;111(1):105-11
14. Hjermstad MJ, Fainsinger R, Kaasa S.
Assessment and classification of cancer
pain. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care
2009;3(1):24-30
15. Knudsen AK, Aass N, Fainsinger R,
et al. Classification of pain in cancer
S. A. Schug & C. Chandrasena
12 Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2015) 16(1)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
01 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2017
patients--a systematic literature review.
Palliat Med 2009;23(4):295-308
16. Burton AW, Chai T, Smith LS. Cancer
pain assessment. Curr Opin Support
Palliat Care 2014;8(2):112-16
. An excellent review of current concepts
and tools for cancer assessment.
17. Stewart J. The challenges of cancer pain
assessment. Ulster Med J
2014;83(1):44-6
18. Auret K, Schug SA. Pain management
for the cancer patient - current practice
and future developments. Best Pract Res
Clin Anaesthesiol 2013;27(4):545-61
19. Twycross R. Cancer pain classification.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand
1997;41(1 Pt 2):141-5
20. Caraceni A, Portenoy RK, Ashby MA,
et al. An international survey of cancer
pain characteristics and syndromes. Pain
1999;82(3):263-74
21. Leppert W. Role of intranasal fentanyl in
breakthrough pain management in cancer
patients. Cancer Manag Res
2010;2:225-32
22. Webber K, Davies AN, Zeppetella G,
Cowie MR. Development and validation
of the breakthrough pain assessment tool
(BAT) in cancer patients. J Pain
Symptom Manage 2014;48(4):619-31
23. Abbey J, Piller N, De Bellis A, et al. The
Abbey pain scale: a 1-minute numerical
indicator for people with end-stage
dementia. Int J Palliat Nurs
2004;10(1):6-13
24. WHO. Cancer pain relief. World Health
Organisation; Geneva: 1986
25. WHO. Cancer pain relief: with a guide
to opioid availability. 2nd edition. World
Health Organisation; Geneva: 1996
26. Schug S, Zech D, Dorr U. Cancer pain
management according to WHO
analgesic guidelines. J Pain
Symptom Manage 1990;5(1):27-32
. The first validation study of the World
Health Organization (WHO)
guidelines -- of historic value.
27. Zech DF, Grond S, Lynch J, et al.
Validation of World Health Organization
Guidelines for cancer pain relief: a 10-
year prospective study. Pain
1995;63(1):65-76
.. The largest validation study of the
WHO guidelines.
28. Cherny NI. The pharmacologic
management of cancer pain. Oncology
(Williston Park, NY) 2004;18(12):
1499-515; discussion 516, 520-1,
522, 524
29. Aapro M, Launay-Vacher V. Importance
of monitoring renal function in patients
with cancer. Cancer Treat Rev
2012;38(3):235-40
30. Fielding F, Sanford TM, Davis MP.
Achieving effective control in cancer
pain: a review of current guidelines. Int J
Palliat Nurs 2013;19(12):584-91
. An interesting comparative paper of
current cancer pain guidelines.
31. McGeeney BE. Adjuvant agents in cancer
pain. Clin J Pain
2008;24(Suppl 10):S14-20
32. Mercadante S, Giarratano A. The long
and winding road of non steroidal
antinflammatory drugs and paracetamol
in cancer pain management: a critical
review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol
2013;87(2):140-5
33. Nabal M, Librada S, Redondo MJ, et al.
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. Palliat Med
2012;26(4):305-12
. A paper defining the current role of
non-opioids in cancer
pain management.
34. Blieden M, Paramore LC, Shah D,
Ben-Joseph R. A perspective on the
epidemiology of acetaminophen exposure
and toxicity in the United States.
Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol
2014;7(3):341-8
35. Wang XM, Hamza M, Wu TX,
Dionne RA. Upregulation of IL-6, IL-8
and CCL2 gene expression after acute
inflammation: correlation to clinical pain.
Pain 2009;142(3):275-83
36. Mercadante S. The use of anti-
inflammatory drugs in cancer pain.
Cancer Treat Rev 2001;27(1):51-61
37. Moore RA, Derry S, McQuay HJ,
Wiffen PJ. Single dose oral analgesics for
acute postoperative pain in adults.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2011;9:CD008659
. The largest comparative meta-analysis
of the efficacy of oral analgesics.
38. Ong CK, Seymour RA, Lirk P,
Merry AF. Combining paracetamol
(acetaminophen) with nonsteroidal
antiinflammatory drugs: a qualitative
systematic review of analgesic efficacy for
acute postoperative pain. Anesth Analg
2010;110(4):1170-9
39. Lafrance JP, Miller DR. Selective and
non-selective non-steroidal anti-
inflammatory drugs and the risk of acute
kidney injury.
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf
2009;18(10):923-31
40. Moore RA, Derry S, McQuay HJ.
Cyclo-oxygenase-2 selective inhibitors
and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs: balancing gastrointestinal and
cardiovascular risk.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2007;8:73
.. Excellent meta-analysis of the risks
related to the use of non-selective and
COX-2 selective NSAIDs.
41. Moore RA, Derry S, McQuay HJ,
Paling J. What do we know about
communicating risk? A brief review and
suggestion for contextualising serious, but
rare, risk, and the example of cox-2
selective and non-selective NSAIDs.
Arthritis Res Ther 2008;10(1):R20
42. McCarberg BH. NSAIDs in the older
patient: balancing benefits and harms.
Pain Med 2013;14(Suppl 1):S43-4
43. Freynhagen R, Zenz M, Strumpf M.
[WHO step II - clinical reality or a
didactic instrument?]. Schmerz
1994;8:210-15
44. Maltoni M, Scarpi E, Modonesi C, et al.
A validation study of the WHO analgesic
ladder: a two-step vs three-step strategy.
Support Care Cancer
2005;13(11):888-94
45. Caraceni A, Hanks G, Kaasa S, et al. Use
of opioid analgesics in the treatment of
cancer pain: evidence-based
recommendations from the EAPC.
Lancet Oncol 2012;13(2):e58-68
.. A summary of practical
recommendations on selection and use
of opioids in cancer pain management.
46. Liu HC, Liu TJ, Yang YY, Hou YN.
Pharmacokinetics of enantiomers of
trans-tramadol and its active metabolite,
trans-O-demethyltramadol, in human
subjects. Acta Pharmacol Sin
2001;22(1):91-6
47. Lai J, Ma SW, Porreca F, Raffa RB.
Tramadol, M1 metabolite and
enantiomer affinities for cloned human
opioid receptors expressed in transfected
HN9.10 neuroblastoma cells.
Eur J Pharmacol 1996;316(2-3):369-72
Pain management of the cancer patient
Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2015) 16(1) 13
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
01 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2017
48. Leppert W. Tramadol as an analgesic for
mild to moderate cancer pain.
Pharmacol Rep 2009;61(6):978-92
49. Leppert W. Pain management in patients
with cancer: focus on opioid analgesics.
Curr Pain Headache Rep
2011;15(4):271-9
50. Glare P, Aggarwal G, Clark K. Ongoing
controversies in the pharmacological
management of cancer pain.
Intern Med J 2004;34(1-2):45-9
51. Crist RC, Berrettini WH.
Pharmacogenetics of OPRM1.
Pharmacol Biochem Behav
2014;123:25-33
52. Bostrom E, Hammarlund-Udenaes M,
Simonsson US. Blood-brain barrier
transport helps to explain discrepancies
in in vivo potency between oxycodone
and morphine. Anesthesiology
2008;108(3):495-505
53. Burness CB, Keating GM. Oxycodone/
Naloxone prolonged-release: a review of
its use in the management of chronic
pain while counteracting opioid-induced
constipation. Drugs 2014;74(3):353-75
54. Cuomo A, Russo G, Esposito G, et al.
Efficacy and gastrointestinal tolerability
of oral oxycodone/naloxone combination
for chronic pain in outpatients with
cancer: an observational study. Am J
Hosp Palliat Care
2013. [Epub ahead of print]
55. Pigni A, Brunelli C, Caraceni A. The
role of hydromorphone in cancer pain
treatment: a systematic review.
Palliat Med 2011;25(5):471-7
56. Grape S, Schug SA, Lauer S, Schug BS.
Formulations of fentanyl for the
management of pain. Drugs
2010;70(1):57-72
. A review of the wide-range of non-
parenteral fentanyl preparations used
in cancer pain management.
57. Cachia E, Ahmedzai SH. Transdermal
opioids for cancer pain. Curr Opin
Support Palliat Care 2011;5(1):15-19
58. Melilli G, Samolsky Dekel BG,
Frenquelli C, et al. Transdermal opioids
for cancer pain control in patients with
renal impairment. J Opioid Manag
2014;10(2):85-93
59. Paech MJ, Bloor M, Schug SA. New
formulations of fentanyl for acute pain
management. Drugs Today (Barc)
2012;48(2):119-32
60. Davis MP, Walsh D. Methadone for
relief of cancer pain: a review of
pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics,
drug interactions and protocols of
administration. Support Care Cancer
2001;9(2):73-83
61. Routhier DD, Katz KD, Brooks DE.
QTc prolongation and torsades de
pointes associated with methadone
therapy. J Emerg Med 2007;32(3):275-8
62. Kharasch ED, Stubbert K. Role of
cytochrome P4502B6 in methadone
metabolism and clearance.
J Clin Pharmacol 2013;53(3):305-13
63. Perlman R, Giladi H, Brecht K, et al.
Intradialytic clearance of opioids:
methadone versus hydromorphone. Pain
2013;154(12):2794-800
64. Lundorff L, Sjogren P, Hansen OB,
et al. Switching from high doses of pure
mu-opioid agonists to transdermal
buprenorphine in patients with cancer:
a feasibility study. J Opioid Manag
2013;9(4):255-62
65. Davis MP. Twelve reasons for
considering buprenorphine as a frontline
analgesic in the management of pain.
J Support Oncol 2012;10(6):209-19
. A nice summary of current knowledge
on buprenorphine.
66. Naing C, Yeoh PN, Aung K. A meta-
analysis of efficacy and tolerability of
buprenorphine for the relief of cancer
pain. SpringerPlus 2014;3:87
67. Mitra F, Chowdhury S, Shelley M,
Williams G. A feasibility study of
transdermal buprenorphine versus
transdermal fentanyl in the long-term
management of persistent non-cancer
pain. Pain Med 2013;14(1):75-83
68. Riemsma R, Forbes C, Harker J, et al.
Systematic review of tapentadol in
chronic severe pain. Curr Med Res Opin
2011;27(10):1907-30
69. Kress HG, Koch ED, Kosturski H, et al.
Tapentadol prolonged release for
managing moderate to severe, chronic
malignant tumor-related pain.
Pain Physician 2014;17(4):329-43
70. Mercadante S, Porzio G, Aielli F, et al.
Opioid switching from and to tapentadol
extended release in cancer patients:
conversion ratio with other opioids.
Curr Med Res Opin 2013;29(6):661-6
71. Niesters M, Proto PL, Aarts L, et al.
Tapentadol potentiates descending pain
inhibition in chronic pain patients with
diabetic polyneuropathy. Br J Anaesth
2014;113(1):148-56
72. Samolsky Dekel BG, Tomasi M,
Vasarri A, et al. Opioid titration with
sustained-release oxycodone and
immediate-release morphine for
moderate/severe cancer pain: a pilot
assessment of the CoDem protocol.
J Opioid Manag 2014;10(1):29-38
73. Portenoy RK, Ahmed E. Principles of
opioid use in cancer pain. J Clin Oncol
2014;32(16):1662-70
74. Vadalouca A, Moka E, Argyra E, et al.
Opioid rotation in patients with cancer:
a review of the current literature.
J Opioid Manag 2008;4(4):213-50
75. Pasternak GW. Opiate pharmacology
and relief of pain. J Clin Oncol
2014;32(16):1655-61
76. Vissers KC, Besse K, Hans G, et al.
Opioid rotation in the management of
chronic pain: where is the evidence?
Pain Pract 2010;10(2):85-93
77. Nalamachu SR. Opioid rotation in
clinical practice. Adv Ther
2012;29(10):849-63
78. Caraceni A, Davies A, Poulain P, et al.
Guidelines for the management of
breakthrough pain in patients with
cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw
2013.11(Suppl 1):S29-36
. An useful resource on breakthrough
pain management.
79. Jandhyala R, Fullarton JR, Bennett MI.
Efficacy of rapid-onset oral fentanyl
formulations vs. oral morphine for
cancer-related breakthrough pain: a meta-
analysis of comparative trials. J Pain
Symptom Manage 2013;46(4):573-80
80. Zeppetella G, Davies AN. Opioids for
the management of breakthrough pain in
cancer patients. Cochrane Database
Syst Rev 2013;10:CD004311
81. Mitra R, Jones S. Adjuvant analgesics in
cancer pain: a review. Am J Hosp
Palliat Care 2012;29(1):70-9
.. An excellent summary of the use of
adjuvant analgesics and their role in
cancer pain management.
82. Cegielska-Perun K,
Bujalska-Zadrozny M, Gasinska E,
Makulska-Nowak HE. Enhancement of
antinociceptive effect of morphine by
antidepressants in diabetic neuropathic
pain model. Pharmacol Rep
2014;66(2):228-34
S. A. Schug & C. Chandrasena
14 Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2015) 16(1)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
01 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2017
83. Leppert W, Buss T. The role of
corticosteroids in the treatment of pain
in cancer patients. Curr Pain
Headache Rep 2012;16(4):307-13
84. Tawfic QA. A review of the use of
ketamine in pain management.
J Opioid Manag 2013;9(5):379-88
85. Hardy J, Quinn S, Fazekas B, et al.
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-
controlled study to assess the efficacy and
toxicity of subcutaneous ketamine in the
management of cancer pain.
J Clin Oncol 2012;30(29):3611-17
86. Mhaskar R, Redzepovic J, Wheatley K,
et al. Bisphosphonates in multiple
myeloma: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2012;5:CD003188
87. Wong MH, Stockler MR, Pavlakis N.
Bisphosphonates and other bone agents
for breast cancer. Cochrane Database
Syst Rev 2012;2:CD003474
88. Yuen KK, Shelley M, Sze WM, et al.
Bisphosphonates for advanced prostate
cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2006(4):CD006250
89. Wang X, Yang KH, Wanyan P, Tian JH.
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of
denosumab versus bisphosphonates in
breast cancer and bone metastases
treatment: a meta-analysis of randomized
controlled trials. Oncol Lett
2014;7(6):1997-2002
90. Fallon MT, Laird BJ. A systematic
review of combination step III opioid
therapy in cancer pain: an EPCRC
opioid guideline project. Palliat Med
2011;25(5):597-603
91. Davis MP, Walsh D, Lagman R,
LeGrand SB. Controversies in
pharmacotherapy of pain management.
Lancet Oncol 2005;6(9):696-704
92. Grond S, Meuser T. Weak opioids - an
educational substitute for morphine?
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol
1998;11(5):559-65
AffiliationStephan A Schug†1,2 MD FANZCA
FPMANZCA &
Chandani Chandrasena3 MBBS FANZCA†Author for correspondence1Professor, Chair of Anaesthesiology,
The University of Western Australia, School of
Medicine and Pharmacology, Pharmacology,
Pharmacy and Anaesthesiology Unit, Perth,
Australia2Consultant Anaesthetist and Director of
Pain Medicine,
UWA Anaesthesiology, Royal Perth Hospital,
Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine,
Level 2, MRF Building, GPO Box X2213, Perth,
6847, Australia
Tel: +61 8 9224 0201;
Fax: +61 8 9224 0279;
E-mail: [email protected] Registrar and Clinical Lecturer,
Royal Perth Hospital, Department of Anaesthesia
and Pain Medicine, Perth, Australia
Pain management of the cancer patient
Expert Opin. Pharmacother. (2015) 16(1) 15
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
oron
to L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
01 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2017