'Pain-free TRUS B': a phase 3 double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial of methoxyflurane with periprostatic local anaesthesia to reduce the discomfort of transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy (ANZUP 1501).

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the addition of inhaled methoxyflurane to periprostatic infiltration of local anaesthetic (PILA) during transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsies (TRUSBs) improved pain and other aspects of the experience. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized phase 3 trial, involving 420 men undergoing their first TRUSB. The intervention was PILA plus a patient-controlled device containing either 3 mL methoxyflurane, or 3 mL 0.9% saline plus one drop of methoxyflurane to preserve blinding. The primary outcome was the pain score (0-10) reported by the participant after 15 min. Secondary outcomes included ratings of other aspects of the biopsy experience, willingness to undergo future biopsies, urologists' ratings, biopsy completion, and adverse events. RESULTS: The mean (SE) pain scores 15 min after TRUSB were 2.51 (0.22) in those assigned methoxyflurane vs 2.82 (0.22) for placebo (difference 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.75 to 0.14; P = 0.18). Methoxyflurane was associated with better scores for discomfort (difference -0.48, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.03; P = 0.035, adjusted [adj.] P = 0.076), whole experience (difference -0.50, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.08; P = 0.021, adj. P = 0.053), and willingness to undergo repeat biopsies (odds ratio 1.67, 95% CI 1.12-2.49; P = 0.01) than placebo. Methoxyflurane resulted in higher scores for drowsiness (difference +1.64, 95% CI 1.21-2.07; P < 0.001, adj. P < 0.001) and dizziness (difference +1.78, 95% CI 1.31-2.24; P < 0.001, adj. P < 0.001) than placebo. There was no significant difference in the number of ≥ grade 3 adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that methoxyflurane improved pain scores at 15 min, however, improvements were seen in patient-reported discomfort, overall experience, and willingness to undergo repeat biopsies.

Pharmacological management of metastatic boney pain.

Many malignancies metastasise to the skeleton. This often results in a relatively unique pain process, which dramatically affects a patient's quality of life. With one in three members of the population likely to develop cancer at some stage in their lives, the prevalence of bone metastases is high. Despite the large financial investment on therapies for these patients, treatment is still suboptimal. In this article, the various treatments available are reviewed. Opiates and bisphosphonates, the mainstays in current practise, are covered in detail, and evolving therapies that may shape future management are also discussed.

Luteinising hormone releasing hormone analogues in the treatment of prostate cancer.

The use of the luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues--goserelin (Zoladex, AstraZeneca) and leuprorelin (Prostap, Wyeth)--is well established and forms the backbone of the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic prostate cancer. Comparable efficacy with orchidectomy and, historically, diethylstilbestrol (DES) is accepted, with the advantages of reversibility and limited thromboembolic and cardiovascular toxicity, respectively. Side effects such as hot flushes, loss of libido, lethargy and decreased bone mineral density have recently stimulated more interest in the use of non-steroidal anti-androgens such as bicalutamide (Casodex, AstraZeneca) in locally advanced disease. Although better tolerated, bicalutamide has significant problems with gynaecomastia and breast pain. Maximal androgen blockade using LHRH analogues and their adjuvant use with radiotherapy are discussed, as well as their experimental application in intermittent androgen suppression therapy. Similar side effect profiles are reported for the LHRH analogues but injection tolerability differs with the smaller 23G needle for Prostap 3 compared to the 16G needle for Zoladex LA. There is no evidence to suggest a difference in the efficacy between the LHRH analogues goserelin and leuprorelin, although no direct comparison has yet been undertaken.