Supportive Care in Cancer Unit, IRCCS Foundation, National Cancer Institute of Milano, Milan; 2Palliative Care Unit, Azienda Usl Modena (CeVEAS), Modena; Department of Medical Oncology, S. Maria Hospital, Terni, Italy
incidence of pain
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the incidence of cancer was 12 667 470 new cases in 2008 and, based on projections, it will be >15 million in 2020 [1]. Consistent with this, a systematic review of the literature, which investigated the prevalence of pain in different disease stages and types of cancer during the period 19662005[2], showed no difference in pain prevalence between patients during anticancer treatment and those in an advanced or terminal phase of the disease. In particular, pain prevalence was 64% in patients with metastatic, advanced or terminal phases of the disease, 59% in patients on anticancer treatment and 33% in patients after curative treatment. Moreover, in the systematic review of the literature carried out by Deandrea et al. [3] on studies published from 1994 to 2007, nearly half of the cancer patients were undertreated, with a high variability across study designs and clinical settings. Recent studies conducted both in Italy and in Europe [4, 5] conrmed these data, showing that pain was present in all phases of cancer disease (early and metastatic) and was not adequately treated in a signicant percentage of patients, ranging from 56 to 82.3%. In particular, Apolone et al. [6] evaluated prospectively the adequacy of analgesic care of cancer patients by means of the Pain Management Index (PMI) in 1802 valid cases of in- and outpatients with advanced/metastatic solid tumor enrolled in 110 centers specically devoted to cancer and/or pain management (oncology/pain/palliative centers or hospices). The study showed that patients were still classied as potentially undertreated in 25.3% of the cases (range 9.855.3%). In contrast to the percentage of incidence of pain reported in hematological patients (5% with leukemia and 38% with lymphoma) in the past literature [7], a signicant
*Correspondence to ESMO Guidelines Working Group, ESMO Head Ofce, Via L. Taddei 4, CH-6962 Viganello-Lugano, Switzerland; E-mail: clinicalguidelines@esmo.org Approved by the ESMO Guidelines Working Group: December 2004, last update February 2011. This publication supersedes the previously published versionAnn Oncol 2010; 21 (Suppl 5): v257v260. Conict of interest: Dr Roila has reported that he has been a member of the speakers bureau for Janssen Cilag on cancer pain treatment. Dr Ripamonti and Dr Bandieri have reported no conicts of interest.
proportion of patients with lymphoma and leukemia may suffer from pain not only in the last months of life (83%) [4] but also at the time of diagnosis and during active therapies [8]. Based on these facts it is evident that millions of cancer patients still suffer from cancer-related pain. recommendation. The assessment and management of pain in cancer patients is of paramount importance in all stages of the disease; however, pain is still not adequately treated (expert and panel consensus).
The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
Annals of Oncology
1. Assess and re-assess the pain d Causes, onset, type, site, duration, intensity, relief and temporal patterns of the pain d Presence of the trigger factors and the signs and symptoms associated with the pain d Use of analgesics and their efcacy and tolerability 2. Assess and re-assess the patient d The clinical situation by means of a complete/specic physical examination and the specic radiological and/or biochemical investigations d The presence of interference of pain with the patients daily activities, work, social life, sleep patterns, appetite, sexual functioning and mood d The impact of the disease and the therapy on the physical, psychological and social conditions d The presence of a caregiver, the psychological status, the degree of awareness of the disease, anxiety and depression and suicidal ideation, his/ her social environment, quality of life, spiritual concerns/needs d The presence and intensity of signs, physical and/or emotional symptoms associated with cancer pain syndromes d The functional status d The presence of opiophobia 3. Assess and re-assess your ability to inform and to communicate with the patient and the family d Take time to spend with the patient and the family to understand their needs
recommendation Patients should be informed about pain and pain management and be encouraged to take an active role in their pain management [II, B]. d Prevent the onset of pain by means of the by the clock administration, taking into account the half-life, bioavailability and duration of action of the different drugs. recommendation Analgesic for chronic pain should be prescribed on a regular basis and not on as required schedule [V, D]. d Prescribe a therapy which is simple to be administered and easy to be managed by the patient himself and his family, especially when the patient is cared for at home. The oral route appears to be the most suitable to meet this requirement, and, if well tolerated, it must be considered as the preferred route of administration [2024]. recommendation The oral route of administration of the analgesic drugs should be advocated as the rst choice [IV, C]. d Assess and treat the breakthrough pain (BTP) which is dened as a transitory exacerbation of pain that occurs in addition to an otherwise medically controlled stable pain [25, 26]. It is of sudden onset, occurs for short periods of time and is usually severe. The incidence of BTP has been estimated to be high (2080% depending on the setting) in various surveys [26, 27]. The differences reported are probably due to the different clinical settings analyzed and the different denitions of BTP used.
recommendation. Observation of pain-related behaviors and discomfort is indicated in patients with cognitive impairment to assess the presence of pain (expert and panel consensus). Psychosocial distress has to be assessed because it is strongly associated with cancer pain [17]. In fact psychosocial distress may amplify the perception of pain-related distress and, similarly, inadequately controlled pain may cause substantial psychological distress. recommendation. The assessment of all components of suffering such as psychosocial distress should be considered and evaluated [II, B].
recommendation Rescue dose of medications (as required) other than the regular basal therapy must be prescribed for breakthrough pain episodes [V, D]. d Tailor the dosage, the type and the route of drugs administered according to each patients needs. The type and the dose of the analgesic drugs is inuenced by the intensity of pain (Table 2) and have to be promptly adjusted to reach a balance between pain relief and side effects. The rescue doses taken by the patients are an appropriate measure of the daily titration of the regular doses [25, 26]. An alternative route for opioid administration should be considered when oral
Annals of Oncology
Table 2. Categorization of pain and appropriate analgesia WHO analgesic ladder step 1 (mild pain) 2 (mild to moderate pain)
<3 out of 10 Paracetamol or NSAIDs 3-6 out of 10 Weak opioids 6 paracetomal or NSAIDs 3 (moderate to severe pain) >6 out of 10 Strong opioids 6 paracetamol NSAIDs
Score on NRS according to references 24, 29, 30. NRS, numerical rating scale; NSAIDs, non-inammatory drugs; WHO, World Health Organization.
recommendation Paracetamol and/or a non-steroidal anti-inammatory drug are effective for treating mild pain [I, A]. Paracetamol and NSAIDS are universally accepted as part of the treatment of cancer pain at any stage of the WHO analgesic ladder. The long-term use of NSAIDs or a cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitor has to be carefully monitored and reviewed periodically [36] because they can provoke severe toxicity such as: gastrointestinal bleeding, platelet dysfunction and renal failure. COX-2 selective inhibitors may increase the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular adverse reactions [37] and do no protect from renal failure. Not all of the described drugs are available in all countries. recommendation Paracetamol and/or a non-steroidal anti-inammatory drug are effective for treating all intensities of pain, at least in the short term and unless contraindicated [I, A].
administration is not possible because of severe vomiting, bowel obstruction, severe dysphagia or severe confusion, as well as in the presence of poor pain control, which requires rapid dose escalation, and/or in the presence of oral opioid-related adverse effects.
pain management
In 1986, the WHO proposed a strategy for cancer pain treatment based on a sequential three-step analgesic ladder from nonopioids to weak opioids to strong opioids according to pain intensity [28]. Twenty years after the rst edition [20], the WHO cancer pain relief program remains the referral point for pain management. According to WHO guidelines, opioid analgesics are the mainstay of analgesic therapy and are classied according to their ability to control pain from mild to mildmoderate to moderatesevere intensity. Such pain intensity may be scored on an NRS as reported in Table 2 [24, 29, 30]. However, the intensity of pain is frequently reported as mild, moderate and severe and scored on an NRS respectively as 4, from 5 to 6, and 7 [31]. Opioid analgesics may be combined with non-opioid drugs such as paracetamol or with non-steroidal anti-inammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and with adjuvant drugs. [32, 33].
recommendation The analgesic treatment should start with drugs indicated by the WHO analgesic ladder appropriate for the severity of pain [II, B]. Pain should already be managed during the diagnostic evaluation. Most cancer patients can attain satisfactory relief of pain through an approach that incorporates primary antitumor treatments, systemic analgesic therapy and other non-invasive techniques such as psychological or rehabilitative interventions. treatment of mild pain For the treatment of mild pain non-opioid analgesics such as acetaminophen/paracetamol or an NSAID are widely used (Table 3). NSAIDs are superior to placebo in relieving cancer pain in single dose studies. There is no evidence to support superior safety or efcacy of one NSAID over any other [34]. In a randomized clinical trial (RCT) carried out in a small sample of cancer patients on a strong opioid regimen, paracetamol improved pain and well-being [35]. However, these results have not been conrmed by other studies.
recommendation For mild to moderate pain, weak opioids such as codeine, tramadol and dihydrocodeine should be given in combination with non-opioid analgesics [III, C]. As an alternative to weak opioids, consider low doses of strong opiods in combination with non-opioid analgesics [III, C].
doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr390 | vi71
Annals of Oncology
Maximal daily dose 4 1000 mg 3 1000 mg 4 600 mg; 3 800 mg modied release 4 75 mg; 2 200 mg 4 50 mg; 2 100 mg 4 500 mg 2 500 mg
Ketoprofen
30+
Diclofenac
30120
30+ 30+
Table 4. Comparison of selected opioids for mild to moderate pain (WHO step II) Substance Widely available forms and strengths Modied-release tablets 6090120 mg Tablet 153060 mg Drops 100 mg/ml; capsules 50 mg Modied-release tablets 100150200 mg Relative effectiveness compared with oral morphine 0.17 Duration of effectiveness (h) 12 46 24 12 Maximal daily dose Starting dose without pretreatment 60120 mg 1560 mg 50100 mg 50100 mg
0.10.2 0.10.2
recommendation The opioid of rst choice for moderate to severe cancer pain is oral morphine [IV, D]. Although the oral route of administration is advocated, the patients presenting with severe pain who needs urgent relief should be treated and titrated with parenteral opioids, usually administered by the subcutaneous (s.c.) or intravenous (i.v.) route. If given parenterally, the equivalent dose is one-third of that of the oral medication. The relative potency ratio of oral to parenteral (s.c. or i.v.) morphine (not subject to rst-pass metabolism) [48, 49] might vary according to the circumstances in which morphine is used and among individual patients. When converting from oral to parenteral morphine, the dose should be divided by three to get a roughly equianalgesic effect, but upward or downward adjustment of the dose may then be required [50]. recommendation The average relative potency ratio of oral to intravenous morphine is between 1:2 and 1:3 [II, A].
Annals of Oncology
Table 5. Comparison of selected opioids for moderate to severe pain (WHO step III) Substance
Morphine sulfate Morphine Oxycodone Hydromorphone Fentanyl transdermal Buprenorphine Buprenorphine Buprenorphine transdermal Methadone Nicomorphine Nicomorphine
a
Oral i.v. Oral Oral TTS Oral i.v. TTS Oral Oral i.v.
limitb
The relative effectiveness varies considerably in the published literature and among individual patients. Switching to another opiod should therefore be done cautiously with a dose reduction of the newly prescribed opioid. b The maximal dose depends on tachyphylaxis. c Calculated with conversion from mg/day to lg/h. d Not usually used as rst opioid (the 12 lg/h dose corresponds to about 30 mg of oral morphine sulfate daily). e Factor 4 for daily morphine doses <90 mg, factor 8 for doses 90300 mg, and 12 for >300 mg. WHO, World Health Organization; i.v. intravenous.
The average relative potency ratio of oral to subcutaneous morphine is between 1:2 and 1:3 [IV, C]. Only a few selected patients (12%) with cancer pain, refractory to all conventional strategies and/or dose-limiting analgesic-related side effects, require spinal analgesia [51]. Based on the ndings of Myers, Smith and Kalso [5254] and the documented bias of the investigation of Smith et al. [55], it is evident that the role of intraspinal opioids has not been established, and well-designed, independently funded clinical trials are required. Hydromorphone or oxycodone, in both immediate-release and modied-release formulations for oral administration, are effective alternatives to oral morphine. Transdermal fentanyl and transdermal buprenorphine are best reserved for patients whose opioid requirements are stable. They are usually the treatment of choice for patients who are unable to swallow, patients with poor tolerance of morphine and patients with poor compliance. Although not recommended in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Adult Cancer Pain [21] because it is a partial agonist, buprenorphine has a role in the analgesic therapy of patients with renal impairment and undergoing hemodialysis treatment [56, 57] where no drug reduction is necessary, buprenorphine being mainly converted in the liver to norbuprenorphine (a metabolite 40 times less potent than the parent compound). Methadone is a valid alternative but, because of marked interindividual differences in its plasma half-life and duration of action, it is still considered as a drug which should be initiated by physicians with experience and expertise in its use. Strong opioids may be combined with ongoing use of a non-opioid analgesic (step 1).
Buprenorphine is the safest opioid of choice in patients with chronic kidney disease stages 4 or 5 (estimated glomerular ltration rate <30 ml/min) [IV, C]. Opioid switching is a practice used to improve pain relief and/or drug tolerability. Although there is no high quality evidence to support this practice, a switch to an alternative opioid is to be considered in clinical practice [58]. This approach requires familiarity with equianalgesic doses of the different opioids [33].
recommendation In the presence of renal impairment all opioids should be used with caution and at reduced doses and frequency [IV, C].
recommendation Individual titration of dosages by means of normal release morphine administered every 4 h plus rescue doses (up to hourly) for BTP are recommended in clinical practice [IV, C]. The regular dose of slow-release opioids can then be adjusted to take into account the total amount of rescue morphine [IV, C].
doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr390 | vi73
Annals of Oncology
% of patients achieving satisfactory pain relief: d after 1 h: i.v. group, 84%; oral group, 25% (P <0.001) d after 12 h: i.v. group 97%; oral group 76% (P <0.001) d after 24 h: i.v. group and oral group similar. i.v. group: median morphine dosage (i.v.) to achieve pain relief: 4.5 mg (range 1.534.5). In the same group, mean morphine dosage (p.o.) after stabilization: 8.3 (range 2.530) mg. Oral group: median morphine dosage to achieve pain relief: 7.2 (2.515) mg. No signicant adverse events
IR, immediate release, i.v., intravenous; NRS, numerical rating scale; p.o., per os; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
showed complete pain relief at 1 month in 27% of the patients, and at least 50% relief in an additional 42% of the patients at any time in the trials included. The radioisotope treatment has also been investigated in a systematic review [62]: the results showed only weak evidence of a small benecial effect on pain control in the short and medium term (16 months), with no modication of the analgesics used. A few RCTs, involving small numbers, have shown that radioisotopes can relieve bone pain in patients with breast cancer [63] and lung cancer [64], while inconsistent results were produced in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer [65].
recommendation All patients with pain from bone metastases which is proving difcult to be controlled by pharmacological therapy should be evaluated by a clinical oncologist for consideration of external beam radiotherapy or radioisotope treatment [II, B].
radiotherapy
Radiotherapy has specic and critical efcacy in providing pain relief caused by bone metastases. Radiotherapy also has a role in tumors compressing nerve structures and cerebral metastases. A systematic review [61] on the use of radiotherapy for bone pain
Annals of Oncology
Table 7. Selected adjuvant drugs for neuropathic pain Substance Amitryptiline Clomipramine Nortriptyline Fluoxetine Duloxetine Carbamazepine Gabapentin Pregabalin Haloperidol Chlorpromazine
Usually the lowest doses of antidepressants and neuroleptics are sufcient as an adjunct to opioids unless severe depression or major psychosis has to be treated with higher doses as appropriate.
measures [67, 68]. After the rst i.v. infusions of BPs the pain can appear or its intensity increase, and the use of analgesics such as paracetamol or a basal analgesic dose increase is necessary.
recommendation Bisphosphonates should be considered as part of the therapeutic regimen for the treatment of patients with/without pain due to metastatic bone disease [II, B]. Preventive dental measures are necessary before starting bisphosphonate administration [III, A].
antidepressant drugs or anticonvulsants (Table 7). The efcacy and tolerability of the therapy have to be monitored over time. Steroids should be considered in the case of nerve compression. There is evidence in adults that i.v. lidocaine and its oral analog mexiletine are more effective than placebo in decreasing neuropathic pain and can relieve pain in selected patients [73].
recommendation Patients with neuropathic pain should be given either a tricyclic antidepressant or a anticonvulsant and subjected to side effects monitoring [I, A].
doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr390 | vi75
Annals of Oncology
literature
1. Frankish H. 15 million new cancer cases per year by 2020, says WHO. Lancet 2003; 361: 1278. 2. Van den Beuken-van Everdingen MHJ, De Rijke JM, Kessels AG et al. Prevalence of pain in patients with cancer: a systematic review of the past 40 years. Ann Oncol 2007; 18: 14371449. 3. Deandrea S, Montanari M, Moja L et al. Prevalence of undertreatment in cancer pain. A review of published literature. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 19851991. 4. Costantini M, Ripamonti C, Beccaro M et al. Prevalence, distress, management and relief of pain during the last three months of cancer patients life. Results of an Italian mortality follow-back survey. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 729735. 5. Breivik H, Cherny N, Collett F et al. Cancer-related pain: a pan European survey of prevalence, treatment, and patient attitudes. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 14201433. 6. Apolone G, Corli O, Caraceni A et al. Pattern and quality of care of cancer pain management. Results from the Cancer Pain Outcome Research Study Group. Br J Cancer 2009; 100: 15661574. 7. Foley KM. The treatment of cancer pain. N Engl J Med 1985; 313: 8494. 8. Morselli M, Bandieri E, Zanin R et al. Pain and emotional distress in leukaemia patients at diagnosis. Leuk Res 2009; 34: e67e68. 9. Higginson IJ, Murtagh F. Cancer pain epidemiology. In: Bruera E, Portenoy RK (eds). Cancer Pain. Assessment and Management. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010; 3752. 10. Portenoy RK, Koh M. Cancer pain syndromes. In: Bruera E, Portenoy RK (eds). Cancer Pain. Assessment and Management, Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010; 5388. 11. Larue F, Colleau SM, Brasseur L, Cleeland CS. Multicentre study of cancer pain and its treatment in France. BMJ 1995; 310: 10341037. 12. Caraceni A, Cherny N, Fainsinger R et al. The Steering Committee of the EAPC Research Network. Pain measurement tools and methods in clinical research in palliative care: recommendations of an expert working group of the European Association of Palliative Care. J Pain Symptom Manage 2002; 23: 239255. 13. Kaasalainen S. Pain assessment in older adults with dementia using behavioural observation methods in clinical practice. J Gerontol Nurs 2007; 33: 610. 14. Gordon DB, Dahl JL, Miaskowski C et al. American Pain Society recommendations for improving the quality of acute and cancer pain management: American Pain Society Quality of Care Task Force. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165: 15741580. 15. Van Herk R, van Dijk M, Baar FPM, Tibboel D, de Wit R. Observational scales for pain assessment in older adults with cognitive impairments or communication difculties. Nurs Res 2007; 56: 3443. 16. American Geriatrics Society Panel on Persistent Pain in Older Persons. The management of persistent pain in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50: S205S224. 17. Zaza C, Baine N. Cancer pain and psychosocial factors: a critical review of the literature. J Pain Symptom Manage 2002; 24: 526542. 18. Reid CM, Gooberman Hill R, Hanks GW. Opioid analgesics for cancer pain: symptom control for the living or comfort for the dying? A qualitative study to investigate the factors inuencing the decision to accept morphine for pain caused by cancer. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 4448. 19. De WitR, van Dam F, Zandbelt L et al. A pain education program for chronic cancer pain patients: follow-up results from a randomized controlled trial. Pain 1997; 73: 5569. 20. World Health Organization. Cancer Pain Relief, 2nd edn. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1996.
21. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guideline in Oncology. Adult Cancer Pain V.I. 2009. 22. Hanks GW, De Conno F, Ripamonti C et al. Morphine in cancer pain: modes of administration. BMJ 1996; 312: 823826. 23. Hanks GW, De Conno F, Cherny N et al. the Expert Working Group of the Research Network of the European Association for Palliative Care. Morphine and alternative opioids in cancer pain. Br J Cancer 2001; 84: 587593. 24. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Control of Pain in Adults with Cancer. A National Clinical Guideline. SIGN-Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. November 2008. 25. Portenoy RK, Hagen NA. Breakthrough pain: denition, prevalence, and characteristics. Pain 1990; 41: 273281. 26. Mercadante S, Radbruch L, Caraceni A et al. Episodic (breakthrough) pain. Consensus Conference of an expert working group of the European Association for Palliative Care. Cancer 2002; 94: 832839. 27. Bruera E, MacMillian K, Kuehn N et al. Circadian distribution of extra doses of narcotic analgesics in patients with cancer pain: a preliminary report. Pain 1992; 49: 311314. 28. World Health Organization. Cancer Pain Relief. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1986. 29. Wallenstein S, Heidrich Gr, Kaiko R, Houde R. Clinical evaluation of mild analgesics: the measurement of clinical pain. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1980; 10 (Suppl 2): 319s327s. 30. Littman G, Walker B, Schneider B. Reassessment of verbal and visual analog ratings in analgesic studies. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1985; 38: 1623. 31. Serlin RC, Mendoza TR, Nakamura Y, Edwards KR, Cleeland CS. When is cancer pain mild, moderate or severe? Grading pain severity by its interference with function. Pain 1995; 61: 277284. 32. Lussier D, Portenoy RK. Adjuvant analgesic drugs. In: Bruera E, Higginson IJ, Ripamonti C, von Gunten C (eds). Textbook of palliative medicine. London: Edward Arnold Publishers, 2006; 402414. 33. Ripamonti C, Bandieri E. Cancer pain. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2009; 70: 145149. 34. McNicol E, Strassels S, Gouds L, Lau J, Carr D. NSAIDs or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain (Cochrane Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; 1: CD005180. 35. Stockler M, Vardy J, Pillai A, Warr D. Acetominophen (paracetamol) improves pain and well-being in people with advanced cancer already receiving a strong opioid regimen: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over trial. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 33893394. 36. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. 55th edn. London: British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 2007. 37. European Medicines Agency. Public statement: European Medicines Agency announces regulatory action on COX-2 inhibitors (EMEA/62838/2005). Available from http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/press/pr/6275705 en.pdf. 38. Eisenberg E, Berkey C, Carr DB, Mosteller F, Chalmers C. Efcacy and safety of nonsteroidal antinammatory drugs for cancer pain: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 27562765. 39. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment: Number 35 2001. 40. Ventafridda V, Tamburini M, Caraceni A, De Conno F, Naldi F. A validation study of the WHO method for cancer pain relief. Cancer 1987; 59: 850856. 41. Marinangeli F, Ciccozzi A, Leonardis M et al. Use of strong opioids in advanced cancer pain: a randomized trial. J Pain Symptom Manage 2004; 27: 409416. 42. Maltoni M, Scarpi E, Modonesi C et al. A validation study of the WHO analgesic ladder: a two-step vs three-step strategy. Support Care Cancer 2005; 13: 888894. 43. Mercadante S, Porzio G, Ferrera P et al. Low morphine doses in opioid-naive cancer patients with pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 2006; 31: 242247. 44. Cherny NI, Baselga J, De Conno F, Radrbruch L. Formulary availability and regulatory barriers to accessibility of opioids for cancer pain in Europe: a report from the ESMO/EAPC Opioid policy initiative. Ann Oncol 2010; 21: 615626.
Annals of Oncology
45. Ripamonti C, Bareggi C. Pharmacology of opioid analgesia: clinical principles. In: Bruera E, Portenoy RK (eds). Cancer Pain. Assessment and Management, Vol. 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010, 195229. 46. Bandieri E, Chirarolanza A, Luppi M, Magrini N, Marata AM, Ripamonti C. Prescription of opioids in Italy: everything but the morphine. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 961962. 47. World Health Organization. Model List of Essential Drugs (EDL). Geneva: World Health Organization, 2007. 48. Hanks GW, Hoskin PJ, Aherne GW, Turner P, Poulain P. Explanation for potency of oral morphine on repeated dosage? Lancet 1987; ii: 723725. 49. Kaiko RF. The therapeutic equivalence of IM and PO administration of morphine1:3 or 1:6. J Palliat Care 1988; 4: 6466. 50. Kalso E, Vainio A. Morphine and oxycodone hydrochloride in the management of cancer pain. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1990; 47: 639664. 51. Zech DFJ, Grond S, Lynch J et al. Validation of the World Health Organization guidelines for cancer pain relief: a 10-year prospective study. Pain 1995; 63: 6576. 52. Myers J, Chan V, Jarvis V, Walker-Dilks C. Intraspinal techniques for pain. management in cancer patients: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer 2010; 18: 137149. 53. Smith TJ, Staats PS, Deer T et al. Randomized clinical trial of an implantable drug delivery system compared with comprehensive medical management for refractory cancer pain: impact on pain, drug-related toxicity, and survival. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 40404049. 54. Kalso E, Heiskanen T, Rantio M, Rosenberg PH, Vainio A. Epidural and subcutaneous morphine in the management of cancer pain: a double-blind cross-over study. Pain 1996; 67: 443449. 55. Ripamonti C, Brunelli C. Randomized clinical trial of an implantable drug delivery system compared with comprehensive medical management for refractory cancer pain: impact on pain, drug-related toxicity, and survival. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 28012802. 56. Boger RH. Renal impairment: a challenge for opioid treatment? The role of buprenorphine. Palliat Med 2006; 20: s17s23. 57. Mercadante S, Arcuri E. Opioids and renal function. J Pain 2004; 5: 219. 58. Mercadante S, Bruera E. Opioid switching: a systematic and critical review. Cancer Treat Rev 2006; 32: 304315. 59. Harris JT, Suresh Kumar K, Rajagopal MR. Intravenous morphine for rapid control of severe cancer pain. Palliat Med 2003; 17: 248256. 60. Cherny N, Ripamonti C, Pereira J et al. Strategies to manage the adverse effects of oral morphine. An evidence-based report. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 25422554.
doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr390 | vi77