Anticancer Drugs-Related Hypogonadism in Male Patients with Advanced Cancers on Active Treatment: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: In male patients with cancer treated with antineoplastic drug, hypogonadism is a neglected cause of diminished quality of life. This condition may be cancer related as well as toxicity related. The role of antineoplastic drug in causing hypogonadism is poorly understood. The aim of this systematic review was to establish the prevalence, nature (primary/secondary), and impact of hypogonadism on quality of life in male patients with cancer on antineoplastic therapy. METHODS: The search strategy used PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to select articles in English language that described hypogonadism in male patients with cancer. The search period was from January 1, 1945 to February 28, 2023. We included observational studies, case reports or case series and excluded studies concerning hematological malignancies, prostate cancer, female patients, and survivors. FINDINGS: Of 4488 records identified, 28 studies met inclusion criteria (17 observational studies, 11 case reports or case series). Anti-angiogenic drugs and crizotinib were found to have a role in the development of hypogonadism. Patients treated with immune checkpoint-inhibitors developed secondary hypogonadism due to immune-related hypophysitis or orchitis. As for active chemotherapy, platinum salts were often associated with hypogonadism, followed by antimetabolites and taxanes. Selected studies were heterogeneous for populations, interventions, and outcomes assessments. Thus, a generalization is difficult. Moreover, the role of concurrent etiologies cannot be excluded in most studies. CONCLUSION: Our research emphasizes the importance of evaluating the gonadal axis before treatment in patients considered at risk and testing it at regular intervals or in case of clinical suspicion.

Application and accuracy of the EAPC/IASP diagnostic algorithm for neuropathic cancer pain and quantitative sensory testing profile in patients with pain due to cancer.

Introduction: Better diagnosis and treatment of neuropathic cancer pain (NcP) remains an unmet clinical need. The EAPC/IASP algorithm was specifically designed for NcP diagnosis; yet, to date, there is no information on its application and accuracy. Objectives: Our aim was to determine the accuracy of the EAPC/IASP algorithm compared with the Neuropathic Special Interest Group grading system (gold standard) and to describe patients' sensory profile with quantitative sensory testing (QST). Methods: This is a cross-sectional observational study conducted in a palliative care and pain outpatient clinic. Patients with cancer pain intensity ≥3 (numerical rating scale 0-10) were eligible. The palliative care physician applied the EAPC/IASP algorithm as a grading system to diagnose probable or definite NcP, and an independent investigator applied the gold standard and performed the QST. Sensitivity and specificity of the EAPC/IASP algorithm were measured in comparison with the gold standard results. Kruskal-Wallis and unequal variance independent-samples t tests were used to compare the QST parameters in patients with and without NcP. Results: Ninety-eight patients were enrolled from August 2020 to March 2023. Sensitivity and specificity for the EAPC/IASP algorithm were 85% (95% CI 70.2-94.3) and 98.3% (95% CI 90.8-100), respectively. Patients with NcP in contrast to patients without NcP showed cold hypoesthesia (P = 0.0032), warm hypoesthesia (P = 0.0018), pressure hyperalgesia (P = 0.02), and the presence of allodynia (P = 0.0001). Conclusion: The results indicate a good performance of the EAPC/IASP algorithm in diagnosing NcP and the QST discriminated well between patients with and without NcP.

Finding predictors for successful opioid response in cancer patients: An analysis of data from four randomized controlled trials.

CONTEXT: There is no consensus on which "strong" (or step 3 WHO analgesic ladder) opioid to prescribe to a particular patient with cancer-related pain. A better understanding of opioid and patient characteristics on treatment response will contribute to a more personalized opioid treatment. OBJECTIVES: Assessment of potential predictors for successful opioid treatment response in patients with cancer pain. METHODS: An international partnership between four cancer pain research groups resulted in a combined individual-level database from four relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 881). Together, these RCTs investigated the short-term (1 week) and medium-term (4 or 5 weeks) treatment responses for morphine, buprenorphine, methadone, oxycodone, and fentanyl. Candidate predictors for treatment response were sex, age, pain type, pain duration, depression, anxiety, Karnofsky performance score, opioid type, and use of anti-neuropathic drug. RESULTS: Opioid type and pain type were found statistically significant predictors of short-term treatment success. Sex, age, pain type, anxiety, and opioid type were statistically, significantly associated with medium-term treatment success. However, these models showed low discriminative power. CONCLUSION: Fentanyl and methadone, and mixed pain were found to be statistically significant predictors of treatment success in patients with cancer-related pain. With the predictors currently assessed our data did not allow for the creation of a clinical prediction model with good discriminative power. Additional - unrevealed - predictors are necessary to develop a future prediction model.

High bone tumor burden to identify advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with survival benefit upon bone targeted agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Bone-targeted agents (BTA), such as denosumab (DN) and zoledronic acid (ZA), have historically reduced the risk of skeletal related events in cancer patients with bone metastases (BM), with no improvement in survival outcomes. In the immunotherapy era, BM have been associated with poor prognosis upon immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Currently, the impact of bone tumor burden on survival upon BTAs in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) patients treated with ICI remains unknown. METHODS: Data from ICI-treated aNSCLC patients with BM (4/2013-5/2022) in one institution were retrospectively collected. BTA-ICI concurrent treatment was defined as BTA administration at any time before or within 90 days from ICI start. High bone tumor burden (HBTB) was defined as ≥ 3 sites of BM. Median OS (mOS) was estimated with Kaplan-Meier. Aikaike's information criterion (AIC) was used to select the best model for data analysis adjusted for clinical variables. RESULTS: Of 134 patients included, 51 (38 %) received BTA. At a mFU of 39.6 months (m), BTA-ICIs concurrent treatment did not significantly impact on mOS [8.3 m (95% CI 3.9-12.8) versus (vs) 6.8 m (95% CI 4.0-9.6) p = 0.36]; these results were confirmed after adjustment for clinical variables selected by AIC. A multivariate model showed a significant interaction between BTA use and HBTB or radiation therapy to BM. In subgroup analyses, only HBTB confirmed to be associated with significantly longer mOS [8.3 m (95% CI 2.4-14.2) vs 3.5 m (95% CI 2.9-4.1), p = 0.003] and mPFS [3.0 m (95% CI 1.6-4.4) vs 1.8 m (95% CI 1.6-2.0) p = 0.001] upon BTA-ICI concurrent treatment, with the most pronounced OS benefit observed for DN-ICI concurrent regimen [15.2 m (95% CI 0.1-30.7) vs 3.5 m (95% CI 2.9-4.1) p = 0.002]. CONCLUSIONS: In the immunotherapy era, HBTB can identify patients experiencing survival benefit with BTA, especially with DN-ICI combination. HBTB should be included as a stratification factor in the upcoming trials assessing BTA and ICI combinations in patients with aNSCLC and BM.

A real-world study on the prevalence and risk factors of medication related osteonecrosis of the jaw in cancer patients with bone metastases treated with Denosumab.

AIM: Assessing the incidence of Medication Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (MRONJ) in cancer patients with bone metastases receiving Denosumab (Dmab) and identifying potential risk factors. METHODS: A retrospective observational study on consecutive cancer patients with bone metastases, who received at least one dose of Dmab and one follow-up visit. MRONJ crude cumulative incidence (CCI) was estimated considering death without MRONJ as competing event. Multiple regression models were used to study the association between MRONJ incidence and potential risk factors: age, cancer diagnosis, previous bisphosphonates, dental treatments before starting Dmab, extraction or other dental treatment during Dmab, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and antiangiogenic (AA) agents concurrent use. RESULTS: On 780 patients included (median follow-up 17 months), 54% and 18% had, respectively, breast and prostate cancer. The mean number of Dmab administration was 12. Fifty-six patients developed MRONJ with a 24- and a 48-month crude cumulative incidence of 5.7% (95% Cl: 4.2%-7.8%) and 9.8% (95% CI: 7.6%-12.7%), respectively. Higher MRONJ incidence was significantly associated with middle aged group (>56 and ≤73), both at univariate and multivariate analysis (p = 0.029 and 0.0106). Dental treatments (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 3.67; p = 0.0001), dental extractions (HR = 23.40; p < 0.0001), and previous BP administration (HR = 2.62; p = 0.0024) were significantly associated with higher MRONJ incidence at multivariate Cox analysis. Although not statistically significant, MRONJ incidence was lower for patients receiving chemotherapy or hormone therapy and higher for those receiving AAs. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm a clinically relevant incidence of Dmab-induced MRONJ. Dental treatments, especially extraction, during and before Dmab, constitute a serious risk factor. The role of AA concurrent administration deserves further investigations.

Characterizing Different Multidisciplinary Team Models Implemented Within One Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Background: The multidisciplinary approach is considered "best practice" in oncology. Multidisciplinary Teamwork (MDTW) can be broadly classified into Multidisciplinary Team Meetings (MDTM) and Multidisciplinary Cancer Clinics (MDCC; involving also patients), yet both models are heterogeneously implemented. Purpose: This study aims at describing the different MDTW implemented models in a Comprehensive Cancer Center. Methods: All clinical unit directors of the hospital were contacted to identify any MDTW activities the personnel of the unit were involved in. Structured interviews were carried out to collect MDTWs information, ie, type (MDTM vs MDCC), team composition, aims, disease phase, use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Descriptive analyses and Social Network Analysis (SNA) were performed. Results: Among 38 structured interviews, 25 concerned MDTMs and 13 in MDCCs. Responders were mainly surgeons (35%) and oncologists (29%), 35% of them were team leaders. Teams were mostly composed of physicians only (64% in MDTMs, 69% in MDCCs). Case managers (8% and 31%), palliative care specialists (12% and 23%) and psychologists (20% and 31%) were involved to a lesser extent, mainly when dealing with advanced disease. MDTWs were mainly aimed at integrating the skills of the different specialists (respectively 72% for MDTMs and 64% for MDCCs) and offering the best overall patient care pathway (64%, 61.5%). MDTWs were directed at patients in both diagnostic (72%, 61.5%) and locally advanced/metastatic (32%, 38.4%) disease. PROMs were seldom used (24%, 23%). SNA shows a similar density in the two MDTWs, but in the MDCCs two nodes remain isolated (pathologists and radiologists). Conclusion: Despite a high number of MDTWs for advanced/metastatic disease, there is limited involvement of palliative care specialists, psychologists, and nurses.

Development of the palliative care referral system: proposal of a tool for the referral of cancer patients to specialized palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Early palliative care (PC) has shown beneficial effects for advanced cancer patients. However, it is still debated what criteria to use to identify patients for PC referral. AIM: To document the initial steps of the development of the Palliative Care Referral System (PCRS), a tool to be used by oncologists in clinical practice. METHODS: A multiprofessional working group developed the PCRS based on the results of a scoping literature review on PC referral criteria. PCRS criteria were evaluated by experts via a nominal group technique (NGT). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize expert scores on relevance, appropriateness and perceived feasibility of the criteria proposed. Quotations of participants during the discussion were also reported. RESULTS: Sixteen studies, including PC referral criteria/tools, emerged from the scoping review. Severe symptoms, poor performance status, comorbidities and prognosis were the most commonly used criteria. The PCRS included nine major criteria and nine assessment methods; a scoring procedure was also proposed. Answers to the questionnaire during the NGT showed that five criteria reached full agreement on all items, while four did not, and were then discussed within the group. Participants agreed on the relevance of all criteria and on the appropriateness of methods proposed to assess most of them, while issues were raised about potential feasibility of the overall assessment of the PCRS in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: The PCRS has been developed as an help for oncologists to timely identify patients for specialized PC referral. Since feasibility emerged as the main concern, implementation strategies have to be tested in subsequent studies.

Outpatient palliative care referral system (PCRS) for patients with advanced cancer: an impact evaluation protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Early palliative care (PC) in the clinical pathway of advanced cancer patients improves symptom control, quality of life and has a positive impact on overall quality of care. At present, standardised criteria for appropriate referral for early PC in oncology care are lacking. The aim of this project is to develop a set of standardised referral criteria and procedures to implement appropriate early PC for advanced cancer patients (the palliative care referral system, PCRS) and test its impact on user perception of quality of care received, on patient quality of life and on the use of healthcare resources. SETTING: Selected oncology clinics and PC outpatient clinic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping literature review and an expert consultation through a nominal group technique will be used to revise existing referral tools and to develop a new one, the PCRS. 25 patients will be enrolled in a pilot study to assess feasibility of the implementation of PCRS; 10 interviews with patients and healthcare professionals will be carried out to evaluate applicability.A pretest-post-test quasiexperimental study involving 150 patients before implementation of the PCRS and 150 patients after implementation will be carried out.Patient satisfaction with care received, quality of life and use of resources, and caregiver satisfaction with care will also be assessed to explore the impact of the intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the study has been granted by the Institutional Review board of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori; approval reference INT201/19.Results will be disseminated through open access publications and through scientific communication presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04936568.

Cancer pain: Results of a prospective study on prognostic indicators of pain intensity including pain syndromes assessment.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a prevalent symptom in patients with advanced cancer. Recognition of prognostic factors associated with pain intensity, could help provide better assessment, leading to better pain management. AIM: identifying prognostic factors which could guide improvements on cancer pain classification. DESIGN: a prospective observational study on chronic cancer pain, exploring the association between average mean pain intensity during a 28 days study follow-up and patients' clinical and pain-related characteristics, including pain syndromes. To evaluate these associations, a mixed model was built. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients attending a Palliative Care and Pain Outpatient Clinic from May 2015 to June 2019 were screened. Patients with moderate to severe cancer pain who were already receiving or needed treatment with third step WHO ladder opioids were enrolled in the study. Data from 342 patients with at least one follow-up visit were analyzed. RESULTS: Pain intensity decreased significantly for all patients during time (p < 0.001). Age, sex, emotional distress, pain duration and neuropathic pain presence evaluated by the Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) questionnaire were not significantly associated to pain intensity. Breakthrough/episodic pain was associated with higher pain intensity during follow-up (p < 0.001). The diagnosis of pain syndrome was overall significantly associated with mean pain intensity during follow-up (p = 0.016). Particularly, the concurrent presence of visceral and soft (p = 0.026) or soft and nervous tissue pain (p = 0.043) were significantly related to worse outcome, whereas pain due to only soft tissue damage with better outcome (p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: The recognition of specific pain syndromes may help to better classify cancer pain.

Telemedicine for outpatient palliative care during COVID-19 pandemics: a longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVES: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine (TM) emerged as an important mean to reduce risks of transmission, yet delivering the necessary care to patients. Our aim was to evaluate feasibility, characteristics and satisfaction for a TM service based on phone/video consultations for patients with cancer attending an outpatient palliative care clinic during COVID-19 pandemics. METHODS: A longitudinal observational study was conducted from April to December 2020. Consecutive patients were screened for video consultations feasibility. Either patients or their caregivers received video/phone consultations registering reason and intervention performed. Those contacted at least twice were eligible for experience of care assessment. RESULTS: Video consultations were feasible in 282 of 572 screened patients (49%, 95% CI 45% to 52%); 112 patients among the 572 had at least two phone/video consultations and 12 of them had one or more video consultations. Consultations were carried out with patients (56%), caregivers (30%) or both (14%). 63% of the consultations were requested by the patients/caregivers. Reasons for consultation included uncontrolled (66%) or new symptom onset (20%), therapy clarifications (37%) and updates on diagnostic tests (28%). Most interventions were therapy modifications (70%) and appointments' rescheduling (51%). 49 patients and 19 caregivers were interviewed, reporting good care experience (average of 1-5 satisfaction score of 3.9 and 4.2, respectively). The majority (83% and 84%) declared they would use TM after the pandemics. CONCLUSIONS: Although feasibility is still limited for some patients, TM can be a satisfactory alternative to in-person visits for palliative care patients in need of limiting access to the hospital.

Neuropathic pain: clinical classification and assessment in patients with pain due to cancer.

ABSTRACT: Neuropathic cancer pain (NcP) is associated with worse treatment responses and specific therapy indications, but a standardized clinical diagnosis of NcP is still lacking. This is a prospective observational study on outpatients with cancer, comparing different clinical approaches with NcP evaluation. A three-step assessment of NcP was performed using DN4 (cutoff of 4), palliative care physician Clinical Impression, including etiology and pain syndrome identification, and Retrospective Clinical Classification by a board of specialists with the IASP Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group criteria. Neuropathic cancer pain classification was specifically referred to pain directly due to cancer. Three hundred fifty patients were assessed, and NcP prevalence was 20% (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.9%-24.6%), 36.9%, (95% CI 31.6%-42.1%), and 28.6% (95% CI 23.8%-33.9%) according to DN4, Clinical Impression, and Retrospective Clinical Classification, respectively. Cohen's kappa concordance coefficient between DN4 and Retrospective Clinical Classification was 0.57 (95% CI 0.47-0.67), indicating moderate concordance. Higher percentages of discordance were found for specific pain syndromes such as pain due to deep soft tissue infiltration and pain associated with tenesmus. Disagreement among clinicians accounted also for different NcP diagnoses and highlighted lack of homogeneous clinical criteria. Rigorous application of etiological and syndrome diagnosis to explain pain cause, associated with standardized diagnostic criteria and assessment of pain characteristics, that is also specific for the cancer pain condition could improve clinical classification of NcP.

Outpatient palliative care and thoracic medical oncology: Referral criteria and clinical care pathways.

OBJECTIVES: Recent evidences show that early integration of palliative care (PC) with oncology has a positive impact on patients' quality of life, quality of care and costs. However, there is no consensus on outpatient referral criteria. Based on real world data, the aim of this study was to identify timing and factors associated to PC referral in patients with thoracic malignancies, and to describe their clinical care pathway. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This observational retrospective study included consecutive patients with thoracic cancer, seen for the first time at the Thoracic Medical Oncology outpatient Clinic (TMOC) of our institution, between Jan.01-Dec.31 2014. Patients were followed-up till death or Dec.31 2015. Clinical and demographic data were collected from the electronic patient records. Cox regression models were used to evaluate the association between time to Palliative care Outpatient Clinic (POC) referral and performance status (PS), disease stage and symptoms at inclusion. RESULTS: 229 patients were eligible. 98 of them (43%; 95%IC 36%-49%) were referred to the POC within a median of 30 days (IQR 4-188). 80/98 patients received simultaneous anticancer therapy and PC. Univariable analysis showed that the hazard ratio (HR) of being referred to POC was significantly higher for patients with worse PS (HR = 4.5), more advanced disease stage (HR = 3.1), pain (HR = 4.9), dyspnea (HR = 2.5) and cough (HR = 2.2). The multivariable model confirmed independent prognostic value for PS, disease stage and pain. On Dec.31, 2015, 25/98 patients were still alive, 8 were lost at follow up and 65 had died. Among the latter, 61% died with hospice or home care, and, in the last 30 days of life, 16% received chemotherapy and 29% were admitted to hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest considering symptom burden, PS and disease stage as screening criteria for referral to PC in patients with thoracic malignancies.

Effect of Opioid Exposure on Efficacy and Tolerability of Sublingual Fentanyl and Subcutaneous Morphine for Severe Cancer Pain Episodes. Secondary Analysis From a Double-Blind Double-Dummy, Randomized Trial.

CONTEXT: Few studies have addressed the impact of previous opioid exposure on the effect of opioids for the treatment of severe cancer pain episodes. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to test whether previous exposure to higher opioid doses was associated with a reduced analgesic effect of fentanyl sublingual tablets (FST) and subcutaneous morphine (SCM) and whether it had an influence on their relative effect. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a placebo-controlled randomized trial comparing 100 µg FST with 5 mg SCM for the acute treatment of severe cancer pain episodes. The effect of previous opioid exposure (oral morphine equivalent daily dose from 20 to 120 mg) on pain intensity difference (PID) and side effects at 30 and 60 minutes after administration (PID 0-30 minutes, PID 0-60 minutes, and adverse events 30-60 minutes) and on re-medication for inefficacy, was studied by multivariable linear and logistic regression models and statistical tests for interaction. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients were enrolled. Results indicate modest and nonstatistically significant effect of previous opioid exposure on all the outcomes examined (P = 0.11, P = 0.35, P = 0.07, and P = 0.52, respectively, for PID 0-30 minutes, re-medication, PID 0-60 minutes, and adverse events 30-60 minutes). Nonstatistically significant tests for interaction for all models indicated a lack of impact of previous opioid exposure on the difference in the analgesic effect between treatments. CONCLUSION: In this study, we could not demonstrate an effect of previous opioid exposure, from 20 to 120 mg oral morphine equivalent daily dose, on the absolute and relative efficacy and tolerability of 100 µg FST and 5 mg SCM for severe cancer pain episodes.

Fentanyl Sublingual Tablets Versus Subcutaneous Morphine for the Management of Severe Cancer Pain Episodes in Patients Receiving Opioid Treatment: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Noninferiority Trial.

Purpose Fentanyl sublingual tablets (FST) are a potentially useful alternative to parenteral opioids such as subcutaneous morphine (SCM) to treat severe cancer pain episodes. No direct comparison between FST and SCM is available. The aim of this study was to test noninferiority of FST versus SCM during the first 30 min postadministration. Methods Patients receiving stable opioid therapy and experiencing a severe pain episode were randomly assigned to either 100 µg FST or 5 mg SCM in a double-blind, double-dummy trial. Average pain intensity (PI) assessed on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale at 10, 20, and 30 min postadministration was the main end point. Analysis of covariance, adjusted by baseline PI, was the main analysis. The noninferiority margin (NIm) for the between-group difference was set at -0.6, that is, equal to one third of the minimum clinically important PI difference of two points. Results A total of 114 patients were randomly assigned to either FST (n = 58) or SCM (n = 56). One patient (in the FST group) withdrew consent before drug administration and was excluded from analysis. Baseline mean PIs were 7.5 in both groups; mean average PIs assessed at 10, 20, and 30 min postadministration were 5.0 and 4.5 for FST and SCM, respectively, with the 95% CI of the between-group difference including the NIm (-0.49; 95% CI, -1.10 to 0.09). Patients taking FST received a second drug dose after 30 min more frequently than did patients taking SCM (51% v 37%, respectively; risk difference, -13%; 95% CI, -30% to 3%). Both treatments were well tolerated, with average follow-up adverse event scores below the response of "A Little." Ninety-three percent of patients preferred the sublingual administration. Conclusion This trial did not show noninferiority of FST versus SCM within the chosen NIm. Both treatments were safe, and patients preferred the sublingual route of administration. FST provides analgesia with modest to moderate increased risk of lower efficacy compared with SCM.

Comparison of the Tolerability Profile of Controlled-Release Oral Morphine and Oxycodone for Cancer Pain Treatment. An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial.

CONTEXT: Oxycodone and morphine are recommended as first-choice opioids for moderate/severe cancer pain, but evidence about their relative tolerability has significant methodological limitations. OBJECTIVES: This study was mainly aimed at comparing the risk of developing adverse events (AEs) with controlled-release oral morphine vs. oxycodone; secondary aims were comparing their analgesic efficacy and testing heterogeneity in tolerability across different age and renal function subgroups. METHODS: An open-label multicenter RCT (EudraCT number: 2006-003151-21) was carried out in patients with moderate/severe cancer pain. At baseline, 7 and 14 days, patients scored on 0-10 rating scales (0-10 numerical rating scale) the intensity of pain and of a list of common opioid side effects. The primary end point was the percentage of patients reporting an AE (a worsening ≥ 2 points on any of the listed side effects); tolerability by subgroups and average follow-up pain intensity were compared through regression models. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-seven patients were enrolled (47% of originally planned). Intention to treat (ITT) analysis (N = 185, morphine 94, oxycodone 91) did not show any difference in the risk of developing AEs (risk difference -0.6%, 95% CI -11.0% to 9.9%) nor in analgesia (0-10 numerical rating scale pain intensity difference -0.28, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.27). No evidence of heterogeneity of tolerability across age and renal function patient subgroups emerged. CONCLUSION: This trial failed to show any difference in tolerability and analgesic efficacy of morphine and oxycodone as first-line treatment for moderate/severe cancer pain but results interpretation is difficult due to lack of power, potential bias from open-label design, and concerns about assay sensitivity. These data, however, can significantly contribute to future meta-analyses comparing WHO Step-III opioids and are relevant in designing future randomized studies.

Pharmacokinetic study between a bilayer matrix fentalyl patch and a monolayer matrix fentanyl patch: single dose administration in healthy volunteers.

AIMS: Transdermal fentanyl is a well established treatment for cancer pain. The aim of the present study is to assess the relative bioavailability of fentanyl from two different transdermal systems by evaluating plasma drug concentrations after single administration of Fentalgon® (test), a novel bilayer matrix type patch, and Durogesic SMAT (reference), a monolayer matrix type patch. In the Fentalgon patch the upper 6% fentanyl reservoir layer maintains a stable concentration gradient between the lower 4% donor layer and the skin. The system provides a constant drug delivery over 72 h. METHODS: This was an open label, single centre, randomized, single dose, two period crossover clinical trial, that included 36 healthy male volunteers. The patches were applied to non-irritated and non-irradiated skin on the intraclavicular pectoral area. Blood samples were collected at different time points (from baseline to 120 h post-removal of the devices) and fentanyl concentrations were determined using a validated LC/MS/MS method. Bioequivalence was to be claimed if the 90% confidence interval of AUC(0,t) and C(max) ratios (test: reference) were within the acceptance range of 80-125% and 75-133%, respectively. RESULTS: The 90% confidence intervals of the AUC(0,t) ratio (116.3% [109.6, 123.4%]) and C(max) ratio (114.4% [105.8, 123.8%] were well included in the acceptance range and the C(max) ratio also met the narrower bounds of 80-125%. There was no relevant difference in overall safety profiles of the two preparations investigated, which were adequately tolerated, as expected for opioid-naïve subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The new bilayer matrix type patch, Fentalgon®, is bioequivalent to the monolayer matrix type Durogesic SMAT fentanyl patch with respect to the rate and extent of exposure of fentanyl (Eudra/CT no. 2005-000046-36).

Secondary chronic cluster headache treated by posterior hypothalamic deep brain stimulation: first reported case.

INTRODUCTION: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the posterior hypothalamus (pHyp) has been reported as an effective treatment for primary, drug-refractory and chronic cluster headache (CCH). We here describe the use of such a procedure for the treatment of secondary CCH due to a neoplasm affecting the soft tissues of the right hemiface. METHODS: A 27-year-old man affected by infiltrating angiomyolipoma of the right hemiface who subsequently developed drug refractory homolateral CCH underwent DBS of the right pHyp region at the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Neurologico Carlo Besta. RESULTS: After surgery, the patient presented a significant reduction in frequency of pain bouts. However, because of a subsequent infection, the entire system was removed. After re-implantation of the system, successful outcome was observed at 2 years follow-up. DISCUSSION: This brief report shows the feasibility of pHyp DBS in secondary drug-refractory CCH syndromes; future reports are needed in order to confirm our positive result.

Palliative sedation at the end of life at a tertiary cancer center.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe the use of palliative sedation (PS) its indications and outcomes in patients followed up till death by an inpatient palliative care consult team (PCCT) at a tertiary cancer center. METHODS: All patients referred for 5 years to the PCCT and followed up till death were eligible for the study. Both PCCT recordings and hospital charts were reviewed and a codified assessment was performed. RESULTS: Over a total of 2,033 consecutive consults, 129 patients died during admission and were eligible. Eighty-three had the indication to PS, 4% of all consults (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3% to 5%) and 64% of eligible patients (95%CI, 56% to 73%). PS was more frequently indicated in males and in patients with recurrent dyspnea and recurrent agitation, while it was less frequently indicated in older people and in patients with cerebral metastases and recurrent drowsiness. The most frequent indications to PS were dyspnea (37%) and delirium (31%) alone or combined with other symptoms. PS was successfully achieved in 69 patients; the drugs most frequently used for PS were midazolam (46%), haloperidol (35%), and chlorpromazine (32%) and opioid dose escalation was higher in sedated patients (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: PS is an important intervention in the management of terminal disease by a consulting palliative care team. Improved collaboration and communication between the hospital staff and the PCCT should be offered to meet patients' needs when PS is required.

Comparison of numerical and verbal rating scales to measure pain exacerbations in patients with chronic cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Numerical rating scales (NRS), and verbal rating scales (VRS) showed to be reliable and valid tools for subjective cancer pain measurement, but no one of them consistently proved to be superior to the other. Aim of the present study is to compare NRS and VRS performance in assessing breakthrough or episodic pain (BP-EP) exacerbations. METHODS: In a cross sectional multicentre study carried out on a sample of 240 advanced cancer patients with pain, background pain and BP-EP intensity in the last 24 hours were measured using both a 6-point VRS and a 0-10 NRS. In order to evaluate the reproducibility of the two scales, a subsample of 60 patients was randomly selected and the questionnaire was administered for a second time three to four hours later. The proportion of "inconsistent" (background pain intensity higher than or equal to peak pain intensity) evaluations was calculated to compare the two scales capability in discriminating between background and peak pain intensity and Cohen's K was calculated to compare their reproducibility. RESULTS: NRS revealed higher discriminatory capability than VRS in distinguishing between background and peak pain intensity with a lower proportion of patients giving inconsistent evaluations (14% vs. 25%). NRS also showed higher reproducibility when measuring pain exacerbations (Cohen's K of 0.86 for NRS vs. 0.53 for VRS) while the reproducibility of the two scales in evaluating background pain was similar (Cohen's K of 0.80 vs. 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that, in the measurement of cancer pain exacerbations, patients use NRS more appropriately than VRS and as such NRS should be preferred to VRS in this patient's population.