Cancer pain

Cancer Pain Treatment Strategies in Patients with Cancer

Management of cancer pain is challenging. Despite the poor evidence, opioid therapy still remains the cornerstone for the management of cancer-related pain. Opioids should be given according to the clinical presentation in the different stages of disease. There is no drug of choice, as most opioids are effective. Thus, the choice should be based on the individual characteristics of patients. Optimization of opioid therapy may allow individual treatment according to the patient's characteristics and pain syndromes, providing timely alternatives in the different stages of disease. While most patients respond to an appropriate treatment associated with a comprehensive assessment and symptom control, a high level of experience and knowledge is necessary in determining conditions to maximize the analgesic response, eventually adding adjuvants in some specific circumstances. Alternative opioids may improve the balance between analgesia and adverse effects in the presence of a poor response to the first opioid in a large number of patients. Finally, a selected population can benefit from some interventional procedures.

Opioid Rotation in Cancer Pain Treatment

BACKGROUND

Rotating several different WHO level III opioid drugs is a therapeutic option for patients with chronic cancer-related pain who suffer from inadequate analgesia and/or intolerable side effects. The evidence favoring opioid rotation is controversial, and the current guidelines in Germany and other countries contain only weak recommendations for it.

METHODS

This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a systematic review of the literature on opioid rotation for adult patients with chronic cancerrelated pain who are regularly taking WHO level III opioids by the oral or trans - dermal route.

RESULTS

9 individual studies involving a total of 725 patients were included in the analysis, and 3 previous systematic reviews of studies involving a total of 2296 patients were also analyzed. Morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, hydromorphone, and buprenorphine were used as first-line opioid drugs, and hydromorphone, bupre - norphine, tapentadol, fentanyl, morphine, oxymorphone, and methadone were used as second-line opioid drugs. In all of the studies, pain control was achieved for 14 days after each rotation. In most of them, the dose of the new drug introduced in each rotation needed to be increased above the dose initially calculated from a rotation ratio, with the exception of rotations to methadone. The frequency of side effects was only rarely lessened, but patients largely considered the result of opioid rotation to be positive. No particular opioid drug was found to be best.

CONCLUSION

Opioid rotation can improve analgesia and patient satisfaction. The success of opioid rotation appears to depend on the magnitude of the initial dose, among other factors. Tables of equianalgesic doses should be considered no more than a rough guide for determining the dose of the new drug. Rotations to methadone should be carried out under clinical supervision in experienced hands.

Options for Treating Pain in Cancer Patients with Dysphagia

Patients with chronic pain often develop dysphagia during the course of an advanced disease such as cancer. Opioids are the cornerstone of the management of cancer pain and are commonly administered orally. However, the oral route does not suit patients with dysphagia, who require alternative methods to administer analgesic drugs. Opioids given by parenteral or transdermal routes provide adequate pain control, being at least as efficacious as the oral route, but knowledge and experience in conversion ratios are mandatory when using these routes of administration. For breakthrough pain, transmucosal fentanyl preparations should be the preferred option and these can be given as needed due to the route of absorption. In addition, a new class of opioid formulations has been developed for use in dysphagic patients that are administered via nasogastric or enteral tubes while maintaining their sustained-release properties.

Fentanyl Inhibits Tumorigenesis from Human Breast Stem Cells by Inducing Apoptosis

Fentanyl is an opioid analgesic that it is widely used in cancer patients. Since there have been reports of effects of analgesic medications on the recurrence and development of resistance to treatment, influences of of fentanyl on MCF-7 and HEK293 cells were evaluated. Cell viability and apoptosis were assessed by MTT assay and flow cytometry, respectively. Gene expression analysis was performed by quantitative real-time PCR assay for the Oct4, Sox2 and Nanog genes as stem cell markers and Bax, Bcl2, and p53 genes as apoptosis markers. MTT assay results showed that fentanyl significantly inhibited the growth of MCF-7 cells in a dose-and time-dependent manner while significantly increasing apoptosis. In contrast, decrease was noted in HEK-293 cells. In MCF-7 derived cancer stem cells, fentanyl treatment decreased the expression of Bax, Bcl2, Oct4, Sox2, Nanog genes when compared to untreated cells. In HEK-293 stem cells, decrease was noted for Sox2, Nanog and Bax, but increase for Oct4. Our study supports an antitumor role of fentanyl by inducing apoptosis and reducing numbers of cancer stem cells in the MCF-7 human breast adenocarcinoma line.

Italian Oncological Pain Survey (IOPS): a multicentre Italian study of breakthrough pain performed in different settings

OBJECTIVE

A survey of breakthrough pain (BTP) was performed in five palliative care units (PCU), seven oncology departments (ONC), and nine pain clinics (OPC).

METHODS

A standard algorithm was used to confirm the diagnosis of BTP of patients refereed to different settings.

RESULTS

1,412 evaluable cancer patients were enrolled. 53.9% were males and the mean age was 63.7±13.1 years. The mean intensity of background pain was 2.8±0.73. Patients reported 2.4±1.1 BTP episodes/day with a mean intensity of 7.37±1.28. 80.6% patients reported that the BTP had a significant negative impact in everyday life. The majority of patients reported a fast onset of BTP, which was predictable in 50.7% of cases, while BTP with a gradual onset (>10 min) was less predictable (29%) (P=0.001). PCU patients were older, had lower Karnofsky levels, a lower number of BTP episodes/day, a slow onset of BTP onset, and a less predictable BTP. Cancer diagnosis was performed a mean of 23.5 months (SD±32.8) before the assessment. The mean duration of background pain was 3.5 months (SD±3.5), and the mean duration of any analgesic treatment was 2.5 months (SD±3). BTP started a mean of 2.2 months (SD±1.9) before the assessment. Characteristics of BTP were influenced by the course of disease, as well as the duration of background pain and initiation of BTP. Most patients took rapid onset opioids and were satisfied with the treatment. BTP diagnosis was prevalently made by ONC and OPC physicians, and rarely by GPs.

CONCLUSION

This survey performed by an Italian observatory expert review group, has confirmed that the BTP represents a clinically relevant condition with a negative impact on the patient's quality of life. BTP was detected in all settings involved. A number of factors are associated with the BTP. Also factors regarding the course of disease and setting of care have been assessed. This information may help in stratifying patients or predicting the risk of development of BTP with specific characteristics.

The use of opioids for treatment of cancer pain

INTRODUCTION

Pain is commonly experienced by patients with cancer, particularly those with advanced disease. Alleviating pain is an important goal of cancer treatment. Opioids are the cornerstone of the analgesic treatment.

AREAS COVERED

Pharmacology, characteristics, and use of opioids in clinical practice are presented.

EXPERT OPINION

Although the use of opioids is largely accepted as a fundamental step for controlling cancer pain, existing data supporting this statement are poor. All opioids provide analgesia and are effective in controlling cancer pain. New drugs have been developed and experience is accumulating among clinicians. Despite these drugs having different pharmacokinetic and chemical properties, there is no proof that one opioid is better than another one. Thus, the optimum benefit depends on the experience of the users. Clinicians should weight evidence, clinical experience, patient preferences, and treatment costs when choosing the optimal treatment for an individual patient with cancer pain. New opioids with specific receptor activities are under investigation.

Budget impact analysis of the fentanyl buccal tablet for treatment of breakthrough cancer pain

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess the economic impact of the fentanyl buccal tablet for the management of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) in Spain.

METHODS

A 4-year budget impact model was developed for the period 2012-2015 for patients with BTcP from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. BTcP products included in this model were rapid-onset opioids containing fentanyl (buccal, sublingual, or nasal transmucosal). Prevalence data on cancer, BTcP, opioid use, and number of BTcP episodes were obtained from the literature. Input data on health care resources associated with opioid use and opioid-induced side effects were obtained by consulting experts in oncology from different Spanish hospitals. Resources used included drugs, medical and emergency visits, other nonpharmacologic treatments, and treatment of opioid-induced side effects. Unit costs were obtained from the literature, and a 3% discount rate was applied to costs. Based on the unit costs for drugs and health care resources, the annual BTcP treatment costs per patient associated with each fentanyl product were determined to estimate the overall budget impact based on the total treatment population and the percentage of drug utilization associated with each product. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Patients treated with oral opioids for BTcP were estimated at 23,291 in 2012, with an increase up to 23,413 in 2015. The average annual budget savings, with an increase of fentanyl buccal tablets, fentanyl sublingual tablets, and intranasal fentanyl spray, and a decrease in oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate, was estimated at €2.6 million, which represents a 0.5% decrease in the total costs of BTcP over the next 4 years. Results of the sensitivity analysis showed that the model was most sensitive to drug cost per day for the fentanyl buccal tablet. A 50% decrease in the daily cost of the fentanyl buccal tablet resulted in the largest overall decrease in budget impact of €5.4 million.

CONCLUSION

The increase in use of the fentanyl buccal tablet leads to overall savings in the budget impact for the Spanish National Health System. Although the economic impact of treatment for BTcP was shown to increase over 4 years due to population growth, the average annual cost per patient was reduced by €29 with increased use of the fentanyl buccal tablet.