Improvements in Survival and Clinical Benefit With Gemcitabine as First-Line Therapy for Patients With Advanced Pancreas Cancer: A Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

Most patients with advanced pancreas cancer experience pain and must limit their daily activities because of tumor-related symptoms. To date, no treatment has had a significant impact on the disease. In early studies with gemcitabine, patients with pancreas cancer experienced an improvement in disease-related symptoms. Based on those findings, a definitive trial was performed to assess the effectiveness of gemcitabine in patients with newly diagnosed advanced pancreas cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred twenty-six patients with advanced symptomatic pancreas cancer completed a lead-in period to characterize and stabilize pain and were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 weekly x 7 followed by 1 week of rest, then weekly x 3 every 4 weeks thereafter (63 patients), or to fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m2 once weekly (63 patients). The primary efficacy measure was clinical benefit response, which was a composite of measurements of pain (analgesic consumption and pain intensity), Karnofsky performance status, and weight. Clinical benefit required a sustained (> or = 4 weeks) improvement in at least one parameter without worsening in any others. Other measures of efficacy included response rate, time to progressive disease, and survival.

RESULTS

Clinical benefit response was experienced by 23.8% of gemcitabine-treated patients compared with 4.8% of 5-FU-treated patients (P = .0022). The median survival durations were 5.65 and 4.41 months for gemcitabine-treated and 5-FU-treated patients, respectively (P = .0025). The survival rate at 12 months was 18% for gemcitabine patients and 2% for 5-FU patients. Treatment was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that gemcitabine is more effective than 5-FU in alleviation of some disease-related symptoms in patients with advanced, symptomatic pancreas cancer. Gemcitabine also confers a modest survival advantage over treatment with 5-FU.

[The estimation of the i.m. morphine-equivalent in cancer pain treatment with different opioids or different routes of administrations. Practical meaning and limitations.]

During the long-term treatment with opioids it is sometimes important to switch the opioid or change the route of administration. The estimation of morphine-equivalents can be helpful in this range because it clarifies the dose in milligramm required for different clinical situations. The basis of this estimation is the equianalgesic potency of opioids. One i.m. morphine-equivalent is the analgesic dose of an opioid (i.m. injected) equal to the analgesic effect of 1 mg morphine (i.m.). The relationships between equianalgesic doses and intramuscular and oral routes of applications are listed in tables. The cross-tolerance between different opioids during long-term treatment is not complete. To avoid an overdose, we suggest a reduction in the calculated opioid dose of 50%. Additional "rescue doses" can be used during the period immediately the change to provied satisfactory pain control. A new opioid dosage should be calculated every 24 hours based on the basaline dose plus the total quantity of "rescue" medication required by the patient. Useful starting point for calculation an effective dose when changing from one opioid or route of administration to another can result in improved pain control that is more responsive to patient need. The limitations are 1. individual differences in the response to opioids, especially during long-term treatment and in the development of analgesic tolerance, 2. individual differences in the response to alternatives routes of administration, and 3. the unknown degree of cross tolerance among opioid drugs. The scientific meaning of the estimation of i.m. morphine-equivalent is discussed.

L-carnitine supplementation improves fatigue, mood and sleep in cancer patients with fatigue and carnitine deficiency

8588

Background: Carnitine is a natural aminoacid derivative that plays a crucial role in cellular energy metabolism. To determine the dose and tolerability we conducted a phase II study with increasing doses of L-carnitine supplementation. In a preliminary analysis, we reported that L-carnitine could improve fatigue, mood and sleep. (Cruciani et al., 2004). Analysis of the full dataset has confirmed and extended these findings. Methods: Patients had active cancer, fatigue and a Karnofsky ≥50. Carnitine deficiency was defined as free carnitine <35 μm]/L for males and <25 for females (normal range 35–67 and 25–55 respectively), or a ratio of acyl/free carnitine >0.4. We utilized a standard maximum tolerated dose (MTD) design, with 3 patients assigned to each successive dose group, starting at 250 mg/day and increasing in each group by 500 mg/day to a maximum dose target of 3000 mg/day. Fatigue (measured by the BFI), depressed mood (CES-D), quality of sleep (ESS), and performance status (Karnofsky), as well as carnitine serum levels were assessed at baseline and after one week of L-carnitine supplementation. Results: Seven groups of three patients each received L-carnitine supplementation for a week with 250, 750, 1,250, 1,750, 2,250, 2,750 or 3,000 mg/day. Of the 27 patients accrued 21 completed the study. Of these, 17 (mean (SD) age = 63.0 (18), females=8) showed an increase in serum L-carnitine levels. The median (min, max) total carnitine increased from 31 (21, 68) to 51 (29, 111) (p < 0.001) and the free carnitine increased from 25.0 (17, 48) to 39 (25, 82) (p < 0.001). The median (min, max) BFI score at baseline was 63 (36, 81) versus 39 (8, 82) after one week (p<0.001). There was also a significant dose response for BFI (r = -0.61, p = 0.01). Median (min, max) CES-D at baseline was 31. (4, 48) and 18.0 (0, 40) after one-week (p = 0.001). Median (min, max) ESS at baseline was 13.7 (2, 22) and 10.3 (1, 18) after one week (p=0.003). Median Karnofsky score did not change (pre and post = 70). Side effects were not observed in any of the groups. Conclusions: This study suggests that L-carnitine is safe up to 3,000 mg/day. Supplementation was associated with improvements in fatigue and depression scores. Fatigue improved in a dose dependent manner.

[Table: see text]

Finding an appropriate dose of fentanyl effervescent buccal tablets for relief of cancer-related breakthrough pain

8564

Background: The recommended dose of a short-acting oral opioid used to treat cancer-related breakthrough pain (BTP) is 5%-15% of the equianalgesic around-the-clock (ATC) opioid dose used to control persistent pain; however, this dosing strategy may not be successful when oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate is used. The applicability of this strategy to fentanyl effervescent buccal tablets (FEBT) use was assessed as part of a multicenter study in opioid-treated patients with cancer BTP. Methods: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study required 63 evaluable patients for adequate statistical power. Eligible adults were to receive ≥60 mg/day morphine or equivalent for chronic cancer pain and to have experienced 1–4 BTP episodes daily. After open-label titration to an effective FEBT dose, patients were randomized to 1 of 18 predefined sequences of 10 tablets (7 FEBT, 3 placebo). Pain was assessed repeatedly after each dose; the primary efficacy variable was the sum of pain intensity differences at 30 minutes postdose (SPID30). Results: Of 123 enrolled patients, 77 found an effective FEBT dose (100–800 μg) and continued in the double-blind period; 72 were evaluable for efficacy. The SPID30 was 3.0±0.12 (mean±SE) for FEBT vs 1.8±0.18 for placebo (P<.0001). Ratios of the effective FEBT dose to ATC opioid or prior supplemental opioid dose showed no consistent trend (table). An effective FEBT dose showed no meaningful correlation with prior supplemental dose (r2=.094; Pearson’s coefficient=.3066), with ATC dose in patients using oral opioids (r2=.0609; Pearson’s coefficient=.2468), or with ATC dose in patients using transdermal fentanyl or combinations (r2=.1842; Pearson’s coefficient=.4292). Conclusions: There was no relationship between the effective FEBT dose and either ATC opioids or prior supplemental drugs. Therefore, titration, rather than use of a percentage of the ATC dose, is likely to be important in establishing an effective FEBT dose for each patient.

[Table: see text]

[Table: see text]

Does an oral analgesic protocol improve pain control for patients with cancer? An intergroup study coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

BACKGROUND

Cancer pain is highly prevalent and commonly undertreated. This study was designed to determine whether dissemination of a clinical protocol for pain management would improve outcomes in community oncology practices.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A pain management protocol was developed based on accepted guidelines. After baseline assessment, oncology practices were randomly assigned to 'analgesic protocol' (AP) sites, where oncologists implemented the guidelines in a group of lung or prostate cancer patients, or to 'physician discretion' (PD) sites, where customary treatment was continued. Patients treated on protocol and a comparison group of patients with pain due to breast cancer or myeloma were monitored for change in pain using the Brief Pain Inventory, and for change in other symptoms or mood.

RESULTS

The protocol terminated early because of poor accrual. We compared groups using proportions of patients who had no or mild pain at follow-up. Although measures of protocol adherence did not suggest the occurrence of major practice change, the proportion of lung or prostate cancer patients with no or mild pain increased significantly from baseline for those treated at AP sites compared with those treated at PD sites. There was no significant difference between the breast and myeloma patients treated at AP sites versus those treated at PD sites.

CONCLUSION

A protocol for cancer pain management can improve pain control. Diffusion of these benefits to other patients was not confirmed. Given the small sample size, these findings require confirmation in a larger trial.

Ethical challenges in the care of patients with serious illness

The approach to management of patients with advanced disease and serious illness has been strongly influenced by advances in science and technology, the increasing role of ethics in clinical practice, and the recognition of new rights and social changes. At the present time, decision making is modulated by ethical and legal considerations. One of the challenges of clinical practice is to maintain the delicate balance between the technical aspects and the humanistic aspects of care. For the resolution of this challenge, this article proposes an ethical and legal framework that considers the goals of care and respects the basic values of autonomy, beneficence, and justice. Ethical and legal principles complement sound medical practice but should never replace it. At all times, clarification of the medical situation, good communication, and information about state of the art treatment proposals are essential. In the context of advanced illness, the most prominent issues relate to decision making, justice, and research.

Neuropathic cancer pain: the role of adjuvant analgesics

Neuropathic pain may be defined as pain related to abnormal somatosensory processing in either the peripheral or central nervous system. This pathophysiologic label is typically applied when the painful symptom is associated with an overt injury to neural structures, is part of a recognized syndrome, or has a dysesthetic quality (usually burning, shooting, or electrical). Most neural injury does not lead to clinically important neuropathic pain, but sometimes even a small degree of tissue injury can precipitate severe pain. In the cancer population, neuropathic pain is often related to compression, direct neoplastic invasion of the peripheral nerves or spinal cord, or to a neuropathy caused by chemotherapy. To manage neuropathic pain in this population, nonopioid adjuvant drugs that are neuroactive or neuromodulatory are often needed to complement opioid therapy. The primary adjuvant analgesics are anticonvulsant and antidepressant medications, but a wide variety of other drugs are also used. To optimize analgesic therapy in patients with neuropathic pain, both opioid and adjuvant analgesics must be used effectively.

Long-term safety of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate for breakthrough cancer pain

This open-label study evaluated the long-term safety and tolerability of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) in ambulatory cancer patients with breakthrough pain undergoing cancer care at 32 university- or community-based practices. Patients had participated in a previous short-term titration trial of OTFC, were experiencing at least one episode per day of breakthrough pain, and had achieved relief of their breakthrough pain with an opioid. Patients received OTFC units at a starting dosage strength determined in the short-term trial (200-1600 microg). Outcome measures included number of successfully treated breakthrough pains, global satisfaction rating (0 = poor through 4 = excellent), and side effects. In total, 41,766 units of OTFC were used to treat 38,595 episodes of breakthrough pain in 155 patients. Number of treatment days ranged from 1 to 423 (mean, 91 days). Patients averaged 2.9 breakthrough pain episodes per day. About 92% of episodes were successfully treated with OTFC and there was no trend toward decreased effectiveness over time. Most patients (61%) did not require dose escalation during treatment. Global satisfaction ratings were consistently above 3, indicating very good to excellent relief. Common adverse events associated with OTFC were somnolence (9%), constipation (8%), nausea (8%), dizziness (8%), and vomiting (5%). Six patients (4%) discontinued therapy due to an OTFC-related adverse event. There were no reports of abuse and no concerns about the safety of the drug raised by patients or families. OTFC was used safely and effectively during long-term treatment of breakthrough pain in cancer patients at home.

Opioid poorly-responsive cancer pain. Part 3. Clinical strategies to improve opioid responsiveness

Some pain syndromes may be difficult to treat due to a poor response to opioids. This situation demands a range of alternative measures, including the use of adjuvant drugs with independent effects, such as antidepressants, sodium channel-blocking agents, steroids and anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); drugs that reduce opioid side effects; and drugs that enhance analgesia produced by opioids, such as N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonists, calcium channel antagonists, and clonidine. Other approaches, including opioid trials, neural blockade when necessary, and psychological interventions, also may be useful.

Opioid poorly-responsive cancer pain. Part 2: basic mechanisms that could shift dose response for analgesia

Basic research in experimental pain models may illuminate the phenomenon of cancer pain that is poorly responsive to opioid drugs. Research findings can be valuable in formulating new strategies in clinical practice. This review evaluated experimental observations in terms of the events that occur in cancer patients receiving opioid therapy for pain.

Breakthrough cancer pain: a randomized trial comparing oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) and morphine sulfate immediate release (MSIR)

Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC); Actiq) is a drug delivery formulation used for management of breakthrough cancer pain. Previous studies with open-label comparisons indicated OTFC was more effective than patients' usual opioid for breakthrough pain. The objective of this study was to compare OTFC and morphine sulfate immediate release (MSIR) for management of breakthrough pain in patients receiving a fixed scheduled opioid regimen. This double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, multiple crossover study was conducted at 19 US university- and community-based hospitals and clinics and comprised 134 adult ambulatory cancer patients. Patients were receiving a fixed scheduled opioid regimen equivalent to 60-1000 mg/day oral morphine or 50-300 microg/h transdermal fentanyl, were using a 'successful' MSIR dose (15-60 mg) as defined by entry criteria, and were experiencing 1-4 episodes of breakthrough pain per day. In open-label fashion, OTFC was titrated such that a single unit (200-1600 microg) provided adequate pain relief with acceptable side effects. Successfully titrated patients entered the double-blind phase of the study and received ten prenumbered sets of randomized capsules and oral transmucosal units. Five sets were the successful OTFC dose paired with placebo capsules, and five sets were placebo OTFC paired with capsules containing the successful MSIR dose. Patients took one set of study medication for each episode of target breakthrough pain. Pain intensity (PI), pain relief (PR) and global performance of medication (GP) scores were recorded. Pain intensity differences (PID) were calculated and 15-min PID was the primary efficacy variable. Adverse events were recorded. Sixty-nine percent of patients (93/134) found a successful dose of OTFC. OTFC yielded outcomes (PI, PID, and PR) at all time points that were significantly better than MSIR. GP also favored OTFC and more patients opted to continue with OTFC than MSIR following the study. Somnolence, nausea, constipation, and dizziness were the most common drug-associated side effects. In conclusion, OTFC was more effective than MSIR in treating breakthrough cancer pain.

Impact of cancer-related fatigue on the lives of patients: new findings from the Fatigue Coalition

PURPOSE

This survey was designed to confirm the prevalence and duration of fatigue in the cancer population and to assess its physical, mental, social, and economic impacts on the lives of patients and caregivers. Patients and Methods. A 25-minute telephone interview was completed with 379 cancer patients having a prior history of chemotherapy. Patients were recruited from a sample of 6, 125 households in the United States identified as having a member with cancer. The median patient age was 62 years, and 79% of respondents were women. Patients reporting fatigue at least a few times a month were asked a series of questions to better describe their fatigue and its impact on quality of life.

RESULTS

Seventy-six percent of patients experienced fatigue at least a few days each month during their most recent chemotherapy; 30% experienced fatigue on a daily basis. Ninety-one percent of those who experienced fatigue reported that it prevented a "normal" life, and 88% indicated that fatigue caused an alteration in their daily routine. Fatigue made it more difficult to participate in social activities and perform typical cognitive tasks. Of the 177 patients who were employed, 75% changed their employment status as a result of fatigue. Furthermore, 65% of patients indicated that their fatigue resulted in their caregivers taking at least one day (mean, 4.5 days) off work in a typical month. Physicians were the health care professionals most commonly consulted (79%) to discuss fatigue. Bed rest/ relaxation was the most common treatment recommendation (37%); 40% of patients were not offered any recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer-related fatigue is common among cancer patients who have received chemotherapy and results in substantial adverse physical, psychosocial, and economic consequences for both patients and caregivers. Given the impact of fatigue, treatment options should be routinely considered in the care of patients with cancer.

Opioid poorly-responsive cancer pain. Part 1: clinical considerations

Pain that is poorly responsive to opioid analgesics is challenging for physicians who deal with cancer patients. Numerous factors may influence analgesic response during the course of the illness. These include changing nociception associated with disease progression, the appearance of intractable side effects, the development of tolerance, the presence of neuropathic pain, the temporal pattern, the effects produced by the production of opioid metabolites, and many others. These factors influence the delicate balance between pain relief and opioid toxicity that must be achieved in cancer patients with pain.

Physician Board Certification in Hospice and Palliative Medicine

The American Board of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (ABHPM) was formed in 1995 to establish and implement standards for certification of physicians practicing hospice and palliative medicine and, ultimately, accreditation of physician training in this discipline. The ABHPM has created a certification process that parallels other member boards of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). After 3(1/2) years and the administration of seven examinations, 623 physicians have achieved board certification in hospice and palliative medicine. Those with ABMS primary board certifications have been certified by anesthesiology, 4%; family practice, 23%; internal medicine, 55%; pediatrics, 1%; radiation oncology, 2%; and surgery, 2%. The majority describe their practice location as urban. Sixty-nine percent report more than 5 years of clinical experience in hospice/palliative medicine and 75% report an association with a hospice as medical director or hospice physician. Sixty-seven percent belong to the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Applicants were drawn from 48 states, Canada, and 3 foreign countries. The available data indicate only 20% were less than 40 years of age and that two-thirds were men. There is significant physician interest in seeking professional recognition of expertise in caring for terminally ill persons and their families through creation of a specialty in hospice and palliative medicine. Certification of physicians and accreditation of training programs are key elements in this process. This process will encourage more physicians to enter this field and provide needed expertise in the management of patients with progressive disease for whom the prognosis is limited, and the focus of care is quality of life.

Evidence-based review of the literature on intrathecal delivery of pain medication

Evidence-based medicine depends on the existence of controlled clinical trials that establish the safety and efficacy of specific therapeutic techniques. Many interventions in clinical practice have achieved widespread acceptance despite little evidence to support them in the scientific literature; the critical appraisal of these interventions based on accumulating experience is a goal of medicine. To clarify the current state of knowledge concerning the use of various drugs for intraspinal infusion in pain management, an expert panel conducted a thorough review of the published literature. The exhaustive review included 5 different groups of compounds, with morphine and bupivacaine yielding the most citations in the literature. The need for additional large published controlled studies was highlighted by this review, especially for promising agents that have been shown to be safe and efficacious in recent clinical studies.

Clinical guidelines for intraspinal infusion: report of an expert panel. PolyAnalgesic Consensus Conference 2000

Consensus guidelines developed by an expert panel are helpful to clinicians when there is variation in practice and lack of a firm evidence base for an intervention, such as intraspinal therapy for pain. An internet-based survey of practitioners revealed remarkable variation in practice patterns surrounding intraspinal therapy. This prompted an interdisciplinary panel with extensive clinical experience in intraspinal infusion therapy to evaluate the results of the survey, the systematic reviews of the literature pertaining to this approach, and their own clinical experience with long-term spinal infusions. The panel proposed a scheme for the selection of drugs and doses for intraspinal therapy, and suggested guidelines for administration that would increase the likelihood of a successful outcome. These expert panel guidelines were designed to provide an initial structure for clinical decision making that is based on the best available evidence and the perspectives of experienced clinicians.

Current practices in intraspinal therapy--a survey of clinical trends and decision making

Practice patterns were assessed via an internet-based survey distributed to physicians who manage implantable infusion pumps for pain management. Respondents consisted of 413 physicians who represented management of 13,342 patients, predominantly in the U.S. The survey used a standard questionnaire format plus two clinical vignettes to assess decision-making practices. The responding physicians chose morphine most often, but many other drugs were selected without clear indications. There was evidence of wide variations in clinical practice among physicians who use this modality. These findings highlight the need for practice guidelines based on research outcomes and expert experience to establish pathways for optimal management.

The measurement of symptoms in children with cancer

The purpose of this study was to determine symptom prevalence, characteristics, and distress in children with cancer. The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS) 10-18, a 30-item patient-rated instrument adapted from a previously validated adult version, provided multidimensional information about the symptoms experienced by children with cancer. This instrument was administered to 160 children with cancer aged 10-18 (45 inpatients, 115 outpatients). To confirm the instrument's reliability and validity, additional data about symptoms were collected from both the parents and the medical charts, and retesting was performed on a subgroup of inpatients. Patients could easily complete the scale in a mean of 11 minutes. The analyses supported the reliability and validity of the MSAS 10-18 subscale scores as measures of physical, psychological, and global symptom distress, respectively. Symptom prevalence ranged from 49.7% for lack of energy to 6.3% for problems with urination. The mean (+/- SD) number of symptoms per inpatient was 12.7 +/- 4.9 (range, 4-26), significantly more than the mean 6.5 +/- 5.7 (range, 0-28) symptoms per outpatient. Patients who had recently received chemotherapy had significantly more symptoms than patients who had not received chemotherapy for more than 4 months (11.6 +/- 6.0 vs. 5. 2 +/- 5.1), and those patients with solid tumors had significantly more symptoms than patients with either leukemia, lymphoma, or central nervous system malignancies (9.9 +/- 7.0 vs. 6.8 +/- 5.5 vs. 6.8 +/- 5.0 vs. 8.0 +/- 6.1). The most common symptoms (prevalence > 35%) were lack of energy, pain, drowsiness, nausea, cough, lack of appetite, and psychological symptoms (feeling sad, feeling nervous, worrying, feeling irritable). Of the symptoms with prevalence rates > 35%, those that caused high distress in more than one-third of patients were feeling sad, pain, nausea, lack of appetite, and feeling irritable. Subscale scores demonstrated large variability in symptom distress and could identify subgroups with high distress. The prevalence, characteristics, and distress associated with physical and psychological symptoms could be quantified in older children with cancer. The data confirm a high prevalence of symptoms overall and the existence of subgroups with high distress associated with one or multiple symptoms. Symptom distress is relatively higher among inpatients, children with solid tumors, and children who are undergoing antineoplastic treatment. Systematic symptom assessment may be useful in future epidemiological studies of symptoms and in clinical chemotherapeutic trials. Symptom epidemiology may also provide a focus for future clinical trials related to symptom management in children with cancer.

A pilot survey of aberrant drug-taking attitudes and behaviors in samples of cancer and AIDS patients

The clinical assessment of drug-taking behaviors in medically ill patients with pain is complex and may be hindered by the lack of empirically derived information about such behaviors in particularly medically ill populations. To investigate issues surrounding the assessment of these behaviors, we piloted a questionnaire based on the observations of specialists in pain management and substance abuse. This preliminary questionnaire evaluated medication use, present and past drug abuse, patients' beliefs about the risk of addiction in the context of pain treatment, and aberrant drug-taking attitudes and behaviors. This instrument was piloted in a mixed group of cancer patients (N = 52) and a group of women with HIV/AIDS (N = 111). Reports of past drug use and abuse were more frequent than present reports in both groups. Current aberrant drug-related behaviors were seldom reported, but attitude items revealed that patients would consider engaging in aberrant behaviors, or would possibly excuse them in others, if pain or symptom management were inadequate. Aberrant behaviors and attitudes were endorsed more frequently by the women with HIV/AIDS than by the cancer patients. Patients greatly overestimated the risk of addiction in pain treatment. We discuss the significance of these findings and the need for cautious interpretation given the limitations of the methodology. This early experience suggests that both cancer and HIV/AIDS patients appear to respond in a forthcoming fashion to drug-taking behavior questions and describe attitudes and behaviors that may be highly relevant to the diagnosis and understanding management of substance use among patients with medical illness.

A chart review of the ordering and documentation of urine toxicology screens in a cancer center: do they influence patient management?

Urine toxicology screens (UTSs) may be useful in the diagnosis or monitoring of patients with established or suspected substance abuse. In the medically ill, including those with cancer, the test may help clinicians manage therapy with controlled prescription drugs. To describe the current use of UTSs in a cancer center, the medical records of 111 patients who underwent UTS were reviewed. These 111 patients were randomly selected from a group of 215 patients who underwent screening between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 1994 (a period during which over 80,000 admissions occurred). Fifty-six of the 111 patients had evidence of one or more illicit drugs, a prescription medication that had not been ordered, or alcohol; 50 patients had negative screens. The likelihood of a positive UTS was higher if the patient had human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection (100% versus 46.6%) or was undergoing treatment for chronic nonmalignant pain (100% versus 43.9%). Documentation of the UTS in the medical record was infrequent: 37.8% of the charts listed no reason for obtaining the test and the ordering physician could not be identified in 29% of the records. Eighty-nine percent of the records did not contain a subsequent mention of the result of the UTS. The result was more likely to lead to a documented outcome when it was positive rather than negative (14.3% versus 0%). These results suggest that UTSs are used infrequently in the tertiary care oncology center. The documentation surrounding the ordering and subsequent use of the test in patient management is unsystematic. The appropriate use and documentation of UTSs, like substance abuse issues in general, should be a focus of staff education and quality improvement efforts.

Current pharmacotherapy of chronic pain

Advances in basic and clinical research have greatly expanded the options for analgesic pharmacotherapy. There are three broad categories of analgesic medications: (1) nonopioid analgesics, which includes the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, dipyrone, and others; (2) a diverse group of drugs known as the "adjuvant analgesics," which are defined as "drugs that have primary indications other than pain but may be analgesic in selected circumstances;" and (3) opioid analgesics. The advent of highly selective COX-2 inhibitors has generated excitement because of the possibility that these new NSAIDs will be much safer than previous COX inhibitors. However, the cost-benefit of using these relatively more expensive drugs versus other NSAIDs plus gastro-protective therapies needs to be determined. Adjuvant analgesics can be grouped into four major classes according to their use: multipurpose, neuropathic pain, musculoskeletal pain, and cancer pain. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of these drugs during the past two decades and they now play an important role in the management of chronic pain. Pain specialists are now using opioids for chronic nonmalignant pain in addition to the traditional use for acute and cancer pain. This change in practice evolved from recognition that selected patients with chronic noncancer-related pain can experience sustained analgesia and function better with these drugs, without developing an addictive disorder. The combination of opioids and other drugs, such as an N-methyl-D-aspartate-receptor antagonist, may improve the balance between analgesia and adverse effects.

Symptom prevalence, characteristics, and distress in AIDS outpatients

Symptom distress is an important but poorly characterized aspect of quality of life in AIDS patients. To assess and characterize the symptoms and symptom distress associated with AIDS, 504 ambulatory patients with AIDS were evaluated between December, 1992 and December, 1995. The assessment included measures of symptom distress, physical and psychosocial functioning, and demographic and disease-related factors. Patients described symptoms during the previous week using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale Short Form (MSAS-SF), a validated measure of physical and psychological symptom distress. The mean age was 38.6 years (range 18-69); 56% were male. African-Americans comprised 40% of the sample, Caucasians 35%, and Hispanics 23%. Ninety-three percent had CD4+ T-cell counts below 500, and 66% had counts below 200; 69% were classified in CDC category C (history of AIDS-defining conditions). Fifty-two percent reported intravenous drug use. Karnofsky performance status was > or = 70 in 80% of the patients. No patients were taking protease inhibitors. The mean (+/- SD) number of symptoms was 16.7 +/- 7.3. The most prevalent symptoms were worrying (86%), fatigue (85%), sadness (82%), and pain (76%). Patients with Karnofsky performance scores < 70 had more symptoms and higher symptom distress scores than patients with scores > or = 70 (21.2 +/- 6.5 vs. 15.6 +/- 7.1 symptoms/patient; 2.3 +/- 0.8 vs. 1.6 +/- 0.8 on the Global Distress Index [GDI] of the MSAS-SF; P < 0.0001 for both). Patients who reported intravenous drug use as an HIV transmission factor reported more symptoms and higher overall and physical symptom distress than those who reported homosexual or heterosexual contact as their transmission factor (17.8 +/- 7.5 vs. 15.4 +/- 6.9 symptoms/patient, P = 0.0002; 1.9 +/- 0.9 vs. 1.6 +/- 0.8 on the MSAS-GDI, P = 0.002). Both the number of symptoms and symptom distress were highly associated with psychological distress and poorer quality of life; for example, r = -0.69 (P < 0.0001) between GDI scores and scores on a validated measure of quality of life. Neither gender nor CD4+ T-cell count was associated with symptom number or distress. Responses from this self-referred sample of AIDS outpatients indicate that AIDS patients experience many distressing physical and psychological symptoms and a high level of distress. Both the number of symptoms and the distress associated with them are associated with a variety of disease-related factors and disturbances in other aspects of quality of life. Symptom assessment provides information that may be valuable in evaluating AIDS treatment regimens and defining strategies to improve quality of life.

Cancer-related fatigue: guidelines for evaluation and management

Fatigue is a highly prevalent condition among cancer patients. Although most cancer patients report that fatigue is a major obstacle to maintaining normal daily activities and quality of life, it is seldom assessed and treated in clinical practice. Few studies have explored its epidemiology, possible etiologies, or management. Cancer-related fatigue, which recently was accepted as a diagnosis in the International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision-Clinical Modification, reduces physical, psychological, and social functioning and results in significant distress for patients and caregivers. Adequate evaluation of fatigue must do more than simply assess severity. The assessment should clarify other characteristics, determine the degree to which fatigue interferes with the activities of daily living, and identify potential causes, including the underlying disease, disease treatments, intercurrent systemic disorders, psychological disorders, and other conditions. Possible primary therapies include modification of the patient's drug regimen, correction of metabolic abnormalities, and pharmacologic treatments for anemia (e.g., epoetin alfa), depression, or insomnia. Other symptomatic interventions include specific drug treatments, exercise, modification of activity and rest patterns, cognitive therapies, sleep hygiene approaches, and nutritional support. Pharmacologic approaches, which are supported by limited studies and growing clinical experience, include psychostimulant drugs, corticosteroids, and possibly other therapies. Although additional research is needed to further identify the causes and corresponding treatment of fatigue, practitioners should routinely assess and treat patients who may benefit from currently identified interventions, because fatigue can profoundly undermine the quality of life of patients with cancer.

Management of cancer pain

Patients with cancer have diverse symptoms, impairments in physical and psychological functioning, and other difficulties that can undermine their quality of life. If inadequately controlled, pain can have a profoundly adverse impact on the patient and his or her family. The critical importance of pain management as part of routine cancer care has been forcefully advanced by WHO, international and national professional organisations, and governmental agencies. The prevalence of chronic pain is about 30-50% among patients with cancer who are undergoing active treatment for a solid tumour and 70-90% among those with advanced disease. Prospective surveys indicate that as many as 90% of patients could attain adequate relief with simple drug therapies, but this success rate is not achieved in routine practice. Inadequate management of pain is the result of various issues that include: undertreatment by clinicians with insufficient knowledge of pain assessment and therapy; inappropriate concerns about opioid side-effects and addiction; a tendency to give lower priority to symptom control than to disease management; patients under-reporting of pain and non-compliance with therapy; and impediments to optimum analgesic therapy in the healthcare system. To improve the management of cancer pain, every practitioner involved in the care of these patients must ensure that his or her medical information is current and that patients receive appropriate education.

Managing cancer pain poorly responsive to systemic opioid therapy

Large surveys of populations with cancer pain indicate that as many as 90% of patients can attain adequate relief of pain using optimal, systemic, opioid-based pharmacotherapy. Skilled clinicians should be able to achieve this benchmark and should also be knowledgeable about the variety of clinical strategies that may be used to manage pain in those patients who are poorly responsive to routine measures. These strategies can be conceptualized in four broad categories: 1) opening the "therapeutic window" by more aggressive side effect management, 2) identifying an opioid with a more favorable balance between analgesia and side effects through "opioid rotation," 3) introducing a pharmacologic technique that reduces the systemic opioid requirement (either treatment with a systemic coanalgesic or a trial of intraspinal therapy), or 4) offering a trial of a nonpharmacologic intervention that may reduce the systemic opioid requirement (e.g., nerve block). In the absence of comparative trials, the selection of a specific approach depends on an informed risk/benefit evaluation based on information from a comprehensive clinical assessment.

Breakthrough pain: characteristics and impact in patients with cancer pain

Few surveys have been performed to define the characteristics and impact of breakthrough pain in the cancer population. In this cross-sectional survey of inpatients with cancer, patients responded to a structured interview (the Breakthrough Pain Questionnaire) designed to characterize breakthrough pain, and also completed measures of pain and mood (Memorial Pain Assessment Card (MPAC)), pain-related interference in function (Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)), depressed mood (Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)), and anxiety (Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI)). Of 178 eligible patients, 164 (92.2%) met the criteria for controlled background pain. The median age was 50.6 years (range 26 to 77 years), 52% were men, and 80.6% were Caucasian. Tumor diagnoses were mixed, 75% had metastatic disease, 65% had pain caused directly by the neoplasm, and a majority had mixed nociceptive-neuropathic pain. The median Karnofsky Performance Status score was 60 (range 40 to 90). Eighty-four (51.2%) patients had experienced breakthrough pain during the previous day. The median number of episodes was six (range 1 to 60) and the median interval from onset to peak was 3 min (range 1 s to 30 min). Although almost two-thirds (61.7%) could identify precipitants (movement 20.4%; end-of-dose failure 13.2%), pain was unpredictable in a large majority (78.2%). Patients with breakthrough pain had more intense (P < 0.001) and more frequent (P < 0.01) background pain than patients without breakthrough pain. Breakthrough pain was also associated with greater pain-related functional impairment (difference in mean BPI. P < 0.001), worse mood (mood VAS, P < 0.05; BDI, P < 0.001), and more anxiety (BAI, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed that breakthrough pain independently contributed to impaired functioning and psychological distress. These data confirm that cancer-related breakthrough pain is a prevalent and heterogeneous phenomenon. The presence of breakthrough pain is a marker of a generally more severe pain syndrome, and is associated with both pain-related functional impairment and psychological distress. The findings suggest the need for further studies of breakthrough pain and more effective therapeutic strategies.

Transdermal fentanyl in children with cancer pain: feasibility, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic correlates

OBJECTIVES

(1) To assess the feasibility and tolerability of the therapeutic transdermal fentanyl system (TTS-fentanyl) by using a clinical protocol developed for children with cancer pain. (2) To estimate the pediatric pharmacokinetic parameters of TTS-fentanyl.

METHODS

The drug was administered in open-label fashion; and measures of analgesia, side effects, and skin changes were obtained for a minimum of 2 doses (6 treatment days). Blood specimens were analyzed for plasma fentanyl concentrations. The pharmacokinetics of TTS-fentanyl were estimated by using a mixed effect modeling approach.

RESULTS

Treatment was well tolerated. Ten of the 11 patients who completed the 2 doses continued treatment with TTS-fentanyl. The duration of treatment ranged from 6 to 275 days. The time to reach peak plasma concentration ranged from 18 hours to >66 hours in patients receiving the 25 microg/h patch. Compared with published pharmacokinetic data from adults, the mean clearance and volume of distribution of transdermal fentanyl were the same, but the variability was less.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of children with TTS-fentanyl is feasible and well tolerated and yields fentanyl pharmacokinetic parameter estimates similar to those for adults. A larger study is required to confirm these findings and further test the clinical protocol.

Trends in Cancer Pain Management

BACKGROUND: Pain is a prevalent symptom in cancer patients, affecting up to 50% of patients undergoing active cancer treatment and up to 90% of those with advanced disease. Although adequate relief can be achieved in the majority of cancer patients, pain is often treated inadequately in traditional settings. METHODS: The authors use their experience and that of others to review the evaluation and diagnosis of pain syndromes and the principles of management. RESULTS: The World Health Organization and other governmental agencies have recognized the importance of pain management as part of routine cancer care. Conducting a comprehensive assessment, competently providing analgesic drugs, and communicating with the patient and family allow effective management of pain in the cancer patient. CONCLUSIONS: Several approaches can promote adequate management of cancer pain, such as enhancing clinician knowledge of pain syndromes, improving pain assessment, and updating medical information related to pain and symptom control.

Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) for the treatment of breakthrough pain in cancer patients: a controlled dose titration study

Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) is a novel opioid formulation in which the potent synthetic mu-agonist fentanyl is embedded in a sweetened matrix that is dissolved in the mouth. It is undergoing investigation as a treatment for cancer-related breakthrough pain, a prevalent phenomenon defined as a transitory flare of moderate to severe pain that interrupts otherwise controlled persistent pain. There have been no controlled trials of other treatments for this condition. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ascending doses of OTFC, a novel controlled dose titration methodology was developed that applied blinding and randomization procedures to the evaluation of recurrent pains in the home environment. The study was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind dose titration study in ambulatory cancer patients. The sample comprised adult patients receiving a scheduled oral opioid regimen equivalent to 60-1000 mg oral morphine per day, who were experiencing at least one episode per day of breakthrough pain and had achieved at least partial relief of this pain by use of an oral opioid rescue dose. After collection of 2 days of baseline data concerning the efficacy of the usual rescue drug, patients were randomly treated with either 200 or 400 microg OTFC unit doses in double-blind fashion. Up to two breakthrough pains each day could be treated with up to four OTFC unit doses per pain. OTFC in unit doses containing 200, 400, 600, 800, 1200 or 1600 microg of fentanyl citrate were available for the study. The unit dose was titrated upward in steps until the patient had 2 consecutive days on which breakthrough pain could be treated with the single unit dose, titration was ineffective at a 1600 microg unit dose, or 20 days elapsed. To maintain the double-blind, orders to titrate up were ignored one-third of the time according to a pre-defined randomization schedule accessible only to an unblinded study pharmacist. Main outcome measures included, numeric or categorical measures of pain intensity, pain relief, and global assessment of drug performance. Dose response relationships were found suggesting that the methodology was sensitive to opioid effects. Seventy-four percent of patients were successfully titrated. There was no relationship between the total daily dose of the fixed schedule opioid regimen and the dose of OTFC required to manage the breakthrough pain. Although the study was not designed to provide a definitive comparison between OTFC and the usual rescue drug, exploratory analyses found that OTFC provided significantly greater analgesic effect at 15, 30 and 60 min, and a more rapid onset of effect, than the usual rescue drug. Adverse effects of the OTFC were typically opioid-related, specifically somnolence, nausea and dizziness. Very few adverse events were severe or serious. This study demonstrated the feasibility of controlled trial methodology in studies of breakthrough pain. OTFC appears to be a safe and effective therapy for breakthrough pain, and dose titration can usually identify a unit dose capable of providing adequate analgesia. If the lack of a relationship between the effective OTFC dose and fixed schedule opioid regimen is confirmed, dose titration may be needed in the clinical use of this formulation. Further investigation of OTFC as a specific treatment for breakthrough pain is warranted.

Dose-titration, multicenter study of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate for the treatment of breakthrough pain in cancer patients using transdermal fentanyl for persistent pain

PURPOSE

Supplemental, "as-needed," administration of an opioid is a common approach to the problem of breakthrough pain in cancer patients. Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) is undergoing investigation as a new treatment for breakthrough pain. The primary purpose of the study was to demonstrate that a single-unit dose of OTFC can safely and effectively treat breakthrough pain. A secondary goal was to determine appropriate dosing guidelines.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, dose-titration study in 62 adult cancer patients using transdermal fentanyl for persistent pain. Consenting patients provided 2 days of baseline data to evaluate the performance of their usual breakthrough pain medication. Patients then randomly received 200 microg or 400 microg OTFC in double-blind fashion. (Patients were always assigned, rather than randomized, to 200 microg if 400 microg represented > 20% of around-the-clock medication.) Pain intensity (PI), pain relief (PR), and global satisfaction scores were recorded. OTFC was then titrated until the patient received adequate PR for each episode using one OTFC unit. Orders to titrate up were ignored one third of the time to improve the blind. Two days of baseline data were compared with 2 days of OTFC data after titration identified an effective dose of OTFC.

RESULTS

Most patients (76%) found a safe and effective dose of OTFC. There was no meaningful relationship between the around-the-clock opioid regimen and the effective dose of OTFC. In open-label comparisons, OTFC produced a faster onset of relief and a greater degree of PR than patients' usual breakthrough medication. Somnolence, nausea, and dizziness were the most common side effects associated with OTFC.

CONCLUSION

Most patients find a single OTFC dosage that adequately treats breakthrough pain. The optimal dose is found by titration and is not predicted by around-the-clock dose of opioids.

Quality of life and survival: the role of multidimensional symptom assessment

BACKGROUND

Recent data from clinical trials suggest that quality-of-life (QOL) measurements may independently predict survival. The relation between survival and QOL measurements was tested among 122 inpatients and 96 outpatients with malignancies at one of four sites (colon, breast, ovary, or prostate) who participated in a cross-sectional validation study of the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS), a measure of the frequency of, severity of, and distress caused by physical symptoms.

METHODS

The relation between MSAS summary scores and survival was evaluated in a multivariate analysis that adjusted concurrently for other important covariates, such as age, site and extent of disease, inpatient status, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), and other QOL measurements.

RESULTS

In the multivariate analysis, extent of disease (P < 0.0001), inpatient status (P=0.014), higher MSAS physical symptom subscale score (P=0.004), and lower KPS score (P=0.009) independently predicted decreased survival. Other QOL measurements did not contribute significantly to the model.

CONCLUSIONS

The MSAS physical symptom subscale score significantly predicts survival and adds to the prognostic information provided by KPS and extent of disease. Patients may be under-assessed regarding both the number and the severity of symptoms. Measurements of physical symptoms and related distress offer additional prognostic information concerning the survival of patients with cancer and may account for the predictive value of QOL scores.

Substance abuse issues in cancer patients. Part 2: Evaluation and treatment

The relationship between the therapeutic use of potentially abusable drugs for symptom control and the multifaceted nature of abuse and addiction is extremely complex. Research is only beginning to elucidate the nature of this relationship and its clinical implications. At present, practical management is based primarily on clinical experience and anecdotal observations. In part I of this two-part series (published last month), the authors explored the epidemiology of substance abuse in the cancer population, provided definitions of addiction and abuse appropriate for the oncology setting, and offered guidelines for the assessment of aberrant drug-taking behavior. In this second part, the authors provide recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients with cancer who have a history of substance abuse. Suggested therapeutic goals are outlined, and plans for inpatient and outpatient management and detailed.

Substance abuse issues in cancer patients. Part 1: Prevalence and diagnosis

Although rare, drug abuse problems present a complex set of physical and psychosocial issues that complicate cancer treatment and pain/ symptom management. Most oncologists are not be well versed in either the conceptual or practical issues related to addiction. As a result, they often struggle in their attempts to effectively treat patients who are or have been substance abusers, and they find it difficult to understand issues of addiction in patients with pain who have no history of substance abuse. In the first installment of a two-part series, the authors explore the epidemiology of substance abuse. An examination of the distinctions between abuse and dependence leads to definitions of these terms appropriate for the oncology setting. Guidelines for assessing aberrant drug-taking behavior are also offered. Part 2, which will appear in the next issue of ONCOLOGY, will discuss the clinical management of cancer patients with a history of substance abuse.

Pain due to epidural tumor in cancer patients. Report of two cases and differential diagnosis

The cases of two patients with inguinal pain as the only symptom of a T12 metastatic lesion is reported. The patterns of pain referrals from tumor lesions to the spine, epidural space, and spinal cord are reviewed. Focal back pain and pain reported in a distal distribution can both be associated with epidural or cord disease. The differential diagnosis of back pain in patients with cancer can be difficult but may be crucial in differentiating important neurological complications of systemic neoplasms.

Clinical realities and economic considerations: special therapeutic issues in intrathecal therapy--tolerance and addiction

The long-term use of opioid analgesics in chronic nonmalignant pain has long been controversial. Rational discussion has been impeded by outdated research and myths regarding the risks of this therapy. Some of the misconceptions relate to the inappropriate use of the terms tolerance and addiction. Analgesic tolerance is a phenomenon in which exposure to the opioid itself causes the patient who has achieved analgesia to require a higher dosage to maintain the same level of effect. This appears to be very uncommon in the clinical setting. A need for dose escalation results from factors other than tolerance, including disease progression. Addiction is an association of psychological dependence and aberrant drug-related behaviors. Addiction to opioids in the context of pain treatment is rare in those with no history of addictive disorder. Clinicians need to become aware of the new findings regarding the low risk of addiction and tolerance in this setting.