Abstract: CONTEXT: The first publication of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on Pain Management in Urology dates back to 2003. Since then, these guidelines have been revised several times with the most recent update achieved in 2010. OBJECTIVE: Given the scope of the full text guidelines, condensing the entire document was no option in this context. This paper presents a summary of the section of pain management in prostate cancer, a topic considered of direct relevance for the practicing urologist. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A multidisciplinary expert panel (urologists, anaesthesiologists, radio-oncologists) compiled this document based on a comprehensive consultation of the literature. Data were identified through a structured search, covering the time frame 2000 through 2010, using Medline and Embase as well as the Cochrane Library of systematic reviews. The scientific papers were weighed by the expert panel and a level of evidence (LE) assigned. Recommendations have been graded as a means to provide transparency between the underlying evidence and the guidance provided. Pain can occur in each stage of prostate cancer. It could be caused by the cancer itself (77%), be related to the cancer treatment (19%) or be unrelated to either (3%). The incidence of pain rises to 90% as patients enter the terminal phase of their illness. The physician's task is to discover and treat the cause of pain and the pain itself, to determine whether or not the underlying cause is treatable, to provide pain relief and palliative care. These tasks more often than not require a multidisciplinary team. Pain management involves mainly pharmacotherapy, including direct anticancer therapy such as androgen deprivation and chemotherapy, as well as analgetics, for instance non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or opioids. In case of local impairment due to the cancer or its metastases, primary treatments like surgery, radiotherapy or radionuclides can provide adequate pain relief. In addition, in palliative care, functional, psychosocial and spiritual support are essential components. The EAU guidelines on Pain Management in Urology are available in a number of different formats through the EAU Central Office and the EAU website ( http://www.uroweb.org/guidelines/online-guidelines/ ). CONCLUSION: The mainstay of pain management in prostate cancer is involvement of and collaboration between experts from a number of disciplines to be able to achieve a complete pain evaluation and to offer the full range of treatment options. Prostate cancer-related pain can, in most cases, be managed effectively, but it requires careful monitoring where a balance should be found between pain relief and potential side effects of treatment and quality of life (QoL).
Abstract: The mechanisms underlying central neuropathic pain are poorly understood. Pain inhibitory mechanisms including sertononergic and norepinephrine systems may be dysfunctional. In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial we evaluated the effects of duloxetine on pain relief (spontaneous pain and evoked pain), tolerability, health status, and quality of life in patients with central pain related to cerebrovascular lesions or spinal cord lesions. At baseline and eight weeks following start of treatment subjects were evaluated with standard measures of efficacy: pain intensity (primary efficacy variable), quantitative sensory testing, health status and quality of life (secondary efficacy variables). Forty-eight patients received escalating doses of either duloxetine (60 and 120mg/day) or matching placebo capsules. In both groups, patients started with 1 capsule per day. If pain relief was insufficient, patients were titrated to a higher dose. A trend towards a decrease in mean pain score after eight weeks was observed for duloxetine treatment (p=0.056). Duloxetine alleviated dynamic (p=0.035) and cold allodynia (p<0.001) significantly better than placebo. Tactile pain and pressure pain thresholds did not improve significantly. The duloxetine group showed a significant improvement for the bodily pain domain of the SF36 (p=0.035). No significant differences were observed in the other domains of the SF36, the Pain Disability Index, and the EQ-5D. While this trial showed no significant effect on pain intensity, duloxetine revealed a biologic effect. It would be worthwhile to suspend our judgement and to perform more studies to evaluate the role of duloxetine in modulation of the symptoms of central neuropathic pain.
Abstract: Neuropathic pain (pain associated with lesions or dysfunction of nervous system) is relatively common, occurring in about 1% of the population. Studies in animal models describe a number of peripheral and central pathophysiological processes after nerve injury that would be the basis of underlying neuropathic pain mechanism. A change in function, chemistry, and structures of neurons (neural plasticity) underlie the production of the altered sensitivity characteristics of neuropathic pain. Peripheral sensitization acts on the nociceptors, and central sensitization takes place at various levels ranging from the dorsal horn to the brain. In addition, abnormal interactions between the sympathetic and sensory pathways contribute to mechanisms mediating neuropathic pain. Despite recent advances in identification of peripheral and central sensitization mechanisms related to nervous system injury, the effective treatment of patients suffering from neuropathic pain remains a clinical challenge. Although numerous treatment options are available for relieving neuropathic pain, there is no consensus on the most appropriate treatment. However, recommendations can be proposed for first-line, second-line, and third-line pharmacological treatments based on the level of evidence for the different treatment strategies. Beside opioids, the available therapies shown to be effective in managing neuropathic pain include anticonvulsants, antidepressants, topical treatments (lidocaine patch, capsaicin), and ketamine. Tricyclic antidepressants are often the first drugs selected to alleviate neuropathic pain (first-line pharmacological treatment). Although they are very effective in reducing pain in several neuropathic pain disorders, treatment may be compromised (and outweighed) by their side effects. In patients with a history of cardiovascular disorders, glaucoma, and urine retention, pregabalin and gabapentine are emerging as first-line treatment for neuropathic pain. In addition these anti-epileptic drugs have a favourable safety profile with minimal concerns regarding drug interactions and showing no interference with hepatic enzymes. Despite the numerous treatment options available for relieving neuropathic pain, the most appropriate treatment strategy is only able to reduce pain in 70% of these patients. In the remaining patients, combination therapies using two or more analgesics with different mechanisms of action may also offer adequate pain relief. Although combination treatment is clinical practice and may result in greater pain relief, trials regarding different combinations of analgesics are lacking (which combination to use, occurrence of additive or supra-additive effects, sequential or concurrent treatment, adverse-event profiles of these analgesics, alone and in combination) are lacking. Additionally, 10% of patients still experience intractable pain and are refractory to all forms of pharmacotherapy. If medical treatments fail, invasive therapies such as intrathecal drug administration and neurosurgical interventions may be considered.
Abstract: The effective treatment of patients suffering from central neuropathic pain remains a clinical challenge, despite a standard pharmacological approach in combination with anticonvulsants and antidepressants. A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the effects of pregabalin on pain relief, tolerability, health status, and quality of life in patients with central neuropathic pain caused by brain or spinal cord injuries. At baseline and 4 weeks after the start of treatment subjects were evaluated with standard measures of efficacy: pain intensity measured by visual analog scale, health status (Pain Disability Index and EQ-5D) and quality of life (SF-36). Forty patients received escalating doses of either pregabalin (150, 300, and 600mg/day) or matching placebo capsules. In both groups, patients started with 1 capsule per day (either 150mg of pregabalin or placebo). If pain relief was insufficient, patients were titrated to a higher dose. There was a statistically significant decrease in mean pain score at endpoint for pregabalin treatment, compared with placebo (P=0.016). Follow-up observation showed no significant difference in Pain Disability Index scores between the two groups. The pregabalin group, however, showed a statistically significant improvement for the EQ-5D. Pregabalin treatment led to a significant improvement in the bodily pain domain of the SF36. In the other domains, more favorable scores were reported without reaching statistical significance. Pregabalin, in a flexible-dose regime, produced clinically significant reductions in pain, as well as improvements in health status in patients suffering from severe central neuropathic pain.
Abstract: Intravenous morphine is the treatment of choice for severe pain during vaso- occlusive crisis in sickle cell disease (SCD). However, side effects of morphine may hamper effective treatment, and high plasma levels of morphine are associated with severe complications such as acute chest syndrome. Furthermore, adequate dosing remains a problem since no objective measurement of pain severity exists and analgesia should be titrated upon the patient's reported pain. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) may therefore be an interesting alternative since patients can titrate the level of analgesia themselves. In this randomized controlled study, the efficacy of intravenous morphine administration with PCA was compared with continuous infusion (CI) of morphine in patients with SCD during vaso-occlusive crisis. Twenty five consecutive episodes of vaso-occlusive crisis in 19 patients with SCD were included in the study. Patients in the PCA-group had a markedly and significant lower mean and cumulative morphine consumption when compared with the patients in the CI-group (0.5 mg/hr versus 2.4 mg/hr (P < 0.001) and 33 mg versus 260 mg (P = 0.018, respectively). The mean daily pain scores were comparable (4.9 versus 5.3). The lower mean and cumulative morphine consumption in the PCA-group led to significant less nausea and constipation during treatment when compared with the CI-group (area under the curve, respectively, 11 versus 18 (P = 0.045) and 30 versus 45 (P = 0.021). Furthermore, a nonsignificant reduction in the duration of hospital admission of 3 days was observed in the PCA-group. PCA results in adequate pain relief at a much lower morphine consumption and should considered to be the first choice in morphine administration to sickle cell patients admitted with vaso-occlusive crisis.
Abstract: Pancreatic cancer tends to be diagnosed at a relatively late stage of the disease when curative resection is precluded. In view of the poor prognosis and the severe pain, palliative care should be aimed at providing adequate pain relief and optimal quality of life. Pancreatic cancer pain is primarily treated by the combination of NSAIDs, adjuvant analgesic drugs, and oral or transdermal opioids. The neurolytic coeliac plexus block is recommended as adjuvant therapy for the palliative treatment of pancreatic cancer pain. In addition quality of life, especially functional and physical aspects, is significantly improved in patients following a coeliac plexus block. The most common approach to the coeliac plexus is the percutaneous posterior technique. Serious complications that may follow application of this technique include sensory disorders, muscle weakness and paraparesis. More recently, new techniques such as thoracoscopic splanchnicectomy and endoscopic ultrasound-guided coeliac plexus block have emerged as efficient alternatives in terms of pain relief and quality-of-life improvement. The neurolytic coeliac plexus block has become a well-developed method of pain relief in patients with pain resulting from malignancies of the pancreas. To define the role of these new techniques in the palliative treatment of pancreatic cancer pain, comparative studies regarding efficacy, side effects, and complications have to be performed.
Abstract: Ketamine and S(+)-ketamine have been advocated for neuraxial use in the management of postoperative pain and severe intractable pain syndromes unresponsive to opioid escalation. Although clinical experience has accumulated with S(+)-ketamine, safety data on toxicity in the central nervous system after neuraxial administration of S(+)-ketamine are conflicting. In this study, neurologic and toxicologic effects on the spinal cord from repeated daily intrathecal administration of commercially available, preservative-free S(+)-ketamine were evaluated against placebo in a randomized, blinded design.
Abstract: The efficacy of 50 and 75 mg S(+)-ketamine administered daily by an iontophoresis-assisted transdermal drug delivery system was tested against placebo in a randomized, double-blind design in 33 patients with central neuropathic pain. At baseline and 1 week after the start of treatment subjects were evaluated with standard measures of efficacy: pain intensity measured by visual analog scale (VAS), health status (Pain Disability Index and EQ-5D) and quality of life (SF-36). Safety assessment included incidence and intensity of adverse events. No significant differences in pain scores (VAS) were observed between the ketamine groups and placebo during the course of the trial. Corrected for baseline levels, daily 50 mg S(+)-ketamine did not improve patient's health status or quality of life compared with placebo treatment. However, daily 75 mg S(+)-ketamine showed significant improvements on the Pain Disability Index, on the EQ-5D, and on the SF-36 except for the role-physical functioning and general health perception. Iontophoretic administration of S(+)-ketamine was well tolerated with a low incidence of adverse events (mild and transient in nature, resolving spontaneously). Iontophoretic administration of S(+)-ketamine was not more effective than placebo treatment in reducing pain scores in patients with severe central neuropathic pain. However, iontophoretic administration of 75 mg S(+)-ketamine improved the health status and the quality of life in these patients.
