Cannabis-based medicines and medical cannabis for adults with cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate-to-severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) medications are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. Pain is not sufficiently relieved by opioid medications in 10% to 15% of people with cancer. In people with insufficient relief of cancer pain, new analgesics are needed to effectively and safely supplement or replace opioids. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines, including medical cannabis, for treating pain and other symptoms in adults with cancer compared to placebo or any other established analgesic for cancer pain. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected double-blind randomised, controlled trials (RCT) of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment for cancer pain in adults, with any treatment duration and at least 10 participants per treatment arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcomes were 1. proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved and 3. withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 4. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater and overall opioid use reduced or stable; 5. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater, or 50% or greater; 6. pain intensity; 7. sleep problems; 8. depression and anxiety; 9. daily maintenance and breakthrough opioid dosage; 10. dropouts due to lack of efficacy; 11. all central nervous system adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 studies involving 1823 participants. No study assessed the proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain on treatment by 14 days after start of treatment. We found five RCTs assessing oromucosal nabiximols (tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)) or THC alone involving 1539 participants with moderate or severe pain despite opioid therapy. The double-blind periods of the RCTs ranged between two and five weeks. Four studies with a parallel design and 1333 participants were available for meta-analysis. There was moderate-certainty evidence that there was no clinically relevant benefit for proportions of PGIC much or very much improved (risk difference (RD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 8 to 100). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 25, 95% CI 16 to endless). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no difference between nabiximols or THC and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07). There was moderate-certainty evidence that nabiximols and THC used as add-on treatment for opioid-refractory cancer pain did not differ from placebo in reducing mean pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.02). There was low-certainty evidence that a synthetic THC analogue (nabilone) delivered over eight weeks was not superior to placebo in reducing pain associated with chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer (2 studies, 89 participants, qualitative analysis). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that synthetic THC analogues were superior to placebo (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.60), but not superior to low-dose codeine (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.32; 5 single-dose trials; 126 participants) in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain after cessation of previous analgesic treatment for three to four and a half hours (2 single-dose trials; 66 participants). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies. There was low-certainty evidence that CBD oil did not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain intensity in people with advanced cancer. There was no difference in the number of dropouts due to adverse events and serious adverse events (1 study, 144 participants, qualitative analysis). We found no studies using herbal cannabis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that oromucosal nabiximols and THC are ineffective in relieving moderate-to-severe opioid-refractory cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that nabilone is ineffective in reducing pain associated with (radio-) chemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. There is low-certainty evidence that a single dose of synthetic THC analogues is not superior to a single low-dose morphine equivalent in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that CBD does not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain in people with advanced cancer.

ANTECEDENTES: El dolor es un síntoma común en las personas con cáncer; entre el 30% y el 50% de las personas con cáncer experimentarán dolor de moderado a intenso. Esto puede tener un gran impacto negativo en su calidad de vida. Los fármacos opiáceos (similares a la morfina) se utilizan habitualmente para tratar el dolor por cáncer moderado o intenso, y se recomiendan para este propósito en la escala de tratamiento del dolor de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). El dolor no se alivia lo suficiente con los medicamentos opiáceos en el 10% al 15% de las personas con cáncer. En las personas con un alivio insuficiente del dolor por cáncer, se necesitan nuevos analgésicos que complementen o sustituyan de forma eficaz y segura a los opiáceos. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos beneficiosos y perjudiciales de los medicamentos con cannabis, incluido el cannabis medicinal, para tratar el dolor y otros síntomas en adultos con cáncer en comparación con placebo o cualquier otro analgésico establecido para el dolor por cáncer. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se utilizaron los métodos exhaustivos estándar de búsqueda de Cochrane. La última fecha de búsqueda fue el 26 de enero de 2023. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se seleccionaron los ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) doble ciego de cannabis medicinal, medicamentos derivados de plantas y sintéticos con cannabis versus placebo o cualquier otro tratamiento activo para el dolor por cáncer en adultos, con cualquier duración del tratamiento y al menos 10 participantes por grupo de tratamiento. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Se utilizaron los métodos estándar de Cochrane. Los desenlaces principales fueron los siguientes: 1. proporción de participantes que declararon dolor leve; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) de mucha o muchísima mejoría y 3. retiros debido a eventos adversos. Los desenlaces secundarios fueron 4. número de participantes que declararon un alivio del dolor del 30% o superior y un consumo general de opiáceos reducido o estable; 5. número de participantes que declararon un alivio del dolor del 30% o superior, o del 50% o superior; 6. intensidad del dolor; 7. problemas de sueño; 8. depresión y ansiedad; 9. dosis diaria de opiáceos de mantenimiento y de inicio; 10. abandonos por falta de eficacia; 11. todos los eventos adversos del sistema nervioso central. Se utilizó el método GRADE para evaluar la calidad de la evidencia de cada desenlace. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se identificaron 14 estudios con 1823 participantes. Ningún estudio evaluó las proporciones de participantes que declararon un dolor no peor que leve a los 14 días de inicio del tratamiento. Se encontraron cinco ECA que evaluaron nabiximoles oromucosos (tetrahidrocannabinol [THC] y cannabidiol [CBD]) o THC solo, con 1539 participantes con dolor moderado o intenso a pesar del tratamiento con opiáceos. Los periodos doble ciego de los ECA variaron entre dos y cinco semanas. Para el metanálisis se dispuso de cuatro estudios con un diseño paralelo y 1333 participantes. Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que no hubo efectos beneficiosos clínicamente relevantes en las proporciones de PGIC de mucha o muchísima mejoría (diferencia de riesgos [DR] 0,06; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,01 a 0,12; número necesario a tratar para lograr un resultado beneficioso adicional [NNTB] 16; IC del 95%: 8 a 100). Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que no hubo diferencias clínicamente relevantes en la proporción de retiros debido a eventos adversos (DR 0,04; IC del 95%: 0 a 0,08; número necesario a tratar para lograr un desenlace perjudicial adicional [NNTD] 25; IC del 95%: 16 a infinito). Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que no hubo diferencias entre nabiximols o THC y placebo en la frecuencia de eventos adversos graves (DR 0,02; IC del 95%: ­0,03 a 0,07). Hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que los nabiximoles y el THC utilizados como tratamiento complementario para el dolor por cáncer refractario a los opiáceos no difirieron del placebo en cuanto a la reducción de la intensidad media del dolor (diferencia de medias estandarizada [DME] ­0,19; IC del 95%: ­0,40 a 0,02). Hubo evidencia de certeza baja de que un análogo sintético del THC (nabilona) administrado durante ocho semanas no fue superior a placebo para reducir el dolor asociado con la quimioterapia o la radioquimioterapia en personas con cáncer de cabeza y cuello y cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas (dos estudios, 89 participantes, análisis cualitativo). En estos estudios no fue posible realizar análisis de tolerabilidad y seguridad. Hubo evidencia de certeza baja de que los análogos sintéticos del THC fueron superiores a placebo (DME ­0,98; IC del 95%: ­1,36 a ­0,60), pero no superiores a la codeína en dosis bajas (DME 0,03; IC del 95%: ­0,25 a 0,32; cinco ensayos de dosis única; 126 participantes) en cuanto a la reducción del dolor moderado a intenso por cáncer después de la interrupción del tratamiento analgésico previo durante tres a cuatro horas y media (dos ensayos de dosis única; 66 participantes). En estos estudios no fue posible realizar análisis de tolerabilidad y seguridad. Hubo evidencia de certeza baja de que el aceite de CBD no agregó valor a los cuidados paliativos especializados solos en la reducción de la intensidad del dolor en personas con cáncer avanzado. No hubo diferencias en el número de abandonos debido a eventos adversos ni eventos adversos graves (un estudio, 144 participantes, análisis cualitativo). No se encontraron estudios que utilizaran la planta de cannabis. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Existe evidencia de certeza moderada de que los nabiximoles y el THC por vía oromucosa no son efectivos para aliviar el dolor de moderado a intenso por cáncer refractario a los opiáceos. Hay evidencia de certeza baja de que la nabilona no es efectiva para reducir el dolor asociado con la radio­quimioterapia en personas con cáncer de cabeza y cuello y cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas. Hay evidencia de certeza baja de que una dosis única de análogos sintéticos del THC no es superior a una dosis única baja equivalente de morfina para reducir el dolor moderado a intenso por cáncer. Hay evidencia de certeza baja de que el CBD no aporta valor a los cuidados paliativos especializados solos en la reducción del dolor en personas con cáncer avanzado.

Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: This review updates part of an earlier Cochrane Review titled "Pregabalin for acute and chronic pain in adults", and considers only neuropathic pain (pain from damage to nervous tissue). Antiepileptic drugs have long been used in pain management. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug used in management of chronic pain conditions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of pregabalin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2009 to April 2018, online clinical trials registries, and reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing pregabalin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and biases. Primary outcomes were: at least 30% pain intensity reduction over baseline; much or very much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scale (moderate benefit); at least 50% pain intensity reduction; or very much improved on PGIC (substantial benefit). We calculated risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial (NNTB) or harmful outcome (NNTH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 45 studies lasting 2 to 16 weeks, with 11,906 participants - 68% from 31 new studies. Oral pregabalin doses of 150 mg, 300 mg, and 600 mg daily were compared with placebo. Postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, and mixed neuropathic pain predominated (85% of participants). High risk of bias was due mainly to small study size (nine studies), but many studies had unclear risk of bias, mainly due to incomplete outcome data, size, and allocation concealment.Postherpetic neuralgia: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (50% vs 25%; RR 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 2.6); NNTB 3.9 (3.0 to 5.6); 3 studies, 589 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (32% vs 13%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.4); NNTB 5.3 (3.9 to 8.1); 4 studies, 713 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (62% vs 24%; RR 2.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.2); NNTB 2.7 (2.2 to 3.7); 3 studies, 537 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 15%; RR 2.7 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.5); NNTB 3.9 (3.1 to 5.5); 4 studies, 732 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 16% versus 5.5%, 600 mg 25% versus 5.8%; dizziness 300 mg 29% versus 8.1%, 600 mg 35% versus 8.8%.Painful diabetic neuropathy: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 300 mg than with placebo (47% vs 42%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.2); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 8 studies, 2320 participants, moderate-quality evidence), more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (31% vs 24%; RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.5); NNTB 22 (12 to 200); 11 studies, 2931 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and more had PGIC much or very much improved (51% vs 30%; RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.0); NNTB 4.9 (3.8 to 6.9); 5 studies, 1050 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (63% vs 52%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.4); NNTB 9.6 (5.5 to 41); 2 studies, 611 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (41% vs 28%; RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.7); NNTB 7.8 (5.4 to 14); 5 studies, 1015 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence and dizziness were more common with pregabalin than with placebo (moderate-quality evidence): somnolence 300 mg 11% versus 3.1%, 600 mg 15% versus 4.5%; dizziness 300 mg 13% versus 3.8%, 600 mg 22% versus 4.4%.Mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (48% vs 36%; RR 1.2 (1.1 to 1.4); NNTB 8.2 (5.7 to 15); 4 studies, 1367 participants, low-quality evidence), and more had at least 50% pain intensity reduction (34% vs 20%; RR 1.5 (1.2 to 1.9); NNTB 7.2 (5.4 to 11); 4 studies, 1367 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Somnolence (12% vs 3.9%) and dizziness (23% vs 6.2%) were more common with pregabalin.Central neuropathic pain: More participants had at least 30% pain intensity reduction with pregabalin 600 mg than with placebo (44% vs 28%; RR 1.6 (1.3 to 2.0); NNTB 5.9 (4.1 to 11); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence) and at least 50% pain intensity reduction (26% vs 15%; RR 1.7 (1.2 to 2.3); NNTB 9.8 (6.0 to 28); 3 studies, 562 participants, low-quality evidence). Somnolence (32% vs 11%) and dizziness (23% vs 8.6%) were more common with pregabalin.Other neuropathic pain conditions: Studies show no evidence of benefit for 600 mg pregabalin in HIV neuropathy (2 studies, 674 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and limited evidence of benefit in neuropathic back pain or sciatica, neuropathic cancer pain, or polyneuropathy.Serious adverse events, all conditions: Serious adverse events were no more common with placebo than with pregabalin 300 mg (3.1% vs 2.6%; RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 17 studies, 4112 participants, high-quality evidence) or pregabalin 600 mg (3.4% vs 3.4%; RR 1.1 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.5); 16 studies, 3995 participants, high-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence shows efficacy of pregabalin in postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuralgia, and mixed or unclassified post-traumatic neuropathic pain, and absence of efficacy in HIV neuropathy; evidence of efficacy in central neuropathic pain is inadequate. Some people will derive substantial benefit with pregabalin; more will have moderate benefit, but many will have no benefit or will discontinue treatment. There were no substantial changes since the 2009 review.

Perioperative intravenous ketamine for acute postoperative pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate pain management after surgery increases the risk of postoperative complications and may predispose for chronic postsurgical pain. Perioperative ketamine may enhance conventional analgesics in the acute postoperative setting. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of perioperative intravenous ketamine in adult patients when used for the treatment or prevention of acute pain following general anaesthesia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to July 2018 and three trials registers (metaRegister of controlled trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of adults undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia and being treated with perioperative intravenous ketamine. Studies compared ketamine with placebo, or compared ketamine plus a basic analgesic, such as morphine or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), with a basic analgesic alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality and potential bias, and performed analyses. Primary outcomes were opioid consumption and pain intensity at rest and during movement at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were time to first analgesic request, assessment of postoperative hyperalgesia, central nervous system (CNS) adverse effects, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included 130 studies with 8341 participants. Ketamine was given to 4588 participants and 3753 participants served as controls. Types of surgery included ear, nose or throat surgery, wisdom tooth extraction, thoracotomy, lumbar fusion surgery, microdiscectomy, hip joint replacement surgery, knee joint replacement surgery, anterior cruciate ligament repair, knee arthroscopy, mastectomy, haemorrhoidectomy, abdominal surgery, radical prostatectomy, thyroid surgery, elective caesarean section, and laparoscopic surgery. Racemic ketamine bolus doses were predominantly 0.25 mg to 1 mg, and infusions 2 to 5 µg/kg/minute; 10 studies used only S-ketamine and one only R-ketamine. Risk of bias was generally low or uncertain, except for study size; most had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm, resulting in high heterogeneity, as expected, for most analyses. We did not stratify the main analysis by type of surgery or any other factor, such as dose or timing of ketamine administration, and used a non-stratified analysis.Perioperative intravenous ketamine reduced postoperative opioid consumption over 24 hours by 8 mg morphine equivalents (95% CI 6 to 9; 19% from 42 mg consumed by participants given placebo, moderate-quality evidence; 65 studies, 4004 participants). Over 48 hours, opioid consumption was 13 mg lower (95% CI 10 to 15; 19% from 67 mg with placebo, moderate-quality evidence; 37 studies, 2449 participants).Perioperative intravenous ketamine reduced pain at rest at 24 hours by 5/100 mm on a visual analogue scale (95% CI 4 to 7; 19% lower from 26/100 mm with placebo, high-quality evidence; 82 studies, 5004 participants), and at 48 hours by 5/100 mm (95% CI 3 to 7; 22% lower from 23/100 mm, high-quality evidence; 49 studies, 2962 participants). Pain during movement was reduced at 24 hours (6/100 mm, 14% lower from 42/100 mm, moderate-quality evidence; 29 studies, 1806 participants), and 48 hours (6/100 mm, 16% lower from 37 mm, low-quality evidence; 23 studies, 1353 participants).Results for primary outcomes were consistent when analysed by pain at rest or on movement, operation type, and timing of administration, or sensitivity to study size and pain intensity. No analysis by dose was possible. There was no difference when nitrous oxide was used. We downgraded the quality of the evidence once if numbers of participants were large but small-study effects were present, or twice if numbers were small and small-study effects likely but testing not possible.Ketamine increased the time for the first postoperative analgesic request by 54 minutes (95% CI 37 to 71 minutes), from a mean of 39 minutes with placebo (moderate-quality evidence; 31 studies, 1678 participants). Ketamine reduced the area of postoperative hyperalgesia by 7 cm² (95% CI -11.9 to -2.2), compared with placebo (very low-quality evidence; 7 studies 333 participants). We downgraded the quality of evidence because of small-study effects or because the number of participants was below 400.CNS adverse events occurred in 52 studies, while 53 studies reported of absence of CNS adverse events. Overall, 187/3614 (5%) participants receiving ketamine and 122/2924 (4%) receiving control treatment experienced an adverse event (RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.4; high-quality evidence; 105 studies, 6538 participants). Ketamine reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting from 27% with placebo to 23% with ketamine (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96; the number needed to treat to prevent one episode of postoperative nausea and vomiting with perioperative intravenous ketamine administration was 24 (95% CI 16 to 54; high-quality evidence; 95 studies, 5965 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative intravenous ketamine probably reduces postoperative analgesic consumption and pain intensity. Results were consistent in different operation types or timing of ketamine administration, with larger and smaller studies, and by higher and lower pain intensity. CNS adverse events were little different with ketamine or control. Perioperative intravenous ketamine probably reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting by a small extent, of arguable clinical relevance.

Translational research will fail without surgical leadership: SCOTRRCC a successful surgeon-led Nationwide translational research infrastructure in renal cancer.

BACKGROUND: High quality human biosamples with associated high quality clinical data are essential for successful translational research. Despite this, the traditional approach is for the surgeon to act as a technician in the tissue collection act. Biomarker research presents multiple challenges and the field is littered with failures. Tissue quality, poor clinical information, small sample numbers and lack of validation cohorts are just a few reasons for failure. It is clear that the surgeon involved in tissue acquisition must be fully engaged in the process of biosampling for a specific condition, as this will negate many of the issues for translational research failure due to an inadequate bioresource. APPROACH: In this Matter for Debate paper, the Scottish Collaboration On Translational Research into Renal Cell Cancer (SCOTRRCC) is discussed as an example of a urological surgery lead bioresource which has resulted in a National collection of renal cancer tissue and blood (from over 900 patients to date), negating all of the traditional issues with biobanks because of close enagagement and acknowledgement of urologists and uropathologists from seven centres around Scotland. SCOTRRCC has leveraged renal cancer research in Scotland resulting in several high impact publications and providing a springboard for future research in this disease in Scotland and beyond. CONCLUSIONS: The SCOTRRCC model presented here can be transferred to other surgical disciplines for success in translational research.

Should Subanesthetic Ketamine be Considered When Managing Opioid Refractory Cancer Pain?

In the cancer pain setting, ketamine has been typically employed as a co-analgesic for opioid refractory and neuropathic pain. One controversial topic is whether subanesthetic ketamine be considered when managing opioid refractory cancer pain. In this "Controversies in Palliative Care" article, three clinicians independently answer this question. Specifically, each clinician provides a synopsis of the key studies that inform their thought processes, share practical advice on their clinical approach, and highlight the opportunities for future research. Three independent clinicians reported a divergence of opinion regarding the usefulness of subanesthetic ketamine for managing opioid refractory cancer pain. All investigators acknowledged the lack of high-quality trials. All agreed on the need for adequately powered trials, the development of standardized methodology, and the exploration of any patient sub-populations that may benefit from ketamine for cancer related pain.

Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for fibromyalgia and quality of review methods: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is defined as chronic widespread pain associated with sleep disorders, cognitive dysfunction, and somatic symptoms present for at least three months and cannot be better explained by another diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: To examine efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for FMS in adults reported in Cochrane Reviews, and reporting quality of reviews. METHODS: Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions for FMS were identified from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR 2022, Issue 3 and CDSR 2023 Issue 6). Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool and a set of methodological criteria critical for analgesic effects. The primary efficacy outcomes of interest were clinically relevant pain relief, improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), acceptability, safety, and reduction of mobility difficulties as reported by study participants. No pooled analyses were planned. We assumed a clinically relevant improvement was a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) between interventions and controls of 15%, or a SMD of more than 0.2, or a MD of more than 0.5, on a 0 to 10 scale. RESULTS: Ten Cochrane reviews were eligible, reporting 181 randomized or quasi- randomized trials (11,917 participants, average trial size 66 participants). The reviews examined exercise training, acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and psychological therapies. One review was rated moderate according to AMSTAR 2, seven were rated low and two were rated critically low. All reviews met most of the additional methodological quality criteria. All reviews included studies with patient-reported outcomes for pain. We found low certainty evidence of clinically relevant positive effects of aerobic and mixed exercise training and for cognitive behavioural therapies (CBTs) at reducing mobility difficulties and for mixed exercise training and CBTs for improving HRQoL at the end of the intervention. Number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) values for a MCID of 15% ranged between 4 and 9. We found low certainty evidence that was clinically relevant for mixed exercise and CBTs for reducing mobility difficulties at an average follow up of 24 weeks. We found low certainty evidence of clinically relevant positive effects of mixed exercise on HRQoL at an average follow up of 24 weeks. NNTB values for a MCID of 15% ranged from 5 to 11. The certainty of evidence of the acceptability (measured by dropouts) of the different non-pharmacological interventions ranged from very low to moderate and the dropout rate for any reason did not differ across the interventions or the controls, except for biofeedback and movement therapies. All the systematic reviews stated that the reporting of adverse events was inconsistent in the studies analysed (very low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low certainty evidence of clinically relevant reduction of mobility difficulties and of improvement of HRQoL among individuals with FMS by aerobic and mixed exercise training and by CBTs at the end of the intervention. There is low certainty evidence that CBTs and mixed exercise training reduces mobility difficulties post-treatment and that mixed exercise training improves HRQoL at follow-up by clinically meaningful scores.

Effect of Early Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation for Trauma Patients: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review to assess the current scientific evidence concerning the effect of EIR for trauma patients with or without an associated traumatic brain injury. DATA SOURCE: We performed a systematic search of several electronic (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and SveMed+) and 2 clinical trial registers (clinicaltrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). In addition, we handsearched reference lists from relevant studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Two review authors independently identified studies that were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome measures were functional-related outcomes and return to work. The secondary outcome measures were length of stay in hospital, number of days on respirator, complication rate, physical and mental health measures, quality of life, and socioeconomic costs. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four studies with a total number of 409 subjects, all with traumatic brain-associated injuries, were included in this review. The included trials varied considerably in study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and had small numbers of participants. All studies were judged to have at least 1 high risk of bias. We found the quality of evidence, for both our primary and secondary outcomes, low. CONCLUSIONS: No studies that matched our inclusion criteria for EIR for trauma patients without traumatic brain injuries could be found. For traumatic brain injuries, there are a limited number of studies demonstrating that EIR has a positive effect on functional outcomes and socioeconomic costs. This review highlights the need for further research in trauma care regarding early phase interdisciplinary rehabilitation.

DNA methylation-based profiling for paediatric CNS tumour diagnosis and treatment: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Marked variation exists in the use of genomic data in tumour diagnosis, and optimal integration with conventional diagnostic technology remains uncertain despite several studies reporting improved diagnostic accuracy, selection for targeted treatments, and stratification for trials. Our aim was to assess the added value of molecular profiling in routine clinical practice and the impact on conventional and experimental treatments. METHODS: This population-based study assessed the diagnostic and clinical use of DNA methylation-based profiling in childhood CNS tumours using two large national cohorts in the UK. In the diagnostic cohort-which included routinely diagnosed CNS tumours between Sept 1, 2016, and Sept 1, 2018-we assessed how the methylation profile altered or refined diagnosis in routine clinical practice and estimated how this would affect standard patient management. For the archival cohort of diagnostically difficult cases, we established how many cases could be solved using modern standard pathology, how many could only be solved using the methylation profile, and how many remained unsolvable. FINDINGS: Of 484 patients younger than 20 years with CNS tumours, 306 had DNA methylation arrays requested by the neuropathologist and were included in the diagnostic cohort. Molecular profiling added a unique contribution to clinical diagnosis in 107 (35%; 95% CI 30-40) of 306 cases in routine diagnostic practice-providing additional molecular subtyping data in 99 cases, amended the final diagnosis in five cases, and making potentially significant predictions in three cases. We estimated that it could change conventional management in 11 (4%; 95% CI 2-6) of 306 patients. Among 195 historically difficult-to-diagnose tumours in the archival cohort, 99 (51%) could be diagnosed using standard methods, with the addition of methylation profiling solving a further 34 (17%) cases. The remaining 62 (32%) cases were unresolved despite specialist pathology and methylation profiling. INTERPRETATION: Together, these data provide estimates of the impact that could be expected from routine implementation of genomic profiling into clinical practice, and indicate limitations where additional techniques will be required. We conclude that DNA methylation arrays are a useful diagnostic adjunct for childhood CNS tumours. FUNDING: The Brain Tumour Charity, Children with Cancer UK, Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity, Olivia Hodson Cancer Fund, Cancer Research UK, and the National Institute of Health Research.

Rapid screening of tissue microarrays for Her-2 fluorescence in situ hybridization testing is an accurate, efficient and economic method of providing an entirely in situ hybridization-based Her-2 testing service.

AIMS: Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) testing is the 'gold standard' method for Her-2 status assessment in breast cancer patients, yet is only employed in about 30% of tests carried out because of cost and labour considerations. We have previously described tissue microarray (TMA)-based testing to eliminate cost constraints, and now describe a rapid screening approach to reduce time spent testing. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined 88 cases of invasive breast cancer on TMAs comparing formal FISH scoring with a rapid screening technique. Each core was screened by two observers and results recorded as positive, equivocal or negative. Each approach was timed. Data were analysed by comparing the rapid screening results with formal counts. Using rapid screening, two-thirds of negative and half the positive cases could be eliminated with 100% accuracy. It took 2 min per observer per case to rapid screen six TMA cores at x100 magnification. The remaining cases required formal counting, which took no longer than with whole-section techniques. CONCLUSION: Rapid screening of TMAs for routine Her-2 FISH testing is safe, economical and time efficient. The technique ensures that all patients receive 'gold standard' testing.

[Elderly patients with chronic pain]. / Den eldre pasienten med kroniske smerter.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a serious and frequent health problem in elderly people. We have assessed main characteristics of chronic pain in elderly patients referred to a Norwegian multidisciplinary pain clinic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Medical records were assessed for patients with chronic pain who were at least 60 years old (n = 48) and treated at the Pain clinic, Haukeland University hospital in 2004. Pain was assessed in relation to sociodemographic, somatic and psychosocial factors. RESULTS: Pain in the lower extremities and various types of back pain were most frequently reported. Somatic and psychiatric comorbidity (including sleep disturbances) was prevalent. INTERPRETATION: The results confirm findings from a number of studies on main characteristics of chronic pain conditions in the elderly. It is important that regular general practitioners emphasize psychosocial factors when assessing and treating chronic pain in the elderly.

Ketamine for pain management.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

[Percutaneous cervical cordotomy in intractable cancer pain]. / Perkutan cervikal kordotomi ved intraktable kreftsmerter.

Percutaneous cordotomy by the lateral high cervical approach may be indicated in the treatment of intractable nociceptive or neuropathic cancer pain below the C5 dermatome. A description of the technique and two case studies are presented.

[Pain treatment in patients on chronic opioid therapy and in drug abusers]. / Smertelindring ved stoffmisbruk eller langvarig opioidbehandling.

BACKGROUND: Substance abuse in pain management can undermine treatment compliance, the effectiveness of therapies, and social support and functioning. MATERIAL: An overview is given regarding pain management for patients on chronic use of opioids and for patients with drug dependence and substance abuse. RESULTS: Clinical experience as well as relevant documentation demonstrates that management of these patients remains one of the most challenging problems in clinical medicine. CONCLUSION: Assessment and treatment plans for this patient group require an understanding of tolerance, physical dependence and drug abuse. It is imperative that the patient's ongoing treatment is planned in a multidisciplinary setting, so as to assure a consistent, structured and shared approach by all caregivers.

Utilizing mRNA extracted from small, archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded prostate samples for translational research: assessment of the effect of increasing sample age and storage temperature.

INTRODUCTION: Translational prostate cancer research is hampered by long intervals from diagnosis to patient progression and difficulty in obtaining cancer tissue for investigation. As such, it is imperative to utilise aging formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue samples from the pathology archive with linked patient outcome data to allow current day research. This study aimed to assess the adequacy and quantity of mRNA extracted from formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) prostate tissue, including prostate biopsies, up to 15 years old. The decay of mRNA over time and under differing storage conditions was also assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Archived FFPE benign prostatic tissue up to 15 years old from transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and transrectal ultrasound guided (TRUS) biopsies as well as fresh tissue obtained from patients undergoing TURP for benign bladder outlet obstruction were used. Following mRNA extraction beta-actin real-time PCR was carried out using a set of 4 different primer/probes to assess mRNA quality and quantity. RESULTS: There was no difference in mRNA quantity/quality extracted from "fresh" FFPE tissue from the same patient over a 4-month period following surgery. The temperature of block storage did not alter quality/quantity of the mRNA (P > 0.05, unpaired t test). Fresh tissue had a higher quality/quantity, indicated by a lower C ( T ) value, than FFPE samples from the same patient (P ≤ 0.03, one-way ANOVA). Despite being up to 15 years old, all archived FFPE TURP and TRUS biopsy samples had "high" or "very high" levels of expression making them suitable for further analysis. However, the quality of the mRNA in archived FFPE samples did significantly decline with increasing sample age. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to extract mRNA of sufficient standard for further transcriptomic analysis from minute FFPE samples up to 15 years old. This work adds to the literature suggesting that exploitation of retrospective prostate tissue collections with robust associated clinical data is possible.