Russell K. Portenoy

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.

Pharmacologic management of neuropathic pain: evidence-based recommendations.

Abstract Patients with neuropathic pain (NP) are challenging to manage and evidence‐based clinical recommendations for pharmacologic management are needed. Systematic literature reviews, randomized clinical trials, and existing guidelines were evaluated at a consensus meeting. Medications were considered for recommendation if their efficacy was supported by at least one methodologically‐sound, randomized clinical trial (RCT) demonstrating superiority to placebo or a relevant comparison treatment. Recommendations were based on the amount and consistency of evidence, degree of efficacy, safety, and clinical experience of the authors. Available RCTs typically evaluated chronic NP of moderate to severe intensity. Recommended first‐line treatments include certain antidepressants (i.e., tricyclic antidepressants and dual reuptake inhibitors of both serotonin and norepinephrine), calcium channel α2‐δ ligands (i.e., gabapentin and pregabalin), and topical lidocaine. Opioid analgesics and tramadol are recommended as generally second‐line treatments that can be considered for first‐line use in select clinical circumstances. Other medications that would generally be used as third‐line treatments but that could also be used as second‐line treatments in some circumstances include certain antiepileptic and antidepressant medications, mexiletine, N‐methyl‐d‐aspartate receptor antagonists, and topical capsaicin. Medication selection should be individualized, considering side effects, potential beneficial or deleterious effects on comorbidities, and whether prompt onset of pain relief is necessary. To date, no medications have demonstrated efficacy in lumbosacral radiculopathy, which is probably the most common type of NP. Long‐term studies, head‐to‐head comparisons between medications, studies involving combinations of medications, and RCTs examining treatment of central NP are lacking and should be a priority for future research.

The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale: an instrument for the evaluation of symptom prevalence, characteristics and distress

The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS) is a new patient-rated instrument that was developed to provide multidimensional information about a diverse group of common symptoms. This study evaluated the reliability and validity of the MSAS in the cancer population. Randomly selected inpatients and outpatients (n = 246) with prostate, colon, breast or ovarian cancer were assessed using the MSAS and a battery of measures that independently evaluate phenomena related to quality of life. Symptom prevalence in the 218 evaluable patients ranged from 73.9% for lack of energy to 10.6% for difficulty swallowing. Based on a content analysis, three symptoms were deleted and two were added; the revised scale evaluates 32 physical and psychological symptoms. A factor analysis of variance yielded two factors that distinguished three major symptom groups and several subgroups. The major groups comprised psychological symptoms (PSYCH), high prevalence physical symptoms (PHYS H), and low prevalence physical symptoms (PHYS L). Internal consistency was high in the PHYS H and PSYCH groups (Cronback alpha coefficients of 0.88 and 0.83, respectively), and moderate in the PHYS L group (alpha = 0.58). Although the severity, frequency and distress dimensions were highly intercorrelated, canonical correlations and other analyses demonstrated that multidimensional assessment (frequency and distress) augments information about the impact of symptoms. High correlations with clinical status and quality of life measures support the validity of the MSAS and indicate the utility of several subscale scores, including PSYCH, PHYS, and a brief Global Distress Index. The MSAS is a reliable and valid instrument for the assessment of symptom prevalence, characteristics and distress. It provides a method for comprehensive symptom assessment that may be useful when information about symptoms is desirable, such as clinical trials that incorporate quality of life measures or studies of symptom epidemiology.

Management of cancer pain

Summary 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, internationlal 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 sideeffects 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.

Breakthrough pain : definition, prevalence and characteristics

&NA; In the cancer population, the term breakthrough pain typically refers to a transitory flare of pain in the setting of chronic pain managed with opioid drugs. The prevalence and characteristics of this phenomenon have not been defined, and its impact on patient care is unknown. We developed operational definitions for breakthrough pain and its major characteristics, and applied these in a prospective survey of patients with cancer pain. Data were collected during a 3 month period from consecutive patients who reported moderate pain or less for more than 12 h daily and stable opioid dosing for a minimum of 2 consecutive days. Of 63 patients surveyed, 41 (64%) reported breakthrough pain, transient flares of severe or excruciating pain. Fifty‐one different pains were described (median 4 pains/day; range 1–3600). Pain characteristics were extremely varied. Twenty‐two (43%) pains were paroxysmal in onset; the remainder were more gradual. The duration varied from seconds to hours (median/range: 30 min/1–240 min), and 21 (41%) were both paroxysmal and brief (lancinating pain). Fifteen (29%) of the pains were related to the fixed opioid dose, occurring solely at the end of the dosing interval. Twenty‐eight (55%) of the pains were precipitated; of these, 22 were caused by an action of the patient (incident pain), and 6 were associated with a non‐volitional precipitant, such as flatulence. The pathophysiology of the pain was believed to be somatic in 17 (33%), visceral in 10 (20%), neuropathic in 14 (27%), and mixed in 10 (20%). Pain was related to the tumor in 42 (82%), the effects of therapy in 7 (14%), and neither in 2 (4%). Diverse interventions were employed to manage these pains, with variable efficacy. These data clarify the spectrum of breakthrough pains and indicate their importance in cancer pain management.

Defining the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures.

&NA; The purpose of this study was to determine the levels of change on standard pain scales that represent clinically important differences to patients. Data from analgesic studies are often difficult to interpret because the clinical importance of the results is not obvious. Differences between groups, as summarized by a change in mean values over time, can be difficult to apply to clinical care. Baseline scores vary widely and group mean differences could reflect large changes in a few patients, small changes in many patients, or any combination of these outcomes. Determination of the proportion of patients who have a clinically important improvement in their pain would provide a more interpretable result with direct clinical implications. However, determining a clinically important outcome requires information about the degree of change over time that is clinically important. Data from the titration phase of a multiple cross‐over randomized clinical trial of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) for the treatment of cancer‐related breakthrough pain were re‐analyzed to examine the differences in pain scores between treatment episodes that did and did not yield adequate pain relief. The scales evaluated were absolute pain intensity difference (PID, 0–10 scale), percentage pain intensity difference (PID%, 0–100% scale), pain relief (PR, 0 (none), 1 (slight), 2 (moderate), 3 (lots), 4 (complete)), sum of the pain intensity difference (SPID over 60 min), percentage of maximum total pain relief (% Max TOTPAR over 60 min), and global medication performance (0 (poor), 1 (fair), 2 (good), 3 (very good), 4 (excellent)). Adequate relief was defined by the patients decision not to use another dose of opioid medication as a rescue, in addition to the study medication, to treat each painful episode. One hundred thirty OTFC naive patients contributed data on 1268 episodes of breakthrough pain. The scales that were converted to a percentage change yielded the best accuracy in predicting adequate relief, with balanced sensitivity and specificity. The best cut‐off point for both the % Max TOTPAR and the PID% was 33%. The best cut‐off points for the absolute scales were absolute pain intensity difference of 2, pain relief of 2 (moderate), and SPID of 2. The global medication performance of 2 (good) had excellent values as well. This study presents data‐derived cut‐off points for the changes in several pain scales, each reflecting the clinically important improvement for patients treating breakthrough cancer pain episodes with OTFC. Confirmation in other patient populations and different pain syndromes will be needed. The use of consistent clinically important cut‐off points as the primary outcome in future pain therapy clinical trials will enhance their validity, comparability, and clinical applicability.

Chronic use of opioid analgesics in non-malignant pain: Report of 38 cases

&NA; Thirty‐eight patients maintained on opioid analgesics for non‐malignant pain were retrospectively evaluated to determine the indications, course, safety and efficacy of this therapy. Oxycodone was used by 12 patients, methadone by 7, and levorphanol by 5; others were treated with propoxyphene, meperidine, codeine, pentazocine, or some combination of these drugs. Nineteen patients were treated for four or more years at the time of evaluation, while 6 were maintained for more than 7 years. Two‐thirds required less than 20 morphine equivalent mg/day and only 4 took more than 40 mg/day. Patients occasionally required escalation of dose and/or hospitalization for exacerbation of pain; doses usually returned to a stable baseline afterward. Twenty‐four patients described partial but acceptable or fully adequate relief of pain, while 14 reported inadequate relief. No patient underwent a surgical procedure for pain management while receiving therapy. Few substantial gains in employment or social function could be attributed to the institution of opioid therapy. No toxicity was reported and management became a problem in only 2 patients, both with a history of prior drug abuse. A critical review of patient characteristics, including data from the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire in 24 patients, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory in 23, and detailed psychiatric evaluation in 6, failed to disclose psychological or social variables capable of explaining the success of long‐term management. We conclude that opioid maintenance therapy can be a safe, salutary and more humane alternative to the options of surgery or no treatment in those patients with intractable non‐malignant pain and no history of drug abuse.

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.

The nature of opioid responsiveness and its implications for neuropathic pain: new hypotheses derived from studies of opioid infusions

&NA; In recent years, the observation that the response of patients to opioid drugs may be influenced by properties inherent in the pain or pain syndrome, such as its pathophysiology, has evolved into the belief that certain types of pain e.g., neuropathic pains, may be unresponsive to these drugs. This concept has important implications for both clinical practice and basic understanding of opioid mechanisms. We critically evaluate opioid responsiveness, particularly as it relates to neuropathic pain, and propose a clinically relevant definition and a paradigm for its investigation. The paradigm is illustrated by analgesic responses to opioid infusion in 28 patients with neuropathic pains and by a detailed presentation of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic relationships in one of these patients, whose central pain responded promptly to an infusion of hydromorphone. From this analysis, we hypothesize that (1) opioid responsiveness in man can be defined by the degree of analgesia achieved during dose escalation to either intolerable side effects or the occurrence of ‘complete’ or ‘adequate’ analgesia; (2) opioid responsiveness is a continuum, rather than a quantal phenomenon; (3) opioid responsiveness is determined by a diverse group of patient characteristics and pain‐related factors, as well as drug‐selective effects; and (4) a neuropathic mechanism may reduce opioid responsiveness, but does not result in an inherent resistance to these drugs. Given the complexity of factors contributing to opioid responsiveness and the observation that outcome cannot be reliably predicted, opioids should not be withheld on the assumption that pain mechanism, or any other factor, precludes a favorable response. Both the clinical use of opioids and paradigms to investigate opioid responsiveness should include dose escalation to maximally tolerated levels and repeated monitoring of analgesia and other effects.

Character of terminal illness in the advanced cancer patient: Pain and other symptoms during the last four weeks of life

There is a great variability among advanced cancer patients in the experience of symptoms and their impact on lifes activities. A subgroup of difficult patients particularly tax the clinical skills and compassion of practitioners. Although the need for information about these patients is evident, their characteristics have not been explored heretofore. We describe our experience with such patients, a group referred to the Supportive Care Program of the Pain Service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Prevalence of pain and other symptoms, patterns of opioid use and routes of drug administration, and the prevalence of suicidal ideation and requests for euthanasia are discussed.