Corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related pain in adults

Management of pain in cancer patients - an update

Pain is one of the most detrimental symptoms exhibited by cancer patients, being an indication for opioid therapy in up to half of the patients receiving chemotherapy and even more for those with advanced cancer. This article aims to briefly overview current knowledge on cancer-related pain with a focus on assessment and new approaches and trends. We will also provide some insight on the lower- and middle-income countries context.

Data sources

A narrative review of the literature was conducted including relevant guidelines and recommendations from scientific societies and WHO.

Data summary

Data on the approach and assessment of cancer pain as well as current and novel approaches have been displayed with the help of tables and figures.

Conclusion

Since the initial recommendations of the WHO analgesic ladder method, new insights have emerged. Scientific progress reaches its maximum social sense when populations and governments prioritise the value of relief and compassion, and concrete actions are implemented with the aim of relieving cancer pain.

Assessing suicide risk in chronic pain management: a narrative review across drug classes

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pain presents a multifaceted challenge in clinical practice, necessitating a nuanced understanding of pharmacological interventions to optimize treatment outcomes. This review provides an outline of various pharmacological agents commonly used in chronic pain management and highlights their safety considerations, particularly regarding suicide risk.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses the role of antidepressants, anticonvulsants, GABA receptor agonists, NMDA receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, cannabis and cannabinoids, bisphosphonates, calcitonin, and alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonists in chronic pain management. It assesses their therapeutic benefits, potential for misuse, and psychiatric adverse effects, including the risk of suicide. Each pharmacological class is evaluated in terms of its efficacy, safety profile, and considerations for clinical practice. We searched peer-reviewed English literature on the topic using the MEDLINE database without time restrictions.

EXPERT OPINION

While pharmacological interventions offer promise in alleviating chronic pain, healthcare providers must carefully weigh their benefits against potential risks, including the risk of exacerbating psychiatric symptoms and increasing suicide risk. Individualized treatment approaches, close monitoring, and multidisciplinary collaboration are essential for optimizing pain management strategies while mitigating adverse effects. Ongoing research efforts are crucial for advancing our understanding of these pharmacological interventions and refining pain management practices.

Spinal Metastases of the Vertebrae: Three Main Categories of Pain

Oncologic back pain, infection, inflammation, and trauma are the only specific etiologies of chronic low back pain (CLBP) in contrast to most patients who have non-specific CLBP. In oncologic patients developing CLBP, it is critically important to perform further investigation to exclude spinal metastases (SM).The incidence of cancer is increasing, with 15.7-30% developing SM. In the case of symptomatic SM, we can distinguish three main categories: tumor pain; mechanical pain due to instability, with or without pathologic fractures; and metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC) or radicular compression. Treatment of SM-related pain is dependent on these categories and consists of symptomatic treatment, target therapy to the bone, radiotherapy, systemic oncologic treatment, and surgery. The care for SM is a multidisciplinary concern, with rapid evolutions in all specialties involved. It is of primordial importance to incorporate the knowledge of specialists in all participating disciplines, such as oncology, radiotherapy, and spinal surgery, to determine the adequate treatment to preserve ambulatory function and quality of life while limiting the burden of treatment if possible. Awareness of potential SM is the first and most important step in the treatment of SM-related pain. Early diagnosis and timely treatment could prevent further deterioration. In this review, we explore the pathophysiology and symptomatology of SM and the treatment options for SM-related pain: tumor pain; mechanical pain due to instability, with or without pathologic fractures; and MESCC or radicular compression.

Associations between Diabetes Mellitus and Selected Cancers

Cancer is one of the major causes of mortality and is the second leading cause of death. Diabetes mellitus is a serious and growing problem worldwide, and its prevalence continues to grow; it is the 12th leading cause of death. An association between diabetes mellitus and cancer has been suggested for more than 100 years. Diabetes is a common disease diagnosed among patients with cancer, and evidence indicates that approximately 8-18% of patients with cancer have diabetes, with investigations suggesting an association between diabetes and some particular cancers, increasing the risk for developing cancers such as pancreatic, liver, colon, breast, stomach, and a few others. Breast and colorectal cancers have increased from 20% to 30% and there is a 97% increased risk of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or endometrial cancer. On the other hand, a number of cancers and cancer therapies increase the risk of diabetes mellitus. Complications due to diabetes in patients with cancer may influence the choice of cancer therapy. Unfortunately, the mechanisms of the associations between diabetes mellitus and cancer are still unknown. The aim of this review is to summarize the association of diabetes mellitus with selected cancers and update the evidence on the underlying mechanisms of this association.

Pain management in cervical cancer

Cervical cancer (CC) occupies the second place in incidence and mortality among women in México. Despite this, Cervical Cancer continues to have a late diagnosis which leads to a high rate of complications. Pain represents the most feared and disabling symptom, being present in up to 86% of patients with advanced disease. The approach to managing pain in this population has not been studied and described to a full extent. In addition, there is a pressing need to provide concise recommendations to promote adequate pain control. We performed a review of the literature in CC and had experts in the field of pain management evaluate the evidence found. We then issued relevant recommendations on pharmacology and interventional pain management. Thus, the approach to pain management must be comprehensive and individualized, considering the timely and appropriate use of pharmacologic treatment as well as interventional procedures.

Clinical Presentation and Management of Malignant Psoas Syndrome: A Scoping Review of Case Reports and Case Series

Malignant psoas syndrome (MPS) is a rare and underreported clinical syndrome that significantly impacts the quality of life of cancer patients through metastatic infiltration of the iliopsoas muscle. Patients suffering from MPS often present with painful hip flexion, loss of mobility, and immense pain in their legs and back. The current literature describing the clinical presentation, management, and prognosis of MPS is limited primarily to case reports and outdated literature reviews. There remains a gap in the current knowledge of MPS and in the management of this complex cancer-related pain syndrome. Thus, this scoping review aimed to map current case reports and case series on MPS for clinical presentation, treatment modalities, and resulting prognoses of MPS in late-stage cancer patients. A systemized search using the databases Embase and PubMed (Medline) was conducted to access case reports and case series published between January 1990 and October 2022 that met the study's inclusion criteria: (1) adult patients with metastatic cancer; (2) MPS symptoms secondary to infiltration of iliopsoas; (3) clinical presentation, treatment modality, and prognosis; and (4) English-language text. Our search strategy yielded 1926 citations. After removing 629 duplicates, 1,283 reports were excluded due to failure to meet eligibility criteria (n=1,271) or inaccessibility (n=12). Using the JBI appraisal tools for case reports and case series, a total of 14 articles remained for the final review. With histories of either genitourinary, hepatic, gastric, or skin cancer, each case reported new onset intense pain in the legs, back, abdomen, or pelvis with associated symptoms such as flexion of the hip or gait disorder. A computerized tomography (CT) scan, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET) scan typically confirmed metastasis into the iliopsoas causing these symptoms, which suggested MPS. Each case utilized two to seven different pain management strategies to alleviate MPS symptoms. Many cases first used opioids for pain relief. Following a necessitated increase in morphine equivalent daily dose, a subsequent increase in the strength of analgesic, change in route of administration, and integration of combination drug therapy were generally added to the treatment regime. Many cases reported successful management of symptoms through utilizing methadone, radiation therapy, botulinum toxin injection, increased opioid dosage, or epidural catheter administration of opioids. A unified clinical definition of MPS may be required to inform physicians of this syndrome to help support clinical decisions regarding treatments for patients. The studies indicated that a clearer guideline for treatment protocol may be warranted as most cases reported utilizing various treatment medication dosages and procedures with vastly differing results.

Corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related fatigue in adults with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Fatigue is the most commonly reported symptom in people with advanced cancer. Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is pervasive and debilitating, and can greatly impact quality of life (QoL). CRF has a highly variable clinical presentation, likely due to a complex interaction of multiple factors. Corticosteroids are commonly used to improve CRF, but the benefits are unclear and there are significant adverse effects associated with long-term use. With the increasing survival of people with metastatic cancer, the long-term effects of medications are becoming increasingly relevant. Since the impact of CRF can be immensely debilitating and can negatively affect QoL, its treatment warrants further review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of corticosteroids compared with placebo or an active comparator in adults with advanced cancer and CRF.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index (ISI Web of Science), LILACS, and two clinical trial registries from inception to 18 July 2022.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in adults aged ≥18 years. We included participants with advanced cancer who were suffering from CRF. We included trials that randomised participants to corticosteroids at any dose, by any route, administered for the relief of CRF; compared to placebo or an active comparator, including supportive care or non-pharmacological treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed titles identified by the search strategy; two review authors assessed risk of bias; and two extracted data. We extracted the primary outcome of participant-reported fatigue relief using validated scales and secondary outcomes of adverse events, serious adverse events and QoL. We calculated the risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between groups for dichotomous outcomes. We measured arithmetic mean and standard deviation, and reported the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI between groups for continuous outcomes. We used standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs when an outcome was measured with different instruments measuring the same construct. We used a random-effects model to meta-analyse the outcome data. We rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE and created two summary of findings tables.  MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with 297 enroled participants; data were available for only 239 participants. Three studies compared corticosteroid (equivalent ≤ 8 mg dexamethasone) to placebo. One study compared corticosteroid (dexamethasone 4 mg) to an active comparator (modafinil 100 mg). There were insufficient data to evaluate subgroups, such as dose and duration of treatment. One study had a high risk of performance and detection bias due to lack of blinding, and one study had a high risk of attrition bias. Otherwise, we assessed risks of bias as low or unclear. Comparison 1: corticosteroids compared with placebo Participant-reported fatigue relief The was no clear difference between corticosteroids and placebo (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.14; 3 RCTs, 165 participants, very low-certainty evidence) for relief of fatigue at one week of the intervention. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence three times for study limitations due to unclear risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. Adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (3 RCTs, 165 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of lIfe One study reported QoL at one week using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) well-being, and found no clear difference in QoL between groups (MD -0.58, 95% CI -1.93 to 0.77). Another study measured QoL using the Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cancer Patients Treated with Anticancer Drugs (QoL-ACD), and found no clear difference between groups. There was no clear difference between groups for either study, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Comparison 2: corticosteroids compared with active comparator (modafinil) Participant-reported fatigue relief There was improvement in fatigue from baseline to two weeks in both groups (modafinil MD 10.15, 95% CI 7.43 to 12.87; dexamethasone MD 9.21, 95% CI 6.73 to 11.69), however no clear difference between the two groups (MD -0.94, 95% CI -4.49 to 2.61; 1 RCT, 73 participants, very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence three times for very serious study limitations and imprecision. Adverse events There was no clear difference in the occurrence of adverse events between groups, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 RCT, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Serious adverse events There were no serious adverse events reported in either group (1 RCT, 73 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Quality of lIfe One study measured QoL at two weeks, using the ESAS-well-being. There was marked improvement in QoL from baseline in both groups (modafinil MD -2.43, 95% CI -2.88 to -1.98; dexamethasone MD -2.16, 95% CI -2.68 to -1.64), however no clear difference between the two groups (MD 0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.93; 1 RCT, 73 participants, very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of systemic corticosteroids in adults with cancer and CRF. We included four small studies that provided very low-certainty of evidence for the efficacy of corticosteroids in the management of CRF. Further high-quality randomised controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required to determine the effectiveness of corticosteroids in this setting.

Glucocorticoid Effect in Cancer Patients

The use of glucocorticoids is very varied in the context of cancer patients and includes the treatment of symptoms related to cancer, but also the management of the most common side effects of antitumor treatments or adverse events related to the immune system. There is a quantity of experimental evidence demonstrating that cancer cells are immunogenic. However, the effective activation of anticancer T cell responses closely depends on an efficient antigen presentation carried out by professional antigen-presenting cells such as dendritic cells (DCs). The classic strategies to improve the medical management of inflammation are aimed at exacerbating the host's immune response. Although successful in treating a number of diseases, these drugs have limited efficacy and variable responses can lead to unpredictable results. The ideal therapy should reduce inflammation without inducing immunosuppression and remains a challenge for healthcare personnel.

Pain control during panretinal photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of different interventions aimed at controlling pain associated with panretinal photocoagulation, in people with severe non‐proliferative diabetic retinopathy and proliferative diabetic retinopathy, according to the classification of ETDRS 1991 .

Impact of Glucocorticoid Use in Oncology in the Immunotherapy Era

Thanks to their anti-inflammatory, anti-oedema, and anti-allergy properties, glucocorticoids are among the most widely prescribed drugs in patients with cancer. The indications for glucocorticoid use are very wide and varied in the context of cancer and include the symptomatic management of cancer-related symptoms (compression, pain, oedema, altered general state) but also prevention or treatment of common side effects of anti-cancer therapies (nausea, allergies, etc.) or immune-related adverse events (irAE). In this review, we first give an overview of the different clinical situations where glucocorticoids are used in oncology. Next, we describe the current state of knowledge regarding the effects of these molecules on immune response, in particular anti-tumour response, and we summarize available data evaluating how these effects may interfere with the efficacy of immunotherapy using immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Diabetes and Cancer: Risk, Challenges, Management and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus and cancer are commonly coexisting illnesses, and the global incidence and prevalence of both are rising. Cancer patients with diabetes face unique challenges. This review highlights the relationship between diabetes and cancer and various aspects of the management of diabetes in cancer patients.

METHODS

A literature search using keywords in PubMed was performed. Studies that were published in English prior to July 2021 were assessed and an overview of epidemiology, cancer risk, outcomes, treatment-related hyperglycemia and management of diabetes in cancer patients is provided.

RESULTS

Overall, 8-18% of cancer patients have diabetes as a comorbid medical condition. Diabetes is a risk factor for certain solid malignancies, such as pancreatic, liver, colon, breast, and endometrial cancer. Several novel targeted compounds and immunotherapies can cause hyperglycemia. Nevertheless, most patients undergoing cancer therapy can be managed with an appropriate glucose lowering agent without the need for discontinuation of cancer treatment. Evidence suggests that cancer patients with diabetes have higher cancer-related mortality; therefore, a multidisciplinary approach is important in the management of patients with diabetes and cancer for a better outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies are required to better understand the underlying mechanism between the risk of cancer and diabetes. Furthermore, high-quality prospective studies evaluating management of diabetes in cancer patients using innovative tools are needed. A patient-centered approach is important in cancer patients with diabetes to avoid adverse outcomes.

Hydromorphone for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane Review first published in Issue 10, 2016. For people with advanced cancer, the prevalence of pain can be as high as 90%. Cancer pain is a distressing symptom that tends to worsen as the disease progresses. Evidence suggests that opioid pharmacotherapy is the most effective of these therapies. Hydromorphone appears to be an alternative opioid analgesic which may help relieve these symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone in relieving cancer pain, as well as the incidence and severity of any adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers in November 2020. We applied no language, document type or publication status limitations to the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hydromorphone with placebo, an alternative opioid or another active control, for cancer pain in adults and children. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain intensity and pain relief; secondary outcomes were specific adverse events, serious adverse events, quality of life, leaving the study early and death.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. We estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model and assessed risk of bias for all included studies. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three summary of findings tables.

MAIN RESULTS

With four new identified studies, the review includes a total of eight studies (1283 participants, with data for 1181 participants available for analysis), which compared hydromorphone with oxycodone (four studies), morphine (three studies) or fentanyl (one study). All studies included adults with cancer pain, mean age ranged around 53 to 59 years and the proportion of men ranged from 42% to 67.4%. We judged all the studies at high risk of bias overall because they had at least one domain with high risk of bias. We found no studies including children. We did not complete a meta-analysis for the primary outcome of pain intensity due to skewed data and different comparators investigated across the studies (oxycodone, morphine and fentanyl). Comparison 1: hydromorphone compared with placebo We identified no studies comparing hydromorphone with placebo. Comparison 2: hydromorphone compared with oxycodone Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain (3 RCTs, 381 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief. Specific adverse events We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 1.13 95% CI 0.74 to 1.73; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), vomiting (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.94; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), dizziness (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.44; 2 RCTs, 441 participants) and constipation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.19; 622 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. Comparison 3: hydromorphone compared with morphine Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) or VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 433 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no clear evidence of a difference in the number of clinically improved participants, defined by 50% or greater pain relief rate, in the hydromorphone group compared with the morphine group, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Specific adverse events At 24 days of treatment, morphine may reduce constipation compared with hydromorphone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.17; 1 RCT, 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.30; 1 RCT, 200 participants), vomiting (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 200 participants) and dizziness (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.88; 1 RCT, 200 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. Comparison 4: hydromorphone compared with fentanyl Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured by numerical rating scale (NRS)) at 60 minutes in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with fentanyl, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 RCT, 82 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief. Specific adverse events We found no studies reporting specific adverse events. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence of the benefits and harms of hydromorphone compared with other analgesics is very uncertain. The studies reported some adverse events, such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness and constipation, but generally there was no clear evidence of a difference between hydromorphone and morphine, oxycodone or fentanyl for this outcome. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of hydromorphone for cancer pain in comparison with other analgesics on the reported outcomes. Further research with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive outcome data collection is required.

Scrambler therapy for incident pain in bone metastases

Incident pain, described as pain induced by bone metastasis and produced by movement, can be devastating. The high doses of opioids needed to control such pain may sedate the patient and cause additional complications. Treatment of incident pain with pharmaceuticals has rarely been studied; only eight patients have been reported in the literature who did not receive additional opioids. We present the case of a 69 year old man with shoulder destruction due to bone metastases who was able to use his arm for normal activities without pain after three sessions of scrambler therapy, a noninvasive form of electrical neuromodulation that requires further study.

The Use of L2 and L3 Lumbar Sympathetic Blockade for Cancer-Related Pain, an Experience and Recommendation in the Oncologic Population

OBJECTIVE

The sympathetic nervous system has a recognized role in transmission of pain, and the lumbar sympathetic blockade is intended to provide analgesia. We share our experiences of lumbar sympathetic blockade in the treatment of cancer-related pain.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with cancer-related pain in the back, abdomen, pelvis, or legs treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center between 2000 and 2018 undergoing lumbar sympathetic blockade at L2 or L3. Blocks were accomplished by injection of local anesthetic or local anesthetic with steroid under fluoroscopy. We measured numerical rating scale scores, percent relief, and relief time. The primary end point was defined as "effective" or "ineffective" pain relief. Effective pain relief was defined as ≥30% relief for at least one day.

RESULTS

We identified 124 data points of lumbar sympathetic blockade at L2 or L3, of which 57 were with complete data and used for analysis. Peri-injection, 42 data points had active disease whereas 15 were in remission. Lumbar sympathetic blockade was 67% effective in the back pain cohort, 82% effective in the abdominopelvic pain cohort, and 75% effective in the leg pain cohort. Seventeen data points went on to neurolysis, two to neuromodulation, and eight to intrathecal pump implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar sympathetic blockade is effective for back, abdominopelvic, and leg pain related to cancer and its treatments. Future research should be aimed at refining its role within multimodal pain management.

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.

Self-Assembling Derivative of Hydrocortisone as Glucocorticoid Receptor-Targeted Nanotherapeutics for Synergistic, Combination Therapy against Colorectal Tumor

Hydrocortisone, a natural glucocorticoid secreted by adrenal and extra-adrenal tissues, locally governs the transcription of genes involved in inflammation, immune response, metabolism, and energy homeostasis via binding to its cognate glucocorticoid receptor (GR). In this study, we show that modified hydrocortisone (HC16), a cancer-selective cytotoxic molecule, showed synergism in combination with drugs like Doxorubicin and docetaxel, self-assembled into vesicles, entrapped docetaxel and complexed with anti-cancer plasmid DNA for enhanced killing of cancer cells. These vesicles exhibited GR-mediated nuclear localization, delivery of the p53 gene, and also inhibited cell viability selectively in RKO, HCT15, and CT26 colon cancer cells but not in normal cells like CHO and HEK293T. Apart from exerting its own anti-cancer activity, the self-assembled HC16 vesicles loaded with docetaxel sensitized the cancer cells to its drug cargo by downregulating the drug metabolizing CYP3A4 gene. This indirectly reduces the risk of nonspecific adverse effects in normal cells, as the viability of sensitized cancer cells could be significantly reduced even in low doses of cytotoxic docetaxel. The near infrared (NIR)-dye-associated self-assemblies accumulated in a colon tumor with higher orders of NIR intensity compared to those in a colon of healthy mice. Thereafter, the treatment of HC16-docetaxel-p53 vesicle/DNA complex led to significant tumor regression, which resulted in a cecum/body weight ratio in tumor-bearing mice similar to that of healthy mice measured at 24 h postcompletion of treatment. There was an up to 2.5-fold enhancement in the overall survivability of colon-tumor-bearing mice treated with HC16-docetaxel-p53 vesicle/DNA complexes when compared against the pristine docetaxel-treated groups. Further, the HC16-docetaxel-p53 vesicle/DNA complex-treated group showed reduced nuclear accumulation of cell proliferation marker Ki67, reduced protein levels of prosurvival and mesenchymal proteins like Bcl-2, PARP, vimentin, and N-cadherin, and increased the levels of pro-apoptotic activated caspases as compared to the pristine docetaxel-treated groups. The therapeutic package described herein is expected to find future use as a rational, multifaceted, GR-targeted approach for inhibiting colon tumor progression.

Indian Society for Study of Pain, Cancer Pain Special Interest Group Guidelines on Pharmacological Management of Cancer Pain (Part III)

The Indian Society for Study of Pain (ISSP), Cancer Pain Special Interest Group, guidelines on pharmacological management of cancer pain in adults provide a structured, step-wise approach which will help to improve the management of cancer pain and to provide patients with a minimally acceptable quality of life. The guidelines have been developed based on the available literature and evidence, to suit the needs, patient population, and situations in India. A questionnaire based on the key elements of each sub draft addressing certain inconclusive areas where evidence was lacking, was made available on the ISSP website and circulated by E-mail to all the ISSP and Indian Association of Palliative Care members. Antidepressants and/or anticonvulsants should be used to treat neuropathic cancer pain and the dose should be titrated according to the clinical response and side effects. External beam radiotherapy should be offered to all patients with painful metastatic bone pain. There is evidence on the use of ketamine in cancer neuropathic pain, but with no beneficial effect, thus it is not recommended.

Bone Pain in Cancer Patients: Mechanisms and Current Treatment

The skeletal system is the third most common site for cancer metastases, surpassed only by the lungs and liver. Many tumors, especially those of the breast, prostate, lungs, and kidneys, have a strong predilection to metastasize to bone, which causes pain, hypercalcemia, pathological skeletal fractures, compression of the spinal cord or other nervous structures, decreased mobility, and increased mortality. Metastatic cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) is a type of chronic pain with unique and complex pathophysiology characterized by nociceptive and neuropathic components. Its treatment should be multimodal (pharmacological and non-pharmacological), including causal anticancer and symptomatic analgesic treatment to improve quality of life (QoL). The aim of this paper is to discuss the mechanisms involved in the occurrence and persistence of cancer-associated bone pain and to review the treatment methods recommended by experts in clinical practice. The final part of the paper reviews experimental therapeutic methods that are currently being studied and that may improve the efficacy of bone pain treatment in cancer patients in the future.

Intrathecal betamethasone for cancer pain: A study of its analgesic efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

A preliminary study has shown effective cancer pain relief by intrathecal betamethasone (ITB). However, further evidence is needed to support this new approach.

METHODS

Cancer patients with opioid-resistant pain received lumbar intrathecal administration of betamethasone 2 or 3 mg once a week for 28 days. Immediate and short-term analgesia (using a percentage pain reduction scale and a numerical rating scale, NRS) and long-term analgesia (using NRS) were assessed. Patients were classified into two groups according to the most painful site of metastasis: vertebral column and/or surrounding nerve plexus metastases (group A) and other metastases distal from the vertebral column (group B).

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients received ITB. Pain relief was observed not only in the lower half but also in the upper half of the body. The proportion of group A patients who experienced immediate analgesia was 81% (47/58), which was significantly greater than that of group B (P < 0.001). A decrease in NRS scores 1 day after ITB administration was observed in significantly more patients in group A than in group B (P < 0.001). Long-term analgesia was also recorded in a greater proportion of patients in group A than in group B in the 7-day (59%, 38/64 vs 6%, 2/33) and 28-day periods (71%, 40/56 vs 31%, 8/26) (P < 0.001). No adverse effects related to neurotoxicity were recorded.

CONCLUSION

Intrathecal injection of betamethasone produced analgesia for opioid-resistant cancer pain, and may be a potent therapeutic option for intolerable pain from vertebral column and/or surrounding nerve plexus metastases.

Systemic corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related breathlessness (dyspnoea) in adults

BACKGROUND

Dyspnoea is a common symptom in advanced cancer, with a prevalence of up to 70% among patients at end of life. The cause of dyspnoea is often multifactorial, and may cause considerable psychological distress and suffering. Dyspnoea is often undertreated and good symptom control is less frequently achieved in people with dyspnoea than in people with other symptoms of advanced cancer, such as pain and nausea. The exact mechanism of action of corticosteroids in managing dyspnoea is unclear, yet corticosteroids are commonly used in palliative care for a variety of non-specific indications, including pain, nausea, anorexia, fatigue and low mood, despite being associated with a wide range of adverse effects. In view of their widespread use, it is important to seek evidence of the effects of corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related dyspnoea.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of systemic corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related breathlessness (dyspnoea) in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index Web of Science, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) and clinical trial registries, from inception to 25 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that included adults aged 18 years and above. We included participants with cancer-related dyspnoea when randomised to systemic corticosteroids (at any dose) administered for the relief of cancer-related dyspnoea or any other indication, compared to placebo, standard or alternative treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Five review authors independently assessed trial quality and three extracted data. We used means and standard deviations for each outcome to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the risk of bias and quality of evidence using GRADE. We extracted primary outcomes of sensory-perceptual experience of dyspnoea (intensity of dyspnoea), affective distress (quality of dyspnoea) and symptom impact (burden of dyspnoea or impact on function) and secondary outcomes of serious adverse events, participant satisfaction with treatment and participant withdrawal from trial.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 157 participants (37 participants in one study and 120 in the other study), of whom 114 were included in the analyses. The studies compared oral dexamethasone to placebo, followed by an open-label phase in one study. One study lasted seven days, and the duration of the other study was 15 days.We were unable to conduct many of our predetermined analyses due to different agents, dosages, comparators and outcome measures, routes of drug delivery, measurement scales and time points. Subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not possible.Primary outcomesWe included two studies (114 participants) with data at one week in the meta-analysis for change in dyspnoea intensity/dyspnoea relief from baseline. Corticosteroid therapy with dexamethasone resulted in an MD of lower dyspnoea intensity compared to placebo at one week (MD -0.85 lower dyspnoea (scale 0-10; lower score = less breathlessness), 95% CI -1.73 to 0.03; very low-quality evidence), although we were uncertain as to whether corticosteroids had an important effect on dyspnoea as results were imprecise. We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels from high to very low due to very serious study limitations and imprecision.One study measured affective distress (quality of dyspnoea) and results were similar between groups (29 participants; very low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the evidence three times for imprecision, inconsistency, and serious study limitations.Both studies assessed symptom impact (burden of dyspnoea or impact on function) (113 participants; very low-quality evidence). In one study, it was unclear whether dexamethasone had an effect on dyspnoea as results were imprecise. The second study showed more improvement for physical well-being scores at days eight and 15 in the dexamethasone group compared with the control group, but there was no evidence of a difference for FACIT social/family, emotional or functional scales. We downgraded the quality of the evidence three times for imprecision, inconsistency, and serious study limitations.Secondary outcomesDue to the lack of homogenous outcome measures and inconsistency in reporting, we could not perform quantitative analysis for any secondary outcomes. In both studies, the frequency of adverse events was similar between groups, and corticosteroids were generally well tolerated. The withdrawal rates for the two studies were 15% and 36%. Reasons for withdrawal included lost to follow-up, participant or carer (or both) refusal, and death due to disease progression. We downgraded the quality of evidence for these secondary outcomes by three levels from high to very low due to serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision.Neither study examined participant satisfaction with treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are few studies assessing the effects of systemic corticosteroids on cancer-related dyspnoea in adults with cancer. We judged the evidence to be of very low quality that neither supported nor refuted corticosteroid use in this population. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine if corticosteroids are efficacious in this setting.

Steroid-Associated Side Effects: A Symptom Management Update on Multiple Myeloma Treatment

BACKGROUND

One constant and relatively unchanged aspect of treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) is the use of glucocorticosteroids, or steroids, which can cause a wide range of adverse side effects and harm patients' quality of life.
.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to provide updated recommendations on the management of steroid-associated side effects in patients with MM.
.

METHODS

A study of steroid-associated side effects in MM treatment regimens was reviewed to provide updated recommendations to healthcare professionals.

FINDINGS

Identifying the side effects of steroids and managing them promptly contribute to the success of steroid-containing regimens for patients with MM.

Corticosteroids for adult patients with advanced cancer who have nausea and vomiting (not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery)

BACKGROUND

Nausea is a common symptom in advanced cancer, with a prevalence of up to 70%. While nausea and vomiting can be related to cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery, a significant number of people with advanced cancer also suffer from nausea unrelated to such therapies. Nausea and vomiting may also cause psychological distress, and have a negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients; similarly to pain, nausea is often under-treated. The exact mechanism of action of corticosteroids on nausea is unclear, however, they are used to manage a number of cancer-specific complications, including spinal cord compression, raised intracranial pressure, and lymphangitis carcinomatosis. They are also commonly used in palliative care for a wide variety of non-specific indications, such as pain, nausea, anorexia, fatigue, and low mood. However, there is little objective evidence of their efficacy in symptom control, and corticosteroids have a wide range of adverse effects that are dose and time dependent. In view of their widespread use, it is important to seek evidence of their effects on nausea and vomiting not related to cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL EBSCO, Science Citation Index Web of Science, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science Web of Science, and clinical trial registries, from inception to 23rd August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any double-blind randomised or prospective controlled trial that included adults aged 18 years and over with advanced cancer with nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery were eligible for the review, when using corticosteroids as antiemetic treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used arithmetic means and standard deviations for each outcome to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 451 participants. The trial size varied from 51 to 280 participants. Two studies compared dexamethasone to placebo, and the third study compared a number of additional interventions in various combinations, including metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, tropisetron, and dexamethasone. The duration of the studies ranged from seven to 14 days. We included two studies (127 participants) with data at eight days in the meta-analysis for nausea intensity; no data were available that incorporated the same outcome measures for the third study. Corticosteroid therapy with dexamethasone resulted in less nausea (measured on a scale of 0 to 10, with a lower score indicating less nausea) compared to placebo at eight days (MD 0.48 lower nausea, 95% CI 1.53 lower to 0.57 higher; very low-quality evidence), although this result was not statistically significant (P = 0.37). Frequency of adverse events was not significantly different between groups, and the interventions were well tolerated. Factors limiting statistical analysis included the lack of standardised measurements of nausea, and the use of different agents, dosages, and comparisons. Subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not possible due to insufficient data. The quality of this evidence was downgraded by three levels, from high to very low due to imprecision, likely selection bias, attrition bias, and the small number of participants in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are few studies assessing the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients. This review found very low-quality evidence which neither supported nor refuted corticosteroid use in this setting. Further high quality studies are needed to determine if corticosteroids are efficacious in this setting.

The relationship between pro-inflammatory cytokines and pain, appetite and fatigue in patients with advanced cancer

Background

Systemic inflammation is associated with reduced quality of life and increased symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. The aims of this study were to examine the relationships between inflammatory biomarkers and the Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) of pain, appetite and fatigue; and to explore whether levels of baseline biomarkers were associated with changes in these PROMs following treatment with corticosteroids.

Material and methods

An exploratory analysis was done on a trial examining the analgesic properties of corticosteroids in patients with advanced cancer. Inclusion criteria were: >18 years, taking opioids for moderate or severe cancer pain; pain ≥4 (numerical rating scale 0–10). Serum was extracted and levels of inflammatory biomarkers were assessed. PROMs of pain, appetite and fatigue were assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). The relationships between PROMs and inflammatory biomarkers were examined using Spearman Rho-Rank and multiple regression analysis.

Results

Data were available on 49 patients. Levels of sTNF-r1, IL-6, IL-18, MIF, MCP-1, TGF-β1, IL-1ra, and C-reactive protein (CRP) and Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were elevated; IL-1β, IL-2, IL-4, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12(p70), interferon-γ, MIP-1α, and TNF-α were below the level of detection. The following correlations were observed: appetite and IL-6 and CRP; fatigue and IL-1ra (r_s: 0.38–0.41, p< .01). There was no association between pretreatment biomarkers and effect from corticosteroid treatment.

Conclusion

In patients with advanced cancer and pain, some pro-inflammatory cytokines were related to appetite and fatigue. Inflammatory biomarkers were not associated with pain or with the efficacy of corticosteroid therapy. Further research examining the attenuation of the systemic inflammatory response and possible effects on symptoms would be of interest.

The influence of prednisone on the efficacy of docetaxel in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prednisone and other corticosteroids can provide palliation and tumor responses in patients with prostate cancer. The combination of docetaxel and prednisone was the first treatment shown to prolong survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Since the approval of docetaxel in 2004, additional treatments are available, including abiraterone, which is also administered with prednisone. Therefore, patients are increasingly likely to have prednisone therapy several times throughout their disease course, and the contribution of prednisone to the efficacy of docetaxel is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of patients with mCPRC treated with docetaxel at our institution between 2004–2014. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts based upon whether prednisone was co-administered with docetaxel. Cohorts were further stratified based upon prior prednisone (with abiraterone) or hydrocortisone (with ketoconazole) use. The primary endpoint was clinical/radiographic progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were >50% PSA response rate and PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS). A multivariable cox regression model was constructed to determine if prednisone use was independently predictive of PFS.

RESULTS

We identified 200 consecutive patients for inclusion in the study: 131 men received docetaxel with prednisone and 69 received docetaxel alone. The docetaxel-prednisone cohort had superior PFS compared to the docetaxel-alone cohort (median PFS: 7.8 vs 6.2 months, HR 0.68 [95% CI 0.48–0.97], p=0.03). Prednisone was associated with a reduced risk of progression on docetaxel in the propensity score-weighted multivariable Cox model (p=0.002). Among abiraterone- or ketoconazole-pretreated patients, no difference in PFS was observed between prednisone-containing and non-prednisone containing cohorts (median PFS: 7.1 vs 6.3 months, HR 0.96 [95% CI 0.59–1.57], p=0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

The incorporation of prednisone potentially augments the efficacy of docetaxel in patients with mCRPC. We hypothesize that this advantage is limited to patients who have not previously received corticosteroids. Prospective confirmation is needed.

Systematic Review of the Use of Phytochemicals for Management of Pain in Cancer Therapy

Pain in cancer therapy is a common condition and there is a need for new options in therapeutic management. While phytochemicals have been proposed as one pain management solution, knowledge of their utility is limited. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the biomedical literature for the use of phytochemicals for management of cancer therapy pain in human subjects. Of an initial database search of 1,603 abstracts, 32 full-text articles were eligible for further assessment. Only 7 of these articles met all inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The average relative risk of phytochemical versus control was 1.03 [95% CI 0.59 to 2.06]. In other words (although not statistically significant), patients treated with phytochemicals were slightly more likely than patients treated with control to obtain successful management of pain in cancer therapy. We identified a lack of quality research literature on this subject and thus were unable to demonstrate a clear therapeutic benefit for either general or specific use of phytochemicals in the management of cancer pain. This lack of data is especially apparent for psychotropic phytochemicals, such as the Cannabis plant (marijuana). Additional implications of our findings are also explored.