门诊癌性疼痛患者强阿片类药物应用的疗效分析

目的探讨门诊癌性疼痛患者强阿片类药物使用情况,改善癌性疼痛药物治疗的规范性及效果。方法选择2017年6月至2017年9月在江苏省肿瘤医院镇痛门诊首次就诊并符合下述入组条件的患者为研究对象:门诊治疗患者;NRS评分≥4分;治疗周期≥1个月且耐受阿片类药物治疗;有病理结果确诊依据,肿瘤分期为Ⅲ期~Ⅳ期,不再进行根治性治疗。根据世界卫生组织三阶梯止痛治疗原则及《NCCN成人癌性疼痛临床实践指南》要求使用阿片类药物,并对药物剂量、使用效果、不良反应等情况进行分析。结果共入组40例患者,患者疼痛缓解后吗啡日剂量为40~600 mg。神经病理性疼痛和混合性疼痛患者吗啡日均用量较内脏痛和躯体痛患者大,两者比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。阿片类药物对所有癌性疼痛均有效,但对躯体痛疗效最明显。药物主要不良反应有:便秘(57.5%)、恶心呕吐(15.0%)、排尿困难(7.5%)和头晕(5.0%)等。结论癌性疼痛是一种总疼痛,多模式干预为最佳治疗策略,强阿片药物治疗癌性内脏痛效果明显,药物滴定及动态评估是提高疗效的重要环节,另外,门诊癌痛患者定期随访不可或缺,要充分体现全程管理理念,不断提高患者生活质量。     

《癌症知多少——老年肿瘤》分册问答选登(四)

听说给肿瘤患者的止痛药物都是吗啡类药物,长期应用会"成瘾"吗? 这个顾虑完全是不必要的. 国内外的大量实践已经证明,阿片类药物(包括吗啡)用于肿瘤疼痛的患者是目前最有效的止痛治疗,对于晚期患者而言,有时甚至是唯一有效的治疗.癌症疼痛本身就是对阿片类药物"成瘾"的最好的"拮抗",癌症患者使用阿片类药物止痛"成瘾"的病例极为罕见.     

阿片类药物治疗终末期癌痛患者的临床分析

目的：分析终末期癌症患者应用阿片类镇痛药物的剂量与安全性。方法：回顾性分析181例终末期癌症患者中138例（76．3％）用阿片类药物镇痛，比较不同性别、年龄、原发肿瘤部位和转移部位阿片镇痛药物疗效及副作用。结果：可评价的138例中，用硫酸吗啡控释片（美施康定）105例（76．1％），芬太尼透皮帖剂（多瑞吉）21例（15．3％），弱阿片类12例（8．7％）。日平均吗啡口服量男性高于女性（P=0．02）；随着年龄增大，用药剂量减少（P〈0．05），不同部位肿瘤患者用量无明显差异（P〉0．05）。用硫酸吗啡控释片发生呼吸抑制需解救者4例（3．8％），便秘发生率11．4％。无药物过量致死亡患者。结论：阿片类镇痛药物使用剂量与性别和年龄有一定关系，原发病灶与剂量无关，不良反应可控制。     

144例结直肠癌肝转移原发灶切除术后临床病理特征和预后分析

目的:分析144例结直肠癌肝转移原发灶切除术后患者的临床病理特征和预后。方法:回顾性分析病理证实的144例结直肠癌肝转移原发灶切除术后患者的临床病理特征和预后,Kaplan-Meier法分析生存率,Log-rank检验比较组间生存差异。结果:144例结直肠癌肝转移组及其中77例结直肠癌同时性肝转移亚组的中位生存期分别为28个月和21个月,所有病例分析显示原发肿瘤分化程度、肝转移发生时间、肝转移灶数目及治疗方法与预后显著相关(P＜0.05);同时性肝转移亚组分析显示原发肿瘤分化程度、性别、TNM分期与预后显著相关(P＜0.05);两组病例分析显示年龄对患者总生存期的影响无统计学差异(P＞0.05)。结论:原发肿瘤低分化、同时性肝转移、多发肝转移及单纯化疗是结直肠癌肝转移原发灶术后患者独立预后不良因素。原发肿瘤低分化、男性及Ⅱ-Ⅲ期是结直肠癌同时性肝转移原发灶术后患者独立预后不良因素。年龄对结直肠癌肝转移原发灶切除术后患者总生存期的影响无统计学意义。     

新疆地区199例甲状腺癌临床病理分析

目的:探讨新疆地区人群中甲状腺癌发病状况及病理学特征.方法:对1997年至2006年期间新疆医科大学第一附属医院收治的199例甲状腺癌患者病理学特征进行分析.结果:2004年-2006年新疆地区人群甲状腺癌的年均收治患者人数比以前6年高30%以上;女性患者人数比男性高约2.3倍,不同民族之间无显著差异;50岁以下女性患者为52.56%,男性为37.07%;汉族患者占129例(64.82%), 维吾尔族患者47例(23.62%),其他少数民族23例(11.56%);根据甲状腺肿瘤的组织病理学分型情况, 乳头状腺癌居首位,136例(68.34%),其类型依次为滤泡癌47例(23.62%),髓样癌11例(5.53%),未分化癌5例(2.51%);参加手术和放/化疗治疗的患者为150例(75.38%),癌症转移并直接进行放/化疗患者28例(14.07%).结论:过去10年当中我院收治甲状腺癌患者逐年增多,说明新疆地区人群中甲状腺癌的发病率呈逐年上升趋势.其中乳头状癌居首位;女性甲状腺癌的高发年龄分布30岁-50岁,男性人群高发年龄在60岁-69岁,维、汉两族人群甲状腺癌的男女发病比例有明显差异;但甲状腺癌的亚类在维、汉两民族之间无显著性差异.     

非小细胞肺癌组织PD-L1的表达及其与临床因素的关系

目的:探索程序性死亡配体1 (programmed death-ligand 1,PD-L1)在中国非小细胞肺癌(non-small cell lung carcinoma,NSCLC)患者肿瘤组织中的表达水平及影响因素.方法:免疫组织化学法检测2008年4月至2014年8月天津医科大学肿瘤医院122例NSCLC初治患者肿瘤组织中PD-L1、PD-1和CD3+T细胞表达情况,采用x2和kruskal-wallis检验分析PD-L1表达在临床因素中分布差异性,用Person检验和Spearman检验分析PD-L1表达与EGFR基因型、CD3+T细胞数量及淋巴细胞PD-1表达的相关性,以及原发灶与淋巴结PD-L1表达相关性.结果:所有患者原发灶肿瘤细胞PD-L1表达百分比中位值1.5％(0～93.2％),PD-L1表达在TNM分期分布上有统计学差异(P =0.003),与TNM分期呈显著正相关(r=0.273,P=0.002),与性别、年龄、有无吸烟史、肿瘤最大径、病理类型、CEA水平分布无显著相关(P ＞0.05);PD-L1表达水平与CD3+T细胞数量、淋巴细胞PD-1表达水平无相关性,PD-L1表达阴性、低表达和高表达与表皮生长因子受体(epidermal growth factor receptor,EGFR)基因突变亦无显著相关(P ＞0.05);48例有淋巴结转移的NSCLC患者原发灶与相应转移淋巴结肿瘤细胞PD-L1表达水平无统计学相关性(P＞0.05).结论:NSCLC患者原发灶肿瘤细胞PD-L1表达在TNM分期分布上有差异,与CD3+T细胞数量、淋巴细胞PD-1表达水平、EGFR基因突变情况无相关性;原发灶与相应转移淋巴结之间肿瘤细胞PD-L1的表达亦没有相关性.     

癌症三阶梯止痛563例分析

目的:观察癌症疼痛患者用三阶梯止痛治疗的疗效与不良反应.方法:563例经病理诊断的恶性肿瘤患者,按疼痛程度不同给予不同的止痛治疗.Ⅰ级疼痛:消炎痛25mg,白天1次/4h,共4次,睡前加或不加安定口服.Ⅱ级疼痛:用上述药物后观察24h,若疼痛无缓解,改用舒尔芬1片口服,每天4次,睡前加用安定口服.Ⅲ级疼痛:在Ⅱ级疼痛用药的基础上加用吗啡片5mg,1次/4h,据实际疗效来调整用量,每次递加5mg,直至患者无痛;或者加吗啡控释片(美施康定)30mg,1次/12h,逐渐递加,直至达到满意止痛效果.结果:563例患者中,529例有效,总有效率94.0%.Ⅰ级疼痛止痛有效率为100%,Ⅱ级疼痛止痛有效率为97.2%,Ⅲ级疼痛止痛有效率为79.0%.不良反应:皮疹5例,黑便3例,尿潴留7例,诱发肝昏迷1例.用鸦片类镇痛药止痛者105例,无1例出现精神依赖.结论:世界卫生组织推荐的三阶梯止痛法,安全、有效,应大力推广,造福患者.     

237例原发鼻咽癌患者临床病理分期特征及性别差异

目的:探讨鼻咽癌患者临床病理特征、分期及性别差异。方法:对2009年10月至2012年9月间行放射治疗的237例鼻咽癌患者的临床资料、病理类型、肿瘤部位及TNM分期做回顾性分析和性别间比较。结果:237例患者男∶女=2.65∶1,发病年龄35-70岁多见,发病高峰在45-64岁。女性的高峰年龄高于男性,但差异不显著(P=0.088)。吸烟和饮酒率男性为58.1%和40.7%、女性为20.0%和1.5%,两性间差别显著(P=0.000)。城市人口是农村人口的1.89倍,但男女间城乡分布差别不明显。初诊时T3和N3占的比例高,分别为46.8%和44.7%,有远处转移的占4.6%。男女间TNM分期无明显差别。以鼻部症状和颈部包块为首发症状的分别为38.4%和35.9%。肿瘤位于顶后壁最多(205例),其次为侧壁(166例),前壁和底壁少见,多壁为60.8%,侧壁与耳部症状相关(P=0.047)。病理类型非角化型鳞癌222例(分化型120例,未分化型102例),角化型2例,男女间病理类型分布无明显差异。结论:鼻咽癌患者男性多于女性,男性吸烟及饮酒者明显高于女性。男女间病理类型、TNM分期及发病年龄无明显差别。首诊时T及N分期较晚,以颈部包块、鼻和耳部症状就诊的患者临床上应予以重视。     

术中阿片类药物用量对脑胶质瘤患者术后生存期的影响

目的:探究术中阿片类药物剂量对胶质瘤患者术后生存期的影响。方法:回顾性分析165例接受肿瘤切除术的脑胶质瘤患者的临床资料。根据术中阿片类药物剂量中位数(2.1 mg),将患者分为高剂量组和低剂量组。采用Kaplan-Meier法绘制生存曲线、Cox风险回归模型进行影响总生存期(overall survival, OS)和无复发生存期(relapse-free survival, RFS)的单因素和多因素分析,研究高剂量组和低剂量组之间OS和RFS的关系。结果:单因素Cox回归分析发现高、低剂量组之间在RFS(HR:1.082,95%CI:0.914～1.280,P=0.360)和OS(HR:1.099,95%CI:0.925～1.305,P=0.282)方面无差异。多因素Cox回归分析发现,术中阿片类药物剂量与RFS(HR:0.807,95%CI:0.537～1.212,P=0.301)和OS(HR:0.908,95%CI:0.599～1.378,P=0.650)无关。Kaplan-Meier法生存分析结果显示,高、低剂量组之间的RFS(P=0.525)和OS(P=0.332)无统计学...     

影响青少年鼻咽癌患者长期生存的因素分析

对36例放疗后存活10年以上与112例放疗后5年内死亡的30岁以下青少年鼻咽癌患者的性别、年龄、临床期别、病理类型、原发灶照射剂量及放疗结束时有无肉眼肿瘤残存等因素作对比分析。结果表明原发灶放射利量与放疗结束时有无肉眼肿瘤残存在两组之间有非常显著性差异(P<0.001),而两组患者的性别、年龄、病理类型及临床期别均无明显统计学差异(P>0.05)提示原发性放射剂量与放疗结束时有无肉眼肿瘤残存是影响青少年鼻咽癌预后的因素。     

Clinical experience with transdermal and orally administered opioids in palliative care patients--a retrospective study

BACKGROUND: Transdermal fentanyl is a widely used opioid for the treatment of cancer pain. Simplicity of use and high patient compliance are the main advantages of this opioid. However, based on our clinical experience, transdermal fentanyl is often not efficacious in terminally ill palliative care patients. We thus retrospectively examined the pain management and need for opioid switching in cancer patients admitted to our palliative care unit. METHODS: Of 354 patients admitted to our palliative care unit from 2004 through 2005, 81 patients were pre-treated with transdermal fentanyl. Demographic and cancer-related data (diagnosis, symptoms, pain score on a numeric rating scale (NRS)), analgesic dose at admission and discharge were compared. Statistics: mean +/- SD, ANOVA, Wilcoxon's test was used for inter-group comparisons, significance P < 0.05, adjusted for multiple testing. Pain scores are given in median (range). RESULTS: Mean transdermal fentanyl dose at admission was 81.0 +/- 55.8 microg/h. In 79 patients transdermal fentanyl treatment was discontinued. In two patients, analgesic treatment according to WHO I provided sufficient pain relief. The other 77 patients were switched to other opioids: 33 patients to oral morphine and 44 to oral hydromorphone. In patients switched to morphine the dose at discharge (104.7 +/- 89.0 mg) was lower than at admission (165.5 mg morphine equivalence). In patients switched to hydromorphone the dose of 277.8 +/- 255.0 mg morphine equivalent was higher at discharge than at admission (218.2 +/- 131.4 mg morphine equivalence--considering an equianalgesic conversion ratio morphine: hydromorphone = 7.5: 1). Pain scores decreased significantly after opioid rotation (NRS at rest/on exertion: 4 (0-10)/7 (2-10) versus 1 (0-3)/2 (0-5); P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the patient group switched to morphine, sufficient pain relief was achieved by lower equianalgesic morphine doses, compared with the doses at admission. In the patient group switched to hydromorphone, higher equianalgesic morphine doses were needed at discharge, considering an equianalgesic conversion ratio of morphine: hydromorphone = 7.5: 1. Patients with far advanced cancer often suffer from sweating and cachexia, which may have negative effects on the absorption of transdermal fentanyl. Opioid switching to oral morphine or hydromorphone was well tolerated and proved to be an efficacious option for cancer pain treatment.     

癌痛治疗120例临床分析

目的调查中重度癌痛患者强阿片类及第一类精神药物的使用情况。方法从疾病类别、患者年龄及性别方面,回顾性分析120例中重度癌痛患者使用强阿片类药物、曲马多口服制剂、盐酸布桂嗪针剂的情况。结果使用强阿片类药物的患者中,男性多于女性（P=0.004〈0.05）。强阿片类、曲马多口服制剂及盐酸布桂嗪针剂的日最大剂量男性均大于女性。使用强阿片类药物（P=0.030〈0.05）和盐酸布桂嗪针剂者（P=0.019〈0.05）的日平均剂量,男性也大于女性。≥60岁组便秘发生率高于〈60岁组,差异具有统计学差异（P=0.023〈0.05）。结论癌痛患者中男性使用强阿片类药物的比率高于女性,且强阿片类药物与盐酸布桂嗪针剂的日平均应用剂量也高于女性。50～59岁组强阿片类药物的日平均应用剂量最高。因强阿片类药物对老年患者的不良反应较重,尤其是便秘,该类药用药剂量应酌减。     

Gabapentin for neuropathic cancer pain: a randomized controlled trial from the Gabapentin Cancer Pain Study Group.

PURPOSE: To determine the analgesic effect of the addition of gabapentin to opioids in the management of neuropathic cancer pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-one consecutive patients with neuropathic pain due to cancer, partially controlled with systemic opioids, participated in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-design, 10-day trial from August 1999 to May 2002. Gabapentin was titrated from 600 mg/d to 1,800 mg/d in addition to stable opioid dose. Extra opioid doses were available as needed. Zero to 10 numerical scale was used to rate average daily pain. The average pain score over the whole follow-up period was used as main outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures were: intensity of burning pain, shooting/lancinating pain, dysesthesias (also scored on 0 to 10 numerical scale), number of daily episodes of lancinating pain, presence of allodynia, and daily extra doses of opioid analgesics. RESULTS: Overall, 79 patients received gabapentin and 58 (73%) completed the study; 41 patients received placebo and 31 (76%) completed the study. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on the intent-to-treat population showed a significant difference of average pain intensity between gabapentin (pain score, 4.6) and placebo group (pain score, 5.4; P =.0250). Among secondary outcome measures, dysesthesia score showed a statistically significant difference (P =.0077; ANCOVA on modified intent-to-treat population = 115 patients with at least 3 days of pain assessments). Reasons for withdrawing patients from the trial were adverse events in six patients (7.6%) receiving gabapentin and in three patients receiving placebo (7.3%). CONCLUSION: Gabapentin is effective in improving analgesia in patients with neuropathic cancer pain already treated with opioids.     

A randomised controlled study on the use of anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with cancer pain on morphine therapy: effects on dose-escalation and a pharmacoeconomic analysis

The role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in cancer pain has been well established in the treatment of mild pain and in association with opioids in the treatment of moderate to severe pain. The aim of this study was to verify the effects of NSAIDs on morphine escalation in advanced cancer patients with pain followed-up at home and to assess the pharmacoeconomic implications. A prospective randomised controlled study was carried out in 156 consecutive advanced cancer patients with pain followed-up at home in the period December 1999-December 2000. In this group of patients, 47 were selected with pain progression after 1 week of opioid stabilisation. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group 'O' patients were treated with continuing opioid escalation according to their clinical needs; group 'OK' received ketorolac 60 mg/daily orally (p.o.) in three doses and then continued opioid escalation according to their clinical situation. Performance status, doses of morphine before and after starting treatment, mean weekly pain intensity (assessed by means of a numerical scale from 0 to 10), mean weekly symptoms intensity, adverse effects and pain mechanisms were recorded. Moreover, drug costs per day in both groups were calculated. Patients who received ketorolac in addition to morphine showed a better analgesia after a week in comparison to the group treated with morphine only (P=0.005). Thereafter, morphine escalation was slower and the maximum morphine dose was lower in the group treated with ketorolac. The incidence and the severity of gastric discomfort was more evident in patients treated with ketorolac, while constipation was significantly increased in patients who received morphine only. Drug costs per day were similar in both groups; statistical differences were observed in patients who started on lower morphine doses (<100 mg/daily) in the two groups (4.3 in the ketorolac-morphine group versus 3.4 in the morphine group; P=0.012). The use of NSAIDs reduces the need for an opioid dose escalation or allows the use of lower doses. Their use is associated with a more intense gastric discomfort, but results in less opioid-related constipation. The eventual additive cost for NSAIDs therapy is negligible, especially in patients taking high doses of morphine.     

Equianalgesic dose/ratio between methadone and other opioid agonists in cancer pain: Comparison of two clinical experiences

Background: Oral methadone is considered to be a valid opioid analgesic alternative to morphine and hydromorphone in treating cancer pain. However, the use of methadone could be complicated by the limited knowledge of the equianalgesic dose/ratio with the other analgesic opioids when switching in tolerant patients.Patients and methods: In two Palliative Care Units, data collected regarding 88 advanced cancer patients with pain switched from different opioids to oral methadone were reviewed and compared with the aim of determining the equianalgesic dose ratio in relation to the dose of opioid previously administered.Results: The results of this retrospective study suggest that: (1) methadone is much more potent than previously described in literature, (2) the dose ratio between hydromorphone and methadone is higher than as suggested by equianalgesic tables, and (3) the ratio correlates with total opioid dose administered before switching.Conclusions: The fact that methadone ratio is different according to the opioid dose used previously should be taken into careful consideration by the clinician in order to avoid severe toxicity or death during switchover. Prospective studies should be carried out in order to better define our findings.     

Opioid switching from transdermal fentanyl to oral methadone in patients with cancer pain

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer often are rotated from other opioids to methadone to improve the balance between analgesia and side effects. To the authors' knowledge, no clear guidelines currently exist for the safe and effective rotation from transdermal fentanyl to methadone. METHODS: The authors evaluated a protocol for switching opioid from transdermal fentanyl to oral methadone in 17 patients with cancer. Reasons for switching were uncontrolled pain (41.1% of patients) and neurotoxic side effects (58.9% of patients). Methadone was initiated 8-24 hours after fentanyl withdrawal, depending on the patient's previous opioid doses (from < 100 microg per hour to > 300 microg per hour). The starting methadone dose was calculated according to a 2-step conversion between transdermal fentanyl:oral morphine (1:100 ratio) and oral morphine:oral methadone (5:1 ratio or 10:1 ratio). The correlation between previous fentanyl dose and the final methadone dose or the fentanyl:methadone dose ratio was assessed by means of Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients (r), respectively. A Friedman test was used to compare pain intensity before and after the switch and the use of daily rescue doses. RESULTS: Opioid rotation was fully or partially effective in 80% and 20%, respectively, of patients with somatic pain. Neuropathic pain was not affected by opioid switching. Delirium and myoclonus were reverted in 80% and 100% of patients, respectively, after opioid switching. A positive linear correlation was obtained between the fentanyl and methadone doses (Pearson r, 0.851). Previous fentanyl doses were not correlated with the final fentanyl:methadone dose ratios (Spearman r, - 0.327). CONCLUSIONS: The protocol studied provided a safe approach for switching from transdermal fentanyl to oral methadone, improving the balance between analgesia and side effects in patients with cancer.     

Acetaminophen (paracetamol) improves pain and well-being in people with advanced cancer already receiving a strong opioid regimen: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether adding regular acetaminophen (paracetamol) could improve pain and well-being in people with advanced cancer and pain despite strong opioids. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants took acetaminophen for 48 hours and placebo for 48 hours. The order (acetaminophen or placebo first) was randomly allocated. Pain was the primary outcome. Preferences, number of opioid breakthrough doses, overall well-being, nausea and vomiting, drowsiness, constipation, and cold sweats were secondary outcomes. Patients rated themselves daily with visual analog scales (VAS) and a verbal numeric scale (VNS) for pain, all scaled from 0 to 10. RESULTS: Thirty patients completed the trial. The oral opioid was morphine in 23 patients and hydromorphone in seven patients. The median daily opioid dose in oral morphine equivalents was 200 mg (range, 20 to 2,100 mg). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, or both were used by 16 patients. Pain and overall well-being were better for patients receiving acetaminophen than for those receiving placebo. The mean difference was 0.4 (95% CI, 0.1 to 0.8; P =.03) in VNS for pain, 0.6 (95% CI, -0.1 to 1.3; P =.09) in VAS for pain, and 0.7 (95% CI, 0.0 to 1.4; P =.05) in VAS for overall well-being. More patients preferred the period they took acetaminophen (n = 14) than the period they took placebo (n = 8), but many had no preference (n = 8). There were no differences in the other outcomes. CONCLUSION: Acetaminophen improved pain and well-being without major side effects in patients with cancer and persistent pain despite a strong opioid regimen. Its addition is worth considering in all such patients.     

Opioid rotation from oral morphine to oral oxycodone in cancer patients with intolerable adverse effects: an open-label trial

Objective: We prospectively investigated the efficacy of opioid rotationfrom oral morphine to oral oxycodone in cancer patients whohad difficulty in continuing oral morphine treatment becauseof inadequate analgesia and/or intolerable side effects. Methods: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled and 25 were evaluated. Therate of patients who achieved adequate pain control, which providedan indication of treatment success, was evaluated as primaryendpoint. The acceptability and pharmacokinetics of oxycodonewere evaluated in addition to the assessment of analgesic efficacyand safety during the study period. Results: In spite of intense pain, the morphine daily dose could notbe increased in most patients before the study because of intolerableside effects. However, switching to oral oxycodone allowed 1.7-foldincrease as morphine equivalent dose. Consequently, 84.0% (21/25)of patients achieved adequate pain control. By the end of thestudy, all patients except one had tolerated the morphine-inducedintolerable side effects (i.e. nausea, vomiting, constipation,drowsiness). Common side effects (>10%) that occurred duringthe study were typically known for strong opioid analgesics,and most were mild to moderate in severity. A significant negativecorrelation between creatinine clearance (CCr) value and thetrough concentrations of the morphine metabolites was observed.On the other hand, no significant correlation was found betweenCCr value and the pharmacokinetic parameters of oxycodone orits metabolites. Conclusions: For patients who had difficulty in continuing oral morphinetreatment, regardless of renal function, opioid rotation tooral oxycodone may be an effective approach to alleviate intolerableside effects and pain.     

Controversies in pharmacotherapy of pain management

Since the establishment of the WHO three-step ladder for management of cancer pain, several controversies have arisen, which are partly due to new drug development, reformulations of older analgesics, and technological advancements. As a result, clinicians need clarification of several questions. Is morphine the opioid of choice for moderate to severe pain in cancer? Should combinations of opioids be used? When should spinal opioids be used to treat pain in cancer? What are the appropriate opioid doses for breakthrough pain? Should selective cyclo-oxygenase (COX) 2 inhibitors be used? What is the best tactic to treat neuropathic pain, and what first-line adjuvant analgesic should be used? And do bisphosphonates relieve bone pain in cancers other than breast cancer and myeloma? This review addresses these questions.     

Current concepts of pain management for cancer patients

Pain management is one of the most important issues confronted when treating patients with malignant diseases. Since its release/publication in 1986, the World Health Organization’s three-step analgesic ladder has helped to greatly improve pain management in cancer patients. However, many questions about this three-step analgesic ladder have been raised and its application in the clinical setting remains a controversial subject. This review article explores the frontline treatment of cancer pain with morphine and the different routes of fentanyl administration used in cancer pain management. The combination of multiple opiates/opioids has been shown to result in more effective cancer pain management; however, the exact benefits of such opiate/opioid combinations have yet to be established. This article also discusses recent advances in the topical application of morphine and in the combination of ketamine and morphine. It explores the updated treatment principles of neuropathic pain in advanced-stage cancer patients, which incorporate the use of anti-depressants, anti-convulsants, and opioids. Finally, this article reviews the available data and clarifies the general principles for using opioids in cancer patients with renal insufficiency. We hope that this information will be helpful in improving pain management in cancer patients and in facilitating further research.