Improvements in Survival and Clinical Benefit With Gemcitabine as First-Line Therapy for Patients With Advanced Pancreas Cancer: A Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: Most patients with advanced pancreas cancer experience pain and must limit their daily activities because of tumor-related symptoms. To date, no treatment has had a significant impact on the disease. In early studies with gemcitabine, patients with pancreas cancer experienced an improvement in disease-related symptoms. Based on those findings, a definitive trial was performed to assess the effectiveness of gemcitabine in patients with newly diagnosed advanced pancreas cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-six patients with advanced symptomatic pancreas cancer completed a lead-in period to characterize and stabilize pain and were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 weekly x 7 followed by 1 week of rest, then weekly x 3 every 4 weeks thereafter (63 patients), or to fluorouracil (5-FU) 600 mg/m2 once weekly (63 patients). The primary efficacy measure was clinical benefit response, which was a composite of measurements of pain (analgesic consumption and pain intensity), Karnofsky performance status, and weight. Clinical benefit required a sustained (> or = 4 weeks) improvement in at least one parameter without worsening in any others. Other measures of efficacy included response rate, time to progressive disease, and survival. RESULTS: Clinical benefit response was experienced by 23.8% of gemcitabine-treated patients compared with 4.8% of 5-FU-treated patients (P = .0022). The median survival durations were 5.65 and 4.41 months for gemcitabine-treated and 5-FU-treated patients, respectively (P = .0025). The survival rate at 12 months was 18% for gemcitabine patients and 2% for 5-FU patients. Treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that gemcitabine is more effective than 5-FU in alleviation of some disease-related symptoms in patients with advanced, symptomatic pancreas cancer. Gemcitabine also confers a modest survival advantage over treatment with 5-FU.

Does an oral analgesic protocol improve pain control for patients with cancer? An intergroup study coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND: Cancer pain is highly prevalent and commonly undertreated. This study was designed to determine whether dissemination of a clinical protocol for pain management would improve outcomes in community oncology practices. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A pain management protocol was developed based on accepted guidelines. After baseline assessment, oncology practices were randomly assigned to 'analgesic protocol' (AP) sites, where oncologists implemented the guidelines in a group of lung or prostate cancer patients, or to 'physician discretion' (PD) sites, where customary treatment was continued. Patients treated on protocol and a comparison group of patients with pain due to breast cancer or myeloma were monitored for change in pain using the Brief Pain Inventory, and for change in other symptoms or mood. RESULTS: The protocol terminated early because of poor accrual. We compared groups using proportions of patients who had no or mild pain at follow-up. Although measures of protocol adherence did not suggest the occurrence of major practice change, the proportion of lung or prostate cancer patients with no or mild pain increased significantly from baseline for those treated at AP sites compared with those treated at PD sites. There was no significant difference between the breast and myeloma patients treated at AP sites versus those treated at PD sites. CONCLUSION: A protocol for cancer pain management can improve pain control. Diffusion of these benefits to other patients was not confirmed. Given the small sample size, these findings require confirmation in a larger trial.

L-carnitine supplementation for the treatment of fatigue and depressed mood in cancer patients with carnitine deficiency: a preliminary analysis.

Nutritional factors are among the postulated causes of fatigue, a highly prevalent symptom in the cancer population, with serious impact on patients' quality of life. Deficiency of the micronutrient carnitine may play a role by reducing energy production through fatty acid oxidation. We present preliminary data of an open-label, dose-finding study to determine safety and maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of 1 week of L-carnitine supplementation in cancer patients with fatigue and carnitine deficiency. Patients who met inclusion/exclusion criteria underwent carnitine level determination. Eighty-three percent of these patients (15/18) had carnitine deficiency. Preliminary data analysis of 13 patients showed that total carnitine increased from 30.0 +/- 6.9 to 41.0 +/- 12.1 (mean +/- SD) after 1 week of supplementation (P = 0.01), and free carnitine increased from 24.3 +/- 6.1 to 33.8 +/- 9.8 (P = 0.004). Outcome measures were fatigue (BFI score), depression (CES-D), sleep disruption (ESS), and performance status (Karnofsky). Median (min, max) BFI score at baseline was 73 (46, 82) versus 50 (3, 82) after 1-week supplementation (P = 0.009). CES-D score at baseline was 29 (16, 42) and 22 (8, 32) after 1 week (P = 0.028). ESS at baseline was 46.5 (0, 69) and 30.4 (0, 72) after 1 week (P = 0.015). Karnofsky score did not change significantly (P = 0.38). We are currently conducting a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to rigorously assess the role of L-carnitine for the treatment of fatigue and depression in cancer patients.

Long-term safety of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate for breakthrough cancer pain.

This open-label study evaluated the long-term safety and tolerability of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) in ambulatory cancer patients with breakthrough pain undergoing cancer care at 32 university- or community-based practices. Patients had participated in a previous short-term titration trial of OTFC, were experiencing at least one episode per day of breakthrough pain, and had achieved relief of their breakthrough pain with an opioid. Patients received OTFC units at a starting dosage strength determined in the short-term trial (200-1600 microg). Outcome measures included number of successfully treated breakthrough pains, global satisfaction rating (0 = poor through 4 = excellent), and side effects. In total, 41,766 units of OTFC were used to treat 38,595 episodes of breakthrough pain in 155 patients. Number of treatment days ranged from 1 to 423 (mean, 91 days). Patients averaged 2.9 breakthrough pain episodes per day. About 92% of episodes were successfully treated with OTFC and there was no trend toward decreased effectiveness over time. Most patients (61%) did not require dose escalation during treatment. Global satisfaction ratings were consistently above 3, indicating very good to excellent relief. Common adverse events associated with OTFC were somnolence (9%), constipation (8%), nausea (8%), dizziness (8%), and vomiting (5%). Six patients (4%) discontinued therapy due to an OTFC-related adverse event. There were no reports of abuse and no concerns about the safety of the drug raised by patients or families. OTFC was used safely and effectively during long-term treatment of breakthrough pain in cancer patients at home.

Prevalence of anemia in cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy.

Anemia is associated with reduced local tumor control and impaired quality of life in patients with several types of solid tumors. The prevalence of anemia in patients who present at radiation oncology departments has not been well documented, and the impact of anemia on the outcome of radiation therapy is not widely appreciated in the radiation oncology setting. In an ongoing study, we are retrospectively reviewing the medical charts of patients before and after radiation therapy at our institutions to determine the magnitude of the anemia problem in this population. Preliminary data are available for 574 randomly selected patients (52% female) seen between December 1996 and June 1999. At presentation, 41% of all patients were anemic (hemoglobin < 12 g/dL); by the end of radiation therapy, this percentage increased to 54%. The most common tumor types were prostate (16%), breast (14%), head and neck (12%), colorectal (11%), lung/bronchus (11%), and uterine-cervix (9%). Anemia was most prevalent in patients with uterine-cervical tumors (75%), increasing to 79% by the end of radiation therapy. The prevalence of lung/bronchus and colorectal cancer was 55% and 44%, respectively, at baseline and increased to 77% and 63%, respectively, after radiation therapy. For nearly all tumor types, the majority of patients had or developed mild to moderate anemia (hemoglobin 10.0 to 11.9 g/dL). These data show that anemia is widespread among patients seen in radiation oncology practices. However, the anemia is usually mild and readily correctable. Because anemia and hypoxia possibly associated with anemia are obstacles to local tumor control and maintenance of quality of life, strategies to reverse anemia should receive greater attention.

Opioid poorly-responsive cancer pain. Part 3. Clinical strategies to improve opioid responsiveness.

Some pain syndromes may be difficult to treat due to a poor response to opioids. This situation demands a range of alternative measures, including the use of adjuvant drugs with independent effects, such as antidepressants, sodium channel-blocking agents, steroids and anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); drugs that reduce opioid side effects; and drugs that enhance analgesia produced by opioids, such as N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonists, calcium channel antagonists, and clonidine. Other approaches, including opioid trials, neural blockade when necessary, and psychological interventions, also may be useful.

Opioid poorly-responsive cancer pain. Part 2: basic mechanisms that could shift dose response for analgesia.

Basic research in experimental pain models may illuminate the phenomenon of cancer pain that is poorly responsive to opioid drugs. Research findings can be valuable in formulating new strategies in clinical practice. This review evaluated experimental observations in terms of the events that occur in cancer patients receiving opioid therapy for pain.

Breakthrough cancer pain: a randomized trial comparing oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) and morphine sulfate immediate release (MSIR).

Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC); Actiq) is a drug delivery formulation used for management of breakthrough cancer pain. Previous studies with open-label comparisons indicated OTFC was more effective than patients' usual opioid for breakthrough pain. The objective of this study was to compare OTFC and morphine sulfate immediate release (MSIR) for management of breakthrough pain in patients receiving a fixed scheduled opioid regimen. This double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, multiple crossover study was conducted at 19 US university- and community-based hospitals and clinics and comprised 134 adult ambulatory cancer patients. Patients were receiving a fixed scheduled opioid regimen equivalent to 60-1000 mg/day oral morphine or 50-300 microg/h transdermal fentanyl, were using a 'successful' MSIR dose (15-60 mg) as defined by entry criteria, and were experiencing 1-4 episodes of breakthrough pain per day. In open-label fashion, OTFC was titrated such that a single unit (200-1600 microg) provided adequate pain relief with acceptable side effects. Successfully titrated patients entered the double-blind phase of the study and received ten prenumbered sets of randomized capsules and oral transmucosal units. Five sets were the successful OTFC dose paired with placebo capsules, and five sets were placebo OTFC paired with capsules containing the successful MSIR dose. Patients took one set of study medication for each episode of target breakthrough pain. Pain intensity (PI), pain relief (PR) and global performance of medication (GP) scores were recorded. Pain intensity differences (PID) were calculated and 15-min PID was the primary efficacy variable. Adverse events were recorded. Sixty-nine percent of patients (93/134) found a successful dose of OTFC. OTFC yielded outcomes (PI, PID, and PR) at all time points that were significantly better than MSIR. GP also favored OTFC and more patients opted to continue with OTFC than MSIR following the study. Somnolence, nausea, constipation, and dizziness were the most common drug-associated side effects. In conclusion, OTFC was more effective than MSIR in treating breakthrough cancer pain.

Opioid poorly-responsive cancer pain. Part 1: clinical considerations.

Pain that is poorly responsive to opioid analgesics is challenging for physicians who deal with cancer patients. Numerous factors may influence analgesic response during the course of the illness. These include changing nociception associated with disease progression, the appearance of intractable side effects, the development of tolerance, the presence of neuropathic pain, the temporal pattern, the effects produced by the production of opioid metabolites, and many others. These factors influence the delicate balance between pain relief and opioid toxicity that must be achieved in cancer patients with pain.

Ethical challenges in the care of patients with serious illness.

The approach to management of patients with advanced disease and serious illness has been strongly influenced by advances in science and technology, the increasing role of ethics in clinical practice, and the recognition of new rights and social changes. At the present time, decision making is modulated by ethical and legal considerations. One of the challenges of clinical practice is to maintain the delicate balance between the technical aspects and the humanistic aspects of care. For the resolution of this challenge, this article proposes an ethical and legal framework that considers the goals of care and respects the basic values of autonomy, beneficence, and justice. Ethical and legal principles complement sound medical practice but should never replace it. At all times, clarification of the medical situation, good communication, and information about state of the art treatment proposals are essential. In the context of advanced illness, the most prominent issues relate to decision making, justice, and research.

Neuropathic cancer pain: the role of adjuvant analgesics.

Neuropathic pain may be defined as pain related to abnormal somatosensory processing in either the peripheral or central nervous system. This pathophysiologic label is typically applied when the painful symptom is associated with an overt injury to neural structures, is part of a recognized syndrome, or has a dysesthetic quality (usually burning, shooting, or electrical). Most neural injury does not lead to clinically important neuropathic pain, but sometimes even a small degree of tissue injury can precipitate severe pain. In the cancer population, neuropathic pain is often related to compression, direct neoplastic invasion of the peripheral nerves or spinal cord, or to a neuropathy caused by chemotherapy. To manage neuropathic pain in this population, nonopioid adjuvant drugs that are neuroactive or neuromodulatory are often needed to complement opioid therapy. The primary adjuvant analgesics are anticonvulsant and antidepressant medications, but a wide variety of other drugs are also used. To optimize analgesic therapy in patients with neuropathic pain, both opioid and adjuvant analgesics must be used effectively.

Treatment of pain in methadone-maintained patients.

Patients with opioid dependency experience trauma, acute medical illness and chronic diseases, and may have to undergo surgery to the same extent as other individuals. They need to be treated for relief of symptoms, including pain. Undertreatment or inadequate treatment of pain for these individuals is a particular problem because of opioid dependency and/or methadone maintenance treatment. The guiding principles governing treatment of these patients are to maintain the methadone treatment and to use short-acting narcotics administered at higher doses, and to do so as often as necessary, preferably on a fixed schedule, to relieve the pain. Supplemental analgesic medication may also be employed, except that opiate antagonists must be avoided.

Impact of cancer-related fatigue on the lives of patients: new findings from the Fatigue Coalition.

PURPOSE: This survey was designed to confirm the prevalence and duration of fatigue in the cancer population and to assess its physical, mental, social, and economic impacts on the lives of patients and caregivers. Patients and Methods. A 25-minute telephone interview was completed with 379 cancer patients having a prior history of chemotherapy. Patients were recruited from a sample of 6, 125 households in the United States identified as having a member with cancer. The median patient age was 62 years, and 79% of respondents were women. Patients reporting fatigue at least a few times a month were asked a series of questions to better describe their fatigue and its impact on quality of life. RESULTS: Seventy-six percent of patients experienced fatigue at least a few days each month during their most recent chemotherapy; 30% experienced fatigue on a daily basis. Ninety-one percent of those who experienced fatigue reported that it prevented a "normal" life, and 88% indicated that fatigue caused an alteration in their daily routine. Fatigue made it more difficult to participate in social activities and perform typical cognitive tasks. Of the 177 patients who were employed, 75% changed their employment status as a result of fatigue. Furthermore, 65% of patients indicated that their fatigue resulted in their caregivers taking at least one day (mean, 4.5 days) off work in a typical month. Physicians were the health care professionals most commonly consulted (79%) to discuss fatigue. Bed rest/ relaxation was the most common treatment recommendation (37%); 40% of patients were not offered any recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer-related fatigue is common among cancer patients who have received chemotherapy and results in substantial adverse physical, psychosocial, and economic consequences for both patients and caregivers. Given the impact of fatigue, treatment options should be routinely considered in the care of patients with cancer.

Current practices in intraspinal therapy--a survey of clinical trends and decision making.

Practice patterns were assessed via an internet-based survey distributed to physicians who manage implantable infusion pumps for pain management. Respondents consisted of 413 physicians who represented management of 13,342 patients, predominantly in the U.S. The survey used a standard questionnaire format plus two clinical vignettes to assess decision-making practices. The responding physicians chose morphine most often, but many other drugs were selected without clear indications. There was evidence of wide variations in clinical practice among physicians who use this modality. These findings highlight the need for practice guidelines based on research outcomes and expert experience to establish pathways for optimal management.

Evidence-based review of the literature on intrathecal delivery of pain medication.

Evidence-based medicine depends on the existence of controlled clinical trials that establish the safety and efficacy of specific therapeutic techniques. Many interventions in clinical practice have achieved widespread acceptance despite little evidence to support them in the scientific literature; the critical appraisal of these interventions based on accumulating experience is a goal of medicine. To clarify the current state of knowledge concerning the use of various drugs for intraspinal infusion in pain management, an expert panel conducted a thorough review of the published literature. The exhaustive review included 5 different groups of compounds, with morphine and bupivacaine yielding the most citations in the literature. The need for additional large published controlled studies was highlighted by this review, especially for promising agents that have been shown to be safe and efficacious in recent clinical studies.

Clinical guidelines for intraspinal infusion: report of an expert panel. PolyAnalgesic Consensus Conference 2000.

Consensus guidelines developed by an expert panel are helpful to clinicians when there is variation in practice and lack of a firm evidence base for an intervention, such as intraspinal therapy for pain. An internet-based survey of practitioners revealed remarkable variation in practice patterns surrounding intraspinal therapy. This prompted an interdisciplinary panel with extensive clinical experience in intraspinal infusion therapy to evaluate the results of the survey, the systematic reviews of the literature pertaining to this approach, and their own clinical experience with long-term spinal infusions. The panel proposed a scheme for the selection of drugs and doses for intraspinal therapy, and suggested guidelines for administration that would increase the likelihood of a successful outcome. These expert panel guidelines were designed to provide an initial structure for clinical decision making that is based on the best available evidence and the perspectives of experienced clinicians.