Membrane Lipid Replacement for reconstituting mitochondrial function and moderating cancer-related fatigue, pain and other symptoms while counteracting the adverse effects of cancer cytotoxic therapy.

Cancer-related fatigue, pain, gastrointestinal and other symptoms are among the most familiar complaints in practically every type and stage of cancer, especially metastatic cancers. Such symptoms are also related to cancer oxidative stress and the damage instigated by cancer cytotoxic therapies to cellular membranes, especially mitochondrial membranes. Cancer cytotoxic therapies (chemotherapy and radiotherapy) often cause adverse symptoms and induce patients to terminate their anti-neoplastic regimens. Cancer-related fatigue, pain and other symptoms and the adverse effects of cancer cytotoxic therapies can be safely moderated with oral Membrane Lipid Replacement (MLR) glycerolphospholipids and mitochondrial cofactors, such as coenzyme Q10. MLR provides essential membrane lipids and precursors to maintain mitochondrial and other cellular membrane functions and reduces fatigue, pain, gastrointestinal, inflammation and other symptoms. In addition, patients with a variety of chronic symptoms benefit from MLR supplements, and MLR also has the ability to enhance the bioavailability of nutrients and slowly remove toxic, hydrophobic molecules from cells and tissues.

Sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent pain in adults with inoperable abdominopelvic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Persistent visceral pain is an unpleasant sensation coming from one or more organs within the body. Visceral pain is a common symptom in those with advanced cancer. Interventional procedures, such as neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks, have been suggested as additional treatments that may play a part in optimising pain management for individuals with this condition. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent visceral pain in adults with inoperable abdominopelvic cancer compared to standard care or placebo and comparing single blocks to combination blocks. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases without language restrictions on 19 October 2022 and ran a top-up search on 31 October 2023: CENTRAL; MEDLINE via Ovid; Embase via Ovid; LILACS. We searched trial registers without language restrictions on 2 November 2022: ClinicalTrials.gov; WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We searched grey literature, checked reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles for additional studies, and performed citation searches on key articles. We also contacted experts in the field for unpublished and ongoing trials. Our trial protocol was preregistered in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 21 October 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any sympathetic nerve block targeting sites commonly used to treat abdominal pelvic pain from inoperable malignancies in adults to standard care or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently selected trials based on predefined inclusion criteria, resolving any differences via adjudication with a third review author. We used a random-effects model as some heterogeneity was expected between the studies due to differences in the interventions being assessed and malignancy types included in the study population. We chose three primary outcomes and four secondary outcomes of interest. We sought consumer input to refine our review outcomes and assessed extracted data using Cochrane's risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE system. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies with 1025 participants in this review. Fifteen studies with a total of 951 participants contributed to the quantitative analysis. Single block versus standard care Primary outcomes No included studies reported our primary outcome, 'Proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days'. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on reducing pain to no worse than mild pain at 14 days when compared to standard care due to insufficient data (very low-certainty evidence). Sympathetic nerve blocks may provide small to 'little to no' improvement in quality of life (QOL) scores at 14 days after treatment when compared to standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.70 to 0.25; I² = 87%; 4 studies, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events as defined in our review as only one study contributed data to this outcome. Sympathetic nerve blocks may have an 'increased risk' to 'no additional risk' of harm compared with standard care (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Sympathetic nerve blocks showed a small to 'little to no' effect on participant-reported pain scores at 14 days using a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) -0.44, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.11; I² = 56%; 5 studies, 214 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be a 'moderate to large' to 'little to no' reduction in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure at 14 days with sympathetic nerve blocks compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (change in daily consumption of opioids at 14 days as oral milligrams morphine equivalent (MME): MD -41.63 mg, 95% CI -78.54 mg to -4.72 mg; I² = 90%; 4 studies, 130 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to insufficient data. Combination block versus single block Primary outcomes There is no evidence about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on the proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days because no studies reported this outcome. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect on QOL score at 14 days after treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events with combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks due to limited reporting in the included studies (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on participant-reported pain score and change in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure, at 14 days. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). There is no evidence about the effect on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to these outcomes not being measured by the studies. Risk of bias The risk of bias was predominately high for most outcomes in most studies due to significant concerns regarding adequate blinding. Very few studies were deemed as low risk across all domains for any outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to support or refute the use of sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent abdominopelvic pain due to inoperable malignancy. We are very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks. The certainty of the evidence is very low and these findings should be interpreted with caution.

Phenotyping of chronic pain in breast cancer survivors: an original study using the cancer pain phenotyping (CANPPHE) Network multidisciplinary international guidelines.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this cross-sectional study is to examine the prevalence of pain phenotypes in breast cancer survivors (BCS). A secondary aim entails examining whether health related quality of life differs between the main pain phenotypes in BCS. METHODS: BCS who experienced chronic pain were asked to complete the numeric pain rating scale for pain, Margolis pain diagram, and short form 36 (SF-36). Following administration of questionnaires and quantitative sensory examinations were applied. To determine the prevalence of the predominant type of pain, a recently proposed classification system by the Cancer Pain Phenotyping (CANPPHE) Network was used. RESULTS: Of the 86 female participants, 19 (22.09%) had dominant neuropathic pain, 18 (20.93%) had dominant nociceptive pain and 14 (16.28%) had dominant nociplastic pain. 35 participants (40.70%) were classified as having mixed pain. One-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference between the four pain groups for the SF-36 general health (F = 3.205, p = 0.027), social functioning (F = 4.093, p = 0.009), and pain (F = 3.603, p = 0.017) subscale scores. CONCLUSION: This study found that pain in BCS was mostly of mixed phenotype, followed by predominantly neuropathic and nociplastic pain. Furthermore, it was found that, compared to BCS with predominant neuropathic and nociceptive pain, BCS with predominant nociplastic pain have lower health related quality of life in the areas of bodily pain and social functioning.

Pain response in single-fraction 8-Gy radiotherapy for painful non-bone-metastasis tumors: a single-center retrospective study.

The effectiveness of single-fraction 8-Gy radiotherapy for painful bone metastases has been verified in numerous randomized controlled trials. However, few reports have described the effectiveness of single-fraction 8-Gy radiotherapy in painful tumors other than bone metastases. We conducted a retrospective analysis to evaluate the pain response to single-fraction 8-Gy radiotherapy in painful non-bone-metastasis tumors. We included patients who had received single-fraction 8-Gy radiotherapy for such tumors between January 2017 and December 2022, excluding those with brain metastases, hematological tumors and those who received re-irradiation. Pain response assessment was based on the best responses documented in the medical records and conducted by two radiation oncologists. A total of 36 eligible patients were included in this study. The irradiation sites included primary lesions in eight patients, lymph node metastases in eight, muscle metastases in seven, pleural dissemination in four, skin/subcutaneous metastases in four and other sites in five. Pain response was assessed in 24 patients after radiotherapy. Pain response rate was 88% in evaluable patients; 21 of the 24 patients experienced response. The median assessment date for pain response was 37 days (range: 8-156 days) after radiotherapy. Re-irradiation was performed in four patients (11%). Single-fraction 8-Gy radiotherapy seemed to be a promising treatment option for painful non-bone-metastasis tumors and warrants further investigation.

Using Nerve Blocks for Addressing Radiation-Induced Pain During Pelvic Cancer Treatment.

This Viewpoint discusses the use of nerve blocks for pain during pelvic cancer treatment.

The use of interventional procedures for cancer pain. A brief review.

CONTEXT: Pain is a common experience in people living with cancer. Concerns around opioid prescribing have seen a move toward a multi-modality management approach, which includes interventional pain procedures. PURPOSE: In this paper we discuss the interventional pain procedures used to treat cancer pain at two major tertiary centers in Australia. METHODS AND RESULTS: This expert review provides practical insights on cancer pain management from healthcare providers in different specialties. These insights can be used to guide the management of a wide range of cancer pain types. CONCLUSIONS: Furthermore, this review identifies the need for a systematic and comprehensive approach to the management of cancer pain that is broader than that of a single specialty. With recent advances in pain management procedures, an interdisciplinary approach is essential in order to provide an up to date, patient tailored approach to pain management. This review will help inform the development of a cancer pain intervention registry.

Microwave ablation combined with percutaneous vertebroplasty for treating painful non-small cell lung cancer with spinal metastases under real-time temperature monitoring.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively study the therapeutic effect and safety performance of the combination strategies of the computed tomography (CT)-guided microwave ablation (MWA) and percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) as a treatment for painful non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with spinal metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review included 71 patients with 109 vertebral metastases who underwent microwave ablation combined with percutaneous vertebroplasty by the image-guided and real-time temperature monitoring. Treatment efficacy was determined by comparing visual analog scale (VAS) scores, daily morphine equivalent opioid consumption, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores before treatment and during the follow-up period. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in all patients. The mean pre-procedure VAS score and morphine doses were 6.6 ± 1.8 (4-10) and 137.2 ± 38.7 (40-200) mg, respectively. The mean VAS scores and daily morphine doses at 24 h and 1, 4, 12, and 24 weeks postoperatively were 3.3 ± 1.9 and 73.5 ± 39.4 mg; 2.2 ± 1.5 and 40.2 ± 29.8 mg; 1.7 ± 1.2 and 31.3 ± 23.6 mg; 1.4 ± 1.1 and 27.3 ± 21.4 mg; and 1.3 ± 1.1 and 24.8 ± 21.0 mg, respectively (all P < 0.001). ODI scores significantly decreased (P < 0.05). Minor cement leakage occurred in 51 cases (46.8%), with one patient having a grade 3 neural injury. No local tumor progression was observed by follow-up imaging. CONCLUSIONS: MWA combined with PVP can significantly relieve pain and improve patients' quality of life, which implied this is an effective treatment option for painful NSCLC with spinal metastases. Additionally, its efficacy should be further verified through the mid- and long-term studies.

Ghrelin Induces the Production of Hypothalamic NPY Through the AMPK-mTOR Pathway to Alleviate Cancer-induced Bone Pain.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) is one of the most common symptoms of bone metastasis of tumor cells. The hypothalamus may play a pivotal role in the regulation of CIBP. However, little is known about the exact mechanisms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: First, we established a CIBP model to explore the relationship among hypothalamic ghrelin, NPY and CIBP. Then, we exogenously administered NPY and NPY receptor antagonists to investigate whether hypothalamic NPY exerted an antinociceptive effect through binding to NPY receptors. Finally, we exogenously administered ghrelin to investigate whether ghrelin alleviated CIBP by inducing the production of hypothalamic NPY through the AMPK-mTOR pathway. Body weight, food intake and behavioral indicators of CIBP were measured every 3 days. Hypothalamic ghrelin, NPY and the AMPK-mTOR pathway were also measured. RESULTS: The expression of hypothalamic ghrelin and NPY was simultaneously decreased in cancer-bearing rats, which was accompanied by CIBP. Intracerebroventricular (i.c.v.) administration of NPY significantly alleviated CIBP in the short term. The antinociceptive effect of NPY was reversed with the i.c.v. administration of the Y1R and Y2R antagonists. The administration of ghrelin activated the AMPK-mTOR pathway and induced hypothalamic NPY production to alleviate CIBP. This effect of ghrelin on NPY and antinociception was reversed with the administration of a GHS-R1α antagonist. CONCLUSION: Ghrelin could induce the production of hypothalamic NPY through the AMPK-mTOR pathway to alleviate CIBP, which can provide a novel therapeutic mechanism for CIBP.

Comparative Analysis of Stereotactic Radiation Therapy and Conventional Radiation Therapy in Cancer Pain Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

AIMS: Approximately 55% of patients diagnosed with primary or metastatic cancer endure pain directly attributable to the disease. Consequently, it becomes imperative to address pain management through a comparative analysis of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) and conventional radiation therapy (CRT), especially in light of the less efficacious improvement achieved solely through pharmacological interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic exploration was undertaken on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier's ScienceDirect databases to identify studies that compare Stereotactic Radiotherapy to Conventional radiation therapy for pain management in individuals with metastatic bone cancer. The analyses were executed utilizing the random-effects model. RESULTS: A cohort of 1152 participants with metastatic bone cancer was analyzed, demonstrating significantly higher complete pain relief in the Stereotactic Radiotherapy group during both early and late follow-up (RR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.17, 2.23, p-value: 0.004; I2: 0%). Stereotactic Radiotherapy also showed a non-significant increase in the incidence of partial pain relief (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.34, p-value: 0.56; I2: 18%). Furthermore, Stereotactic Radiotherapy was associated with a significantly reduced risk of stationary pain throughout follow-up (RR: 0.61; 95%CI: 0.48, 0.76, p-value: <0.0001; I2: 0. The incidence of progressive pain was non-significantly reduced with Stereotactic Radiotherapy during both early and late follow-up (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.50, 1.17, p-value: 0.22; I2: 0%). Secondary outcomes exhibited a non-significant trend favoring Stereotactic Radiotherapy for dysphagia, esophagitis, pain, and radiodermatitis, while a non-significant increase was observed for nausea, fatigue, and vertebral compression fracture. CONCLUSION: In summary, stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) has improved in achieving complete pain relief while exhibiting a decreased probability of delivering stationary pain compared to conventional radiation therapy (CRT). Nevertheless, it is crucial in future research to address a noteworthy limitation, specifically, the risk of vertebral compression fracture.

Randomized controlled trial of an app for cancer pain management.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this investigation was to devise a mobile application for self-management of cancer-related discomfort, with the overarching goal of enhancing patients' overall well-being. Would the utilization of the self-management application result in an amelioration of life quality compared to conventional follow-up procedures? METHODS: Modules were meticulously devised with the collaborative expertise of oncology pain specialists employing the Delphi technique. Reliability of the consultation was assessed using Cronbach's α. After developing the app, a prospective randomized controlled study was conducted to evaluate the app's effect on participants' quality of life. The trial group used the app; the control group received a follow-up telephone consultation. Assessments of quality of life were conducted both at baseline and following a 4-week intervention period. RESULTS: After two rounds of Delphi expert consultation, the functional modules of Pain Guardian were determined to include five functional modules, including pain self-measurement (real-time dynamic recording of pain by patients), patient reminders (reminders of outbreaks of pain disposal, medication, and review), uploading of examination reports, online consultation, health education, and other functional modules. Cronbach's α was 0.81. Overall, 96 patients (including esophageal, gastric, colorectal, nasopharyngeal, pulmonary, pancreatic, breast, ovarian, uterine, bone, thoracic, bladder, cervical, soft tissue sarcoma, mediastinal, and lymphoma) with cancer pain were divided into the trial and control groups. There were no significant differences in basic information and quality of life at baseline between groups. After 4 weeks of intervention, quality of life was significantly higher in the trial group than in the control group. Patients' satisfaction with the app was high (93.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The primary obstacle encountered in the development of applications for managing cancer-related discomfort lies in the sensitive nature of the subject matter, potentially leading to patient apprehension regarding application usage for pain management. Consequently, meticulous attention to user preferences and anticipations is imperative, necessitating the creation of an application characterized by user-friendliness and medical efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trials Registry ChiCTR1800016066; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=27153 . Date of Registration: 2018-05-09.

Netrin-1 Role in Nociceptive Neuron Sprouting through Activation of DCC Signaling in a Rat Model of Bone Cancer Pain.

BACKGROUND: Bone cancer pain (BCP) is a common primary or metastatic bone cancer complication. Netrin-1 plays an essential role in neurite elongation and pain sensitization. This study aimed to determine the role of netrin-1 from the metastatic bone microenvironment in BCP development and identify the associated signaling pathway for the strategy of BCP management. METHODS: The rat BCP model was established by intratibial implantation of Walker 256 cells. Von Frey filaments measured the mechanical pain threshold. Movement-induced pain was assessed using limb use scores. Expressions of associated molecules in the affected tibias or dorsal root ganglia (DRG) were measured by immunofluorescence, immunohistochemistry, real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction, or western blotting. Transduction of deleted in colorectal cancer (DCC) signaling was inhibited by intrathecal injection of DCC-siRNA. RESULTS: In BCP rats, the presence of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-positive nerve fibers increased in the metastatic bone lesions. The metastatic site showed enrichment of well-differentiated osteoclasts and expressions of netrin-1 and its attractive receptor DCC. Upregulation of DCC and increased phosphorylation levels of focal adhesion kinase (FAK) and Rac family small GTPase 1/Cell division cycle 42 (Rac1/Cdc42) were found in the DRG. Intrathecal administration of DCC-siRNA led to a significant reduction in FAK and Rac1/Cdc42 phosphorylation levels in the DRG, decreased nociceptive nerve innervation, and improved pain behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Netrin-1 may contribute to the activation of the BCP by inducing nociceptive nerve innervation and improving pain behaviors.

Classical cannabinoid receptors as target in cancer-induced bone pain: a systematic review, meta-analysis and bioinformatics validation.

To test the hypothesis that genetic and pharmacological modulation of the classical cannabinoid type 1 (CB1) and 2 (CB2) receptors attenuate cancer-induced bone pain, we searched Medline, Web of Science and Scopus for relevant skeletal and non-skeletal cancer studies from inception to July 28, 2022. We identified 29 animal and 35 human studies. In mice, a meta-analysis of pooled studies showed that treatment of osteolysis-bearing males with the endocannabinoids AEA and 2-AG (mean difference [MD] - 24.83, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] - 34.89, - 14.76, p < 0.00001) or the synthetic cannabinoid (CB) agonists ACPA, WIN55,212-2, CP55,940 (CB1/2-non-selective) and AM1241 (CB2-selective) (MD - 28.73, 95%CI - 45.43, - 12.02, p = 0.0008) are associated with significant reduction in paw withdrawal frequency. Consistently, the synthetic agonists AM1241 and JWH015 (CB2-selective) increased paw withdrawal threshold (MD 0.89, 95%CI 0.79, 0.99, p < 0.00001), and ACEA (CB1-selective), AM1241 and JWH015 (CB2-selective) reduced spontaneous flinches (MD - 4.85, 95%CI - 6.74, - 2.96, p < 0. 00001) in osteolysis-bearing male mice. In rats, significant increase in paw withdrawal threshold is associated with the administration of ACEA and WIN55,212-2 (CB1/2-non-selective), JWH015 and AM1241 (CB2-selective) in osteolysis-bearing females (MD 8.18, 95%CI 6.14, 10.21, p < 0.00001), and treatment with AM1241 (CB2-selective) increased paw withdrawal thermal latency in males (mean difference [MD]: 3.94, 95%CI 2.13, 5.75, p < 0.0001), confirming the analgesic capabilities of CB1/2 ligands in rodents. In human, treatment of cancer patients with medical cannabis (standardized MD - 0.19, 95%CI - 0.35, - 0.02, p = 0.03) and the plant-derived delta-9-THC (20 mg) (MD 3.29, CI 2.24, 4.33, p < 0.00001) or its synthetic derivative NIB (4 mg) (MD 2.55, 95%CI 1.58, 3.51, p < 0.00001) are associated with reduction in pain intensity. Bioinformatics validation of KEGG, GO and MPO pathway, function and process enrichment analysis of mouse, rat and human data revealed that CB1 and CB2 receptors are enriched in a cocktail of nociceptive and sensory perception, inflammatory, immune-modulatory, and cancer pathways. Thus, we cautiously conclude that pharmacological modulators of CB1/2 receptors show promise in the treatment of cancer-induced bone pain, however further assessment of their effects on bone pain in genetically engineered animal models and cancer patients is warranted.

[The Fusion of Cancer Treatment and Cancer Pain Management].

Cancer treatment and cancer pain management constitute a dual approach aimed at improving the quality of life for patients. Their relationship must be complementary. Advances in cancer treatment have been remarkable, leading to increased survival rates in most types of cancer. However, there is a concern about the growing number of patients living with pain. Compared to the advancements in cancer treatment, progress in cancer pain management has been slow. As a basis for this observation, the available opioid analgesics and adjuvant pain-relieving medications have not increased significantly when compared to several years ago, and breakthrough treatments have yet to emerge. Even upon surveying guidelines both domestically and internationally, recommendations for cancer pain treatment are notably ambiguous. In recent years, however, opioid analgesics have proven to be a"double-edged sword". While they play a central role in cancer pain management, they also have cellular effects on tumor proliferation or suppression. This effect varies depending on the type of cancer, and it may be influenced differently by the content of cancer treatment, such as cytotoxic anticancer drugs, molecular targeted drugs, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and more. It may be time to recognize that cancer pain management has an impact on cancer treatment itself. Therefore, a crucial attitude is needed for closer collaboration between experts in cancer treatment and cancer pain management, fostering a co-creative approach in clinical and research settings. Professions such as pharmacists and nurses are essential for bridging this gap. To achieve the fusion beyond the integration of cancer treatment and cancer pain management, a transdisciplinary team, surpassing the boundaries of an interdisciplinary team, is necessary.

Everything old is new again. revisiting hypophysectomy for the treatment of refractory cancer-related pain: a systematic review.

Cancer-related pain is a common and debilitating condition that can significantly affect the quality of life of patients. Opioids, NSAIDs, and antidepressants are among the first-line therapies, but their efficacy is limited or their use can be restricted due to serious side effects. Neuromodulation and lesioning techniques have also proven to be a valuable instrument for managing refractory pain. For patients who have exhausted all standard treatment options, hypophysectomy may be an effective alternative treatment. We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of the available literature on PubMed and Scielo databases on using hypophysectomy to treat refractory cancer-related pain. Data extraction from included studies included study design, treatment model, number of treated patients, sex, age, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score, primary cancer site, lead time from diagnosis to treatment, alcohol injection volume, treatment data, and clinical outcomes. Statistical analysis was reported using counts (N, %) and means (range). The study included data from 735 patients from 24 papers treated with hypophysectomy for refractory cancer-related pain. 329 cancer-related pain patients were treated with NALP, 216 with TSS, 66 with RF, 55 with Y90 brachytherapy, 51 with Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GK), and 18 with cryoablation. The median age was 58.5 years. The average follow-up time was 8.97 months. Good pain relief was observed in 557 out of 735 patients, with complete pain relief in 108 out of 268 patients. Pain improvement onset was observed 24 h after TSS, a few days after NALP or cryoablation, and a few days to 4 weeks after GK. Complications varied among treatment modalities, with diabetes insipidus (DI) being the most common complication. Although mostly forgotten in modern neurosurgical practice, hypophysectomy is an attractive option for treating refractory cancer-related pain after failure of traditional therapies. Radiosurgery is a promising treatment modality due to its high success rate and reduced risk of complications.

Electroacupuncture attenuates nociceptive behaviors in a mouse model of cancer pain.

Pain is a major symptom in cancer patients, and cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) is the most common type of moderate and severe cancer-related pain. The current available analgesic treatments for CIBP have adverse effects as well as limited therapeutic effects. Acupuncture is proved effective in pain management as a safe alternative therapy. We evaluated the analgesic effect of acupuncture in treatment of cancer pain and try to explore the underlying analgesic mechanisms. Nude mice were inoculated with cancer cells into the left distal femur to establish cancer pain model. Electroacupuncture (EA) treatment was applied for the xenograft animals. Pain behaviors of mice were evaluated, followed by the detections of neuropeptide-related and inflammation-related indicators in peripheral and central levels. EA treatment alleviated cancer-induced pain behaviors covering mechanical allodynia, thermal hyperalgesia and spontaneous pain, and also down-regulated immunofluorescence expressions of neuropeptide CGRP and p75 in the skin of affected plantar area in xenograft mice, and inhibited expressions of overexpressed neuropeptide-related and inflammation-related protein in the lumbar spinal cord of xenograft mice. Overall, our findings suggest that EA treatment ameliorated cancer-induced pain behaviors in the mouse xenograft model of cancer pain, possibly through inhibiting the expressions of neuropeptide-related and inflammation-related protein in central level following tumor cell xenografts.

Cannabinoids for Cancer-related Pain Management: An Update on Therapeutic Applications and Future Perspectives.

Pain is a debilitating phenomenon that dramatically impairs the quality of life of patients. Many chronic conditions, including cancer, are associated with chronic pain. Despite pharmacological efforts that have been conducted, many patients suffering from cancer pain remain without treatment. To date, opioids are considered the preferred therapeutic choice for cancer-related pain management. Unfortunately, opioid treatment causes side effects and inefficiently relieves patients from pain, therefore alternative therapies have been considered, including Cannabis Sativa and cannabinoids. Accumulating evidence has highlighted that an increasing number of patients are choosing to use cannabis and cannabinoids for the management of their soothing and non-palliative cancer pain and other cancer-related symptoms. However, their clinical application must be supported by convincing and reproducible clinical trials. In this review, we provide an update on cannabinoid use for cancer pain management. Moreover, we tried to turn a light on the potential use of cannabis as a possible therapeutic option for cancer-related pain relief.

Palliative radiotherapy for painful non-bone lesions in patients with advanced cancer: a single center retrospective study.

PURPOSE: This retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of palliative radiotherapy for painful non-bone lesions in patients with advanced cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We enrolled patients with painful non-bone lesions who underwent conventional palliative radiotherapy between September 2018 and September 2022. The treatment targets included primary tumor lesions, lymph node metastases, non-bone hematogenous metastases, and other lesions. The primary endpoint was the overall pain response rate in evaluable patients, determined based on the International Consensus Pain Response Endpoint criteria. The secondary endpoints included overall survival, pain recurrence, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 420 screened patients, 142 received palliative radiotherapy for painful non-bone lesions, and 112 were evaluable. A pain response was achieved in 67 patients (60%) of the 112 evaluable patients within a median of 1.2 months. Among these patients, 25 exhibited complete response, 42 partial response, 18 indeterminate response, and 27 pain progression. The median survival time was 5.5 months, recorded at a median follow-up of 6.0 months, during which 67 patients died. Multivariate analysis identified poor performance status scores of 2-4, opioid use, and re-irradiation as independent factors associated with a reduced likelihood of achieving a pain response. Pain recurrence occurred in 18 patients over a median of 4.1 months. Seventeen patients had grade 1-2 adverse events, while none experienced grade 3 or higher toxicity. CONCLUSION: Palliative radiotherapy can potentially be a safe and well-tolerated modality for managing painful non-bone lesions, with a low rate of adverse events.

Current cannabis use and pain management among US cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: National studies reporting the prevalence of cannabis use have focused on individuals with a history of cancer without distinction by their treatment status, which can impact symptom burden. While pain is a primary motivation to use cannabis in cancer, the magnitude of its association with cannabis use remains understudied. METHODS: We examined cannabis use and pain management among 5523 respondents of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System with a cancer history. Survey-weighted prevalence proportions of respondents' cannabis use are reported, stratified on cancer treatment status. Regression models estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of cancer-related pain and cannabis use. RESULTS: Cannabis use was slightly more prevalent in those undergoing active treatment relative to those who were not undergoing active treatment (9.3% vs. 6.2%; P=0.05). Those under active treatment were more likely to use cannabis medicinally (71.6% vs. 50.0%; P=0.03). Relative to those without cancer-related pain, persons with pain under medical control (OR 2.1, 95% CI, 1.4-3.2) or uncontrolled pain were twice as likely to use cannabis (OR 2.0, 95% CI, 1.1-3.5). CONCLUSIONS: Use of cannabis among cancer patients may be related to their treatment and is positively associated with cancer-related pain. Future research should investigate the associations of cannabis use, symptom burden, and treatment regimens across the treatment spectrum to facilitate interventions.