Cancer
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Analgesic response to single and multiple doses of controlled-release morphine tablets and morphine oral solution in cancer patients.
Immediate-release oral morphine, given every four hours in individually titrated doses, is effective in the control of severe cancer pain. To evaluate the analgesic efficacy of a controlled-release morphine sulfate preparation, MS Contin tablets (MSC, Purdue Frederick, Toronto, Ontario, Canada), after a single dose and under steady-state conditions, the authors compared MSC administered every 12 hours with morphine oral solution (MOS) administered every 4 hours in 17 adult cancer patients with chronic severe pain. In the single-dose evaluation, in which the patients were randomly assigned to receive MSC or MOS, there were no significant differences in analgesic efficacy or requirement for supplemental morphine between the two treatments. ⋯ There was no significant difference between MSC and MOS in overall pain scores or in pain scores analyzed by time of day and day of therapy. In conclusion, that an individualized twice-daily regimen of MSC is as effective as 4-hourly MOS for the control of chronic severe cancer pain. The twice-daily regimen has several advantages: it allows an uninterrupted night's sleep, it is substantially more convenient, and it can be expected to reduce both medication errors and noncompliance.
-
Clinical Trial Controlled Clinical Trial
Evaluation of a cancer pain model for the testing of long-acting analgesics. The effect of MS Contin in a double-blind, randomized crossover design.
A double-blind, double-dummy, crossover study compared oral controlled-release morphine sulfate (MS Contin tablets [MSC], Purdue Frederick, Norwalk, CT) every 12 hours, and immediate-release morphine sulfate (IRMS) tablets, every 4 hours, in 14 evaluable patients with chronic cancer pain. The test model described showed assay sensitivity for steady-state analgesia, requiring relatively few subjects to yield statistical significance in pharmacologic potency estimates. Initial doses were the calculated equivalents of about one third the previous opioid requirements or at least 30 mg MSC every 12 hours or 15 mg IRMS every 4 hours. ⋯ MS Contin exhibits a 12-hour duration of action as previously shown in other well-controlled trials. A problem of pain exacerbation at the start of each study phase was found to be associated with the design of this study. It may be resolved with a higher initial study dose and/or use of a patient-controlled analgesia device for parenteral rescue doses.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Pharmacokinetics and clinical efficacy of oral morphine solution and controlled-release morphine tablets in cancer patients.
Twenty-three adult patients with chronic pain due to cancer completed a double-blind, randomized, two-phase crossover trial comparing plasma morphine concentrations and analgesic efficacy of oral morphine sulfate solution (MSS) and controlled-release morphine sulfate tablets (MS Contin [MSC], Purdue Frederick, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada). MS Contin was given every 12 hours to all patients except those whose daily morphine dose could not be equally divided into two 12-hour doses with the tablet strengths available. MSS was given every 4 hours. ⋯ There were no significant differences between MSC and MSS in pain scores or side effects. Under the conditions of this study there was no clinically significant difference in bioavailability between MSC and oral MSS. When given on a 12-hourly basis in individually titrated doses, the MSC provided therapeutic plasma morphine concentrations throughout the dosing interval.
-
This review focuses on available anesthetic techniques for cancer patients, the indications, and appropriate agents for these potent tools in a stepwise approach to cancer pain. Anesthetic procedures are desirable when they will not compromise bodily functions important to the patient, and when tumor-directed therapy and noninvasive or less-invasive, low-risk approaches (primarily pharmacologic tailoring of analgesic drugs) fail to control pain. Nondestructive techniques include the epidural/intrathecal use of opioids via an implanted catheter, and local anesthetic blocks of nerves and sympathetic ganglia. ⋯ Destructive anesthetic procedures comprise injections of neurolytic agents (most commonly phenol or alcohol), and insertion of freezing probes, into nerves and ganglia. The types of nerve blocks performed, their complications, and success rates, and limitations of commonly used neurolytic agents as well as their proper applications, are described. The importance of proper patient selection and knowledge of the pathophysiology of the pain being treated is stressed, as is the appropriate timing of anesthetic procedures in the course of the disease.
-
Patients with pain syndromes resulting from recurrent or metastatic cancer should be evaluated carefully to determine the cause of their pain and the need for appropriate antitumor treatment. Currently, opioid analgesics are the mainstay of pain control, but side effects limit their use in some patients. When pharmacologic pain control is inadequate or associated with intolerable side effects, neurosurgery should be considered. ⋯ Although the place of neurostimulatory procedures in controlling cancer pain is not well established, they are attractive because of their nondestructive nature and potential usefulness in the treatment of bilateral pain syndromes. Specific antitumor surgical procedures should be considered in patients with certain spinal and plexopathy syndromes, because such intervention offers the prospect of both pain relief and tumor control. In this article, the neurosurgical procedures used in the management of cancer pain are reviewed.