Ana Mañas

Prevalence of Neuropathic Pain in Radiotherapy Oncology Units

PURPOSE Neuropathic pain (NP) in cancer patients severely impacts quality of life. Radiotherapy (RT) may cause NP, and at the same time, cancer patients visit RT units for pain relief. NP prevalence at these sites and current analgesic treatment should be assessed to improve management. METHODS AND MATERIALS This epidemiological, prospective, multicenter study was undertaken to assess NP prevalence, according to Douleur Neuropathique 4 questions questtionaire (DN4) test results, and analgesic management in cancer pain patients visiting RT oncologic units. Secondary analyses assessed NP etiology and pain intensity (using the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form) and impact (using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Medical Outcomes Study [MOS] for Sleep, and the Health Survey Short Form-12). RESULTS A total of 1,098 patients with any kind of pain were registered. NP prevalence was 31.1% (95% confidence interval, 28.4%--33.9%); 291 NP patients (mean age, 62.2 ±12.5 years and 57.7% men) were eligible for study; 49% of patients were overweight. The most frequent tumors were those of breast and lung, and stage IIIB was the most common cancer stage. The tumors caused 75% of NP cases. Anxiety, sleepiness, and depression were common. At 8 weeks, pain intensity and interference with daily activities decreased significantly for 50.8% of responders. Depression and anxiety (p < 0.0001) scores on the Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary measures (p < 0.0001) and all MOS-Sleep subscales, except for snoring, improved significantly. The percentage of satisfied patients increased from 13.8% to 87.4% (p < 0.0001) with the current analgesic treatment, which meant a 1.2- and 6-fold increase (p < 0.0001) in narcotic analgesics and anticonvulsants, respectively, compared to previous treatment. CONCLUSIONS NP is highly prevalent at RT oncology units, with sleepiness, anxiety, and depression as frequent comorbidities. There is a need to improve management of NP with increased use of more specific NP-targeting drugs.

Breakthrough cancer pain – still a challenge

Breakthrough cancer pain is defined as transient pain exacerbation in patients with stable and controlled basal pain. Although variable, the prevalence of breakthrough cancer pain is high (33%–95%). According to the American Pain Foundation, breakthrough pain is observed in 50%–90% of all hospitalized cancer patients, in 89% of all patients admitted to homes for the elderly and terminal-patient care centers, and in 35% of all ambulatory care cancer patients. The management of breakthrough cancer pain should involve an interdisciplinary and multimodal approach. The introduction of new fentanyl formulations has represented a great advance and has notably improved treatment. Among these, the pectin-based intranasal formulation adjusts very well to the profile of breakthrough pain attacks, is effective, has a good toxicity profile, and allows for convenient dosing – affording rapid and effective analgesia with the added advantage of being easily administered by caregivers when patients are unable to collaborate.

Should the prescription of oral anticancer drugs be restricted

In the year 2010, the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) published an editorial1 in the Annals of Oncology entitled “Treatment of cancer with oral drugs: a position statement by the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology”. The main premise of the editorial was a call to grant medical oncologists the exclusive right to prescribe all anticancer drugs, whether administration is intravenous or oral. As might be expected, that editorial has ignited a fierce and ongoing debate in Spain. The first medical society to respond was the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncologists (SEOR) via a letter to the editor2 to rebut the radical stance taken by the SEOM. The SEOR also followed up that letter with an editorial in the Spanish journal Clinical and Translational Oncology (CTO).3 Several months later, endocrinologists representing the Spanish Society of Endocrinology and Nutrition (SEEN) also responded to the original SEOM editorial with a letter to the editor of Annals of Oncology.4 We believe that the outcome of this intense debate, which is taking place in a well-known international journal, has implications for all specialists who currently prescribe oral anticancer medications.

Radioterapia estereotáxica fraccionada en adenomas de hipófisis: resultados y factores pronósticos

ResumenIntroducciónSe analizan retrospectivamente la supervivencia global (SG), control local, factores pronóstico y toxicidad, de pacientes con adenoma de hipófisis tratados con radioterapia estereotáxica fraccionada (REF).Material y métodosEntre mayo de 1994 y junio de 2001 se trataron 56 pacientes con adenomas de hipófisis, 23 (41,1%) primarios y 33 recidivas. Veinticuatro (42,9%) casos fueron adenomas no funcionantes, y 32 (57,1%) funcionantes. La mediana de dosis administrada fue 54 Gy (rango 24–56 Gy), 2 Gy/día, 5 días/semana.ResultadosCon un seguimiento de 51 meses (9–102 meses), al cierre del estudio, 49 pacientes están vivos sin evidencia de enfermedad, una paciente viva, con pérdida de visión y progresión hormonal, 2 pacientes han fallecido con progresión y uno falleció por otra causa. La supervivencia global fue de 94% (50/53), con una supervivencia libre de fallo del 92% (49/53). En análisis univariado sólo el tipo de hormona secretada (ACTH) y la irradiación previa resultaron de mal pronóstico. Catorce pacientes (25%) presentaron síntomas leves de toxicidad aguda durante la radioterapia estereotáxica fraccionada y 3 (5,4%) desarrollaron toxicidad tardía, neuropatía óptica (2 pacientes, multipatología asociada) y radionecrosis (1 paciente, reirradiación).ConclusionesLa radioterapia estereotáxica fraccionada es eficaz para adenomas de hipófisis, aunque es preciso valorar individualmente a aquellos pacientes con patologías concomitantes, o con tratamientos de radioterapia previa, con objeto de minimizar la aparición de efectos adversos a largo plazo.AbstractAimsTo evaluate the survival rates, prognostic factors and adverse events in patients with pituitary adenomas following fractionated stereotactic-guided radiotherapy (FSRT).Material and methodsFifty-six patients with pituitary adenomas were treated with FSRT; 23 patients (41.1%) had primary adenomas, 33 had recurrent disease; 24 (42.9%) with non-functional and 32 (57.1%) with functional adenomas. Using conventional fractionation, median total dose administered was 54 Gy (range: 24–56 Gy).ResultsThe median follow-up was 51 months (range: 9–102) and, at the time of analysis, 49 patients were alive and disease-free, 1 patient was alive with reduced visual acuity and biochemical indications of recurrence, 2 patients had died from the disease and 1 patient had died from unrelated causes. Overall survival was 94% (50/53) and overall local tumour control was 92% (49/53). Univariate analysis indicated hormonal secretion (ACTH) and previous radiotherapy as being statistically significant. Fourteen patients (25%) had minor side-effects during treatment and 3 patients (5.4%) had late-onset events; 2 with optical neuropathy (both patients had other relevant co-existing diseases) and 1 patient had brain necrosis (re-irradiation).ConclusionFractionated stereotactic-guided radiotherapy is an effective modality for the treatment of pituitary adenomas. Care is required in patients with co-morbidities and/or previously-irradiated recurrent tumour so as to minimise late-onset secondary effects.AIMS To evaluate the survival rates, prognostic factors and adverse events in patients with pituitary adenomas following fractionated stereotactic-guided radiotherapy (FSRT). MATERIAL AND METHODS Fifty-six patients with pituitary adenomas were treated with FSRT; 23 patients (41.1%) had primary adenomas, 33 had recurrent disease; 24 (42.9%) with non-functional and 32 (57.1%) with functional adenomas. Using conventional fractionation, median total dose administered was 54 Gy (range: 24-56 Gy). RESULTS The median follow-up was 51 months (range: 9-102) and, at the time of analysis, 49 patients were alive and disease-free, 1 patient was alive with reduced visual acuity and biochemical indications of recurrence, 2 patients had died from the disease and 1 patient had died from unrelated causes. Overall survival was 94% (50/53) and overall local tumour control was 92% (49/53). Univariate analysis indicated hormonal secretion (ACTH) and previous radiotherapy as being statistically significant. Fourteen patients (25%) had minor side-effects during treatment and 3 patients (5.4%) had late-onset events; 2 with optical neuropathy (both patients had other relevant co-existing diseases) and 1 patient had brain necrosis (re-irradiation). CONCLUSION Fractionated stereotactic-guided radiotherapy is an effective modality for the treatment of pituitary adenomas. Care is required in patients with co-morbidities and/or previously-irradiated recurrent tumour so as to minimise late-onset secondary effects.