clinical practice guidelines
doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr390
Management of cancer pain: ESMO Clinical Practice
Guidelines
C. I. Ripamonti1, E. Bandieri2 & F. Roila3
On behalf of the ESMO Guidelines Working Group*
1
Supportive Care in Cancer Unit, IRCCS Foundation, National Cancer Institute of Milano, Milan; 2Palliative Care Unit, Azienda Usl Modena (CeVEAS), Modena;
3
Department of Medical Oncology, S. Maria Hospital, Terni, Italy
incidence of pain
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the
incidence of cancer was 12 667 470 new cases in 2008 and,
based on projections, it will be >15 million in 2020 [1].
Consistent with this, a systematic review of the literature, which
investigated the prevalence of pain in different disease stages
and types of cancer during the period 19662005[2], showed no
difference in pain prevalence between patients during
anticancer treatment and those in an advanced or terminal
phase of the disease. In particular, pain prevalence was 64% in
patients with metastatic, advanced or terminal phases of the
disease, 59% in patients on anticancer treatment and 33% in
patients after curative treatment. Moreover, in the systematic
review of the literature carried out by Deandrea et al. [3] on
studies published from 1994 to 2007, nearly half of the cancer
patients were undertreated, with a high variability across study
designs and clinical settings. Recent studies conducted both in
Italy and in Europe [4, 5] confirmed these data, showing that
pain was present in all phases of cancer disease (early and
metastatic) and was not adequately treated in a significant
percentage of patients, ranging from 56 to 82.3%. In particular,
Apolone et al. [6] evaluated prospectively the adequacy of
analgesic care of cancer patients by means of the Pain
Management Index (PMI) in 1802 valid cases of in- and
outpatients with advanced/metastatic solid tumor enrolled in
110 centers specifically devoted to cancer and/or pain
management (oncology/pain/palliative centers or hospices).
The study showed that patients were still classified as
potentially undertreated in 25.3% of the cases (range
9.855.3%). In contrast to the percentage of incidence of pain
reported in hematological patients (5% with leukemia and 38%
with lymphoma) in the past literature [7], a significant
*Correspondence to ESMO Guidelines Working Group, ESMO Head Office, Via L.
Taddei 4, CH-6962 Viganello-Lugano, Switzerland; E-mail: clinicalguidelines@esmo.org
Approved by the ESMO Guidelines Working Group: December 2004, last update
February 2011. This publication supersedes the previously published versionAnn
Oncol 2010; 21 (Suppl 5): v257v260.
Conflict of interest: Dr Roila has reported that he has been a member of the speakers
bureau for Janssen Cilag on cancer pain treatment. Dr Ripamonti and Dr Bandieri have
reported no conflicts of interest.
The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
Annals of Oncology 22 (Supplement 6): vi69vi77, 2011
proportion of patients with lymphoma and leukemia may
suffer from pain not only in the last months of life (83%) [4]
but also at the time of diagnosis and during active therapies [8].
Based on these facts it is evident that millions of cancer patients
still suffer from cancer-related pain.
recommendation. The assessment and management of pain in
cancer patients is of paramount importance in all stages of the
disease; however, pain is still not adequately treated (expert and
panel consensus).
assessment of patients with pain
According to the literature, most patients with advanced cancer
have at least two types of cancer-related pain which derive from
a variety of etiologies [9, 10]. Sixty-nine per cent of patients
rate their worst pain at a level that impaired their ability to
function [11]. Table 1 shows the guidelines for a correct and
complete assessment of the patient with pain. The proper and
regular self-reporting assessment of pain with the help of
validated assessment tools is the first step for an effective and
individualized treatment. The most frequently used
standardized scales [12] are reported in Figure 1 and are: visual
analog scales (VAS), a verbal rating scale (VRS) and
a numerical rating scale (NRS).
recommendation. The intensity of pain and the treatment
outcomes should be regularly assessed using (i) a visual analog
scales (VAS), (ii) a verbal rating scale (VRS) or (iii) a numerical
rating scale (NRS) [V, D].
Older age and the presence of limited communicative skills
or of cognitive impairment such as during the last days of life
makes the self-reporting of pain more difficult, although there
is no evidence of clinical reductions in pain-related suffering.
When cognitive deficits are severe, observation of pain-related
behaviors and discomfort (i.e. facial expression, body
movements, verbalization or vocalizations, changes in
interpersonal interactions, changes in routine activity) is an
alternative strategy for assessing the presence of pain (not its
intensity) [1316]. Different observational scales are available
in the literature [15], but none of them is validated in different
languages.
clinical practice guidelines
Table 1. Guidelines for a correct assessment of the patient with pain
1. Assess and re-assess the pain
d Causes, onset, type, site, duration, intensity, relief and temporal
patterns of the pain
d Presence of the trigger factors and the signs and symptoms
associated with the pain
d Use of analgesics and their efficacy and tolerability
2. Assess and re-assess the patient
d The clinical situation by means of a complete/specific physical
examination and the specific radiological and/or biochemical investigations
d The presence of interference of pain with the patients daily
activities, work, social life, sleep patterns, appetite, sexual functioning and
mood
d The impact of the disease and the therapy on the physical,
psychological and social conditions
d The presence of a caregiver, the psychological status, the degree of
awareness of the disease, anxiety and depression and suicidal ideation, his/
her social environment, quality of life, spiritual concerns/needs
d The presence and intensity of signs, physical and/or emotional
symptoms associated with cancer pain syndromes
d The functional status
d The presence of opiophobia
3. Assess and re-assess your ability to inform and to communicate with the
patient and the family
d Take time to spend with the patient and the family to understand
their needs
Figure 1. Validated and most frequently used pain assessment tools.
recommendation. Observation of pain-related behaviors and
discomfort is indicated in patients with cognitive impairment
to assess the presence of pain (expert and panel consensus).
Psychosocial distress has to be assessed because it is strongly
associated with cancer pain [17]. In fact psychosocial distress
may amplify the perception of pain-related distress and,
similarly, inadequately controlled pain may cause substantial
psychological distress.
recommendation. The assessment of all components of suffering
such as psychosocial distress should be considered and
evaluated [II, B].
vi70 | Ripamonti et al.
Annals of Oncology
principles of pain management
d Inform the patients about the possible onset of pain at any
stage of the disease both during and after diagnostic
interventions, in addition to as a consequence of cancer or
anticancer treatments, and involve them in pain management.
They have to be encouraged to communicate with the physician
and/or the nurse about their suffering, the efficacy of therapy
and any side effects, and not to consider the analgesic opioids as
a therapeutic approach for dying patients [18],
thus contributing to reduce opioidophobia. The
patients involvement in pain management improves
communication and has a beneficial effect on patients pain
experience [19].
recommendation
Patients should be informed about pain and pain management
and be encouraged to take an active role in their pain
management [II, B].
d Prevent the onset of pain by means of the by the clock
administration, taking into account the half-life, bioavailability
and duration of action of the different drugs.
recommendation
Analgesic for chronic pain should be prescribed on a regular
basis and not on as required schedule [V, D].
d Prescribe a therapy which is simple to be administered and
easy to be managed by the patient himself and his family,
especially when the patient is cared for at home. The oral route
appears to be the most suitable to meet this requirement, and, if
well tolerated, it must be considered as the preferred route of
administration [2024].
recommendation
The oral route of administration of the analgesic drugs should
be advocated as the first choice [IV, C].
d Assess and treat the breakthrough pain (BTP) which is
defined as a transitory exacerbation of pain that occurs in
addition to an otherwise medically controlled stable pain [25,
26]. It is of sudden onset, occurs for short periods of time and
is usually severe. The incidence of BTP has been estimated to be
high (2080% depending on the setting) in various surveys
[26, 27]. The differences reported are probably due to the
different clinical settings analyzed and the different definitions
of BTP used.
recommendation
Rescue dose of medications (as required) other than the regular
basal therapy must be prescribed for breakthrough pain
episodes [V, D].
d Tailor the dosage, the type and the route of drugs
administered according to each patients needs. The type and
the dose of the analgesic drugs is influenced by the intensity of
pain (Table 2) and have to be promptly adjusted to reach
a balance between pain relief and side effects. The rescue doses
taken by the patients are an appropriate measure of the daily
titration of the regular doses [25, 26]. An alternative route for
opioid administration should be considered when oral
Volume 22 | Supplement 6 | September 2011
Annals of Oncology
Table 2. Categorization of pain and appropriate analgesia
WHO analgesic Score on Analgesics of
ladder step NRSa choice
1 (mild pain) <3 out of 10 Paracetamol or NSAIDs
2 (mild to moderate pain) 3-6 out of 10 Weak opioids 6 paracetomal
or NSAIDs
3 (moderate to severe pain) >6 out of 10 Strong opioids 6
paracetamol NSAIDs
a and renal failure. COX-2 selective inhibitors may increase the
Score on NRS according to references 24, 29, 30.
NRS, numerical rating scale; NSAIDs, non-inflammatory drugs; WHO,
World Health Organization.
administration is not possible because of severe vomiting,
bowel obstruction, severe dysphagia or severe confusion, as well
as in the presence of poor pain control, which requires rapid
dose escalation, and/or in the presence of oral opioid-related
adverse effects.
pain management
In 1986, the WHO proposed a strategy for cancer pain treatment
based on a sequential three-step analgesic ladder from non-
opioids to weak opioids to strong opioids according to pain
intensity [28]. Twenty years after the first edition [20], the WHO
cancer pain relief program remains the referral point for pain
management. According to WHO guidelines, opioid analgesics
are the mainstay of analgesic therapy and are classified according
to their ability to control pain from mild to mildmoderate to
moderatesevere intensity. Such pain intensity may be scored on
an NRS as reported in Table 2 [24, 29, 30].
However, the intensity of pain is frequently reported as mild,
moderate and severe and scored on an NRS respectively as 4,
from 5 to 6, and 7 [31].
Opioid analgesics may be combined with non-opioid drugs
such as paracetamol or with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs (NSAIDs) and with adjuvant drugs. [32, 33].
recommendation
The analgesic treatment should start with drugs indicated by the
WHO analgesic ladder appropriate for the severity of pain [II, B].
Pain should already be managed during the diagnostic
evaluation. Most cancer patients can attain satisfactory relief of
pain through an approach that incorporates primary antitumor
treatments, systemic analgesic therapy and other non-invasive
techniques such as psychological or rehabilitative interventions.
treatment of mild pain
For the treatment of mild pain non-opioid analgesics such as
acetaminophen/paracetamol or an NSAID are widely used
(Table 3).
NSAIDs are superior to placebo in relieving cancer pain in
single dose studies. There is no evidence to support superior
safety or efficacy of one NSAID over any other [34]. In
a randomized clinical trial (RCT) carried out in a small sample
of cancer patients on a strong opioid regimen, paracetamol
improved pain and well-being [35]. However, these results have
not been confirmed by other studies.
Volume 22 | Supplement 6 | September 2011
clinical practice guidelines
recommendation
Paracetamol and/or a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug are
effective for treating mild pain [I, A].
Paracetamol and NSAIDS are universally accepted as part of
the treatment of cancer pain at any stage of the WHO analgesic
ladder. The long-term use of NSAIDs or a cyclo-oxygenase-2
(COX-2) selective inhibitor has to be carefully monitored and
reviewed periodically [36] because they can provoke severe
toxicity such as: gastrointestinal bleeding, platelet dysfunction
risk of thrombotic cardiovascular adverse reactions [37] and do
no protect from renal failure.
Not all of the described drugs are available in all countries.
recommendation
Paracetamol and/or a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug are
effective for treating all intensities of pain, at least in the short
term and unless contraindicated [I, A].
treatment of mildmoderate pain
Traditionally [20], patients with mildmoderate pain have been
treated with a combination product containing acetaminophen,
aspirin or NSAID plus a weak immediate-release opioid such
as codeine, dihydrocodeine, tramadol or propoxyphene
(Table 4).
The use of drugs of the second step of the WHO ladder has
several controversial aspects. The first criticism concerns the
absence of a definitive proof of efficacy of weak opioids: in
a meta-analysis of data reported from clinical RCTs [38] no
significant difference was found in the effectiveness between
non-opioid analgesics alone, and the combination of these with
weak opioids. The available studies do not even demonstrate
a clear difference in the effectiveness of the drugs between the
first and the second step [39]. Uncontrolled studies also show
that the effectiveness of the second step of the WHO ladder has
a time limit of 3040 days for most patients and that the shift to
the third step is mainly due to insufficient analgesia achieved,
rather than to adverse effects [40]. A further limitation in the
use of weak opioids is represented by the ceiling effect, for
which more than a certain threshold of dose cannot increase
the effectiveness of the drug but only influence the appearance
of side effects. Many authors have proposed the abolition of the
second step of the WHO analgesic ladder, in favor of the early use
of morphine at low doses. The few studies on this specific topic
[4143], though suggestive, have reported inconclusive results due
both to the low number and representativeness of the patients
sample studied and to the relatively low statistical power.
An RCT is urgently needed to address the relevant issue of
the role of WHO step II.
recommendation
For mild to moderate pain, weak opioids such as codeine,
tramadol and dihydrocodeine should be given in combination
with non-opioid analgesics [III, C].
As an alternative to weak opioids, consider low doses of
strong opiods in combination with non-opioid analgesics
[III, C].
doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr390 | vi71
clinical practice guidelines Annals of Oncology

Table 3. Selected non-opioid analgesics for mild pain (WHO step I)

Substance Widely available Time to Caution Maximal daily dose

forms and strengths onset (min)
Acetaminophen Tablets, suppositories 1530 Hepatotoxicity 4 1000 mg
(paracetamol) 5001000 mg
Acetylsalycic acid Tablets 5001000 mg 1530 GI toxicity, allergy, 3 1000 mg
platelet inhibition
Ibuprofen Tablets 200400600 mg; 1530; 120+ GI and renal toxicity 4 600 mg;
tablets 800 mg modified 3 800 mg
release; topical gels modified release
Ketoprofen Tablets 2575 mg; tablets 30+ GI and renal toxicity 4 75 mg;
100150200 mg 2 200 mg
modified release
Diclofenac Tablets 255075 mg; 30120 GI and renal toxicity 4 50 mg;
tablets 100 mg 2 100 mg
modified release
Mefenamic acid Capsules 250500 mg 30+ GI and renal toxicity 4 500 mg
Naproxen Tablets 250375500 mg 30+ GI and renal toxicity 2 500 mg

GI, gastrointestinal; WHO, World Health Organization.

Table 4. Comparison of selected opioids for mild to moderate pain (WHO step II)

Substance Widely available Relative effectiveness Duration of Maximal daily dose Starting dose
forms and strengths compared with oral effectiveness (h) without
morphine pretreatment
Dihydrocodeine Modified-release 0.17 12 240 mg 60120 mg
tablets 6090120 mg
Codeine Tablet 153060 mg 46 360 mg 1560 mg
Tramadol Drops 100 mg/ml; 0.10.2 24 400 mg 50100 mg
capsules 50 mg
Modified-release 0.10.2 12 400 mg 50100 mg
tablets 100150200 mg

WHO, World Health Organization.

treatment of moderatesevere pain recommendation

Strong opioids (Table 5) are the mainstay of analgesic therapy
in treating moderatesevere cancer-related pain, In some
countries, pain relief is hampered by a lack of availability or
barriers to accessibility to opioid analgesics [44]. Morphine,
methadone, oxycodone, hydromorphone, fentanyl, alfentanyl,
buprenorphine, heroin, levorphanol and oxymorphone are the
most widely used strong opioids in Europe [33, 45]. In the last
years in some countries, the consumption of oxycontin and the
use of patches of fentanyl and buprenorphine has been
increasing [46]. However, there is no evidence from high
quality comparative studies that other opioids are superior to
morphine in terms of efficacy and tolerability.
In many countries, since 1977, oral morphine has been used
in Hospices and Palliative Care Units as the drug of choice for
the management of chronic cancer pain of moderate to severe
intensity because it provides effective pain relief, is widely
tolerated, is simple to be administered and is cheap. Moreover,
morphine is the only opioid analgesic considered in the WHO
essential drug list for adults and children with pain [47].
The opioid of first choice for moderate to severe cancer pain is
oral morphine [IV, D].
Although the oral route of administration is advocated, the
patients presenting with severe pain who needs urgent relief should
be treated and titrated with parenteral opioids, usually administered
by the subcutaneous (s.c.) or intravenous (i.v.) route.
If given parenterally, the equivalent dose is one-third of that
of the oral medication. The relative potency ratio of oral to
parenteral (s.c. or i.v.) morphine (not subject to first-pass
metabolism) [48, 49] might vary according to the
circumstances in which morphine is used and among
individual patients. When converting from oral to parenteral
morphine, the dose should be divided by three to get a roughly
equianalgesic effect, but upward or downward adjustment of
the dose may then be required [50].
recommendation
The average relative potency ratio of oral to intravenous
morphine is between 1:2 and 1:3 [II, A].

vi72 | Ripamonti et al. Volume 22 | Supplement 6 | September 2011

Annals of Oncology clinical practice guidelines
Table 5. Comparison of selected opioids for moderate to severe pain (WHO step III)

Substance Route Relative effectiveness Maximal daily dose Starting dose without
compared with oral pretreatment
morphinea
Morphine sulfate Oral 1 No upper limitb 2040 mg
Morphine i.v. 3 No upper limitb 510 mg
Oxycodone Oral 1.52 No upper limitb 20 mg
Hydromorphone Oral 7.5 No upper limitb 8 mg
Fentanyl transdermal TTS + 4c No upper limitb 12 lg/hd
Buprenorphine Oral 75 4 mg 0.4 mg
Buprenorphine i.v. 100 3 mg 0.30.6 mg
Buprenorphine transdermal TTS + 4c 140 lg/h 17.535lg/h
Methadone Oral 4812e No upper limitb 10 mg
Nicomorphine Oral 1 20 mg 5 mg
Nicomorphine i.v. 3 20 mg 5 mg
a
The relative effectiveness varies considerably in the published literature and among individual patients. Switching to another opiod should therefore be done
cautiously with a dose reduction of the newly prescribed opioid.
b
The maximal dose depends on tachyphylaxis.
c
Calculated with conversion from mg/day to lg/h.
d
Not usually used as first opioid (the 12 lg/h dose corresponds to about 30 mg of oral morphine sulfate daily).
e
Factor 4 for daily morphine doses <90 mg, factor 8 for doses 90300 mg, and 12 for >300 mg.
WHO, World Health Organization; i.v. intravenous.

The average relative potency ratio of oral to subcutaneous
morphine is between 1:2 and 1:3 [IV, C].
Only a few selected patients (12%) with cancer pain,
refractory to all conventional strategies and/or dose-limiting
analgesic-related side effects, require spinal analgesia [51].
Based on the findings of Myers, Smith and Kalso [5254] and
the documented bias of the investigation of Smith et al. [55], it
is evident that the role of intraspinal opioids has not been
established, and well-designed, independently funded clinical
trials are required. Hydromorphone or oxycodone, in both
immediate-release and modified-release formulations for oral
administration, are effective alternatives to oral morphine.
Transdermal fentanyl and transdermal buprenorphine are
best reserved for patients whose opioid requirements are stable.
They are usually the treatment of choice for patients who are
unable to swallow, patients with poor tolerance of morphine
and patients with poor compliance. Although not
recommended in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in
Oncology for Adult Cancer Pain [21] because it is a partial
agonist, buprenorphine has a role in the analgesic therapy of
patients with renal impairment and undergoing hemodialysis
treatment [56, 57] where no drug reduction is necessary,
buprenorphine being mainly converted in the liver to
norbuprenorphine (a metabolite 40 times less potent than the
parent compound). Methadone is a valid alternative but,
because of marked interindividual differences in its plasma
half-life and duration of action, it is still considered as a drug
which should be initiated by physicians with experience and
expertise in its use. Strong opioids may be combined with
ongoing use of a non-opioid analgesic (step 1).
recommendation
In the presence of renal impairment all opioids should be used
with caution and at reduced doses and frequency [IV, C].
Buprenorphine is the safest opioid of choice in patients with
chronic kidney disease stages 4 or 5 (estimated glomerular
filtration rate <30 ml/min) [IV, C].
Opioid switching is a practice used to improve pain relief
and/or drug tolerability. Although there is no high quality
evidence to support this practice, a switch to an alternative
opioid is to be considered in clinical practice [58]. This
approach requires familiarity with equianalgesic doses of the
different opioids [33].
scheduling and titration
Opioid doses should be titrated to take effect as rapidly as
possible. Titration is a process for which the dose of the opioid
is speedily modified to obtain the tailored dose which provides
adequate relief of pain with an acceptable degree of side effects.
Normal release morphine has a short half-life and is indicated
during the titration phase and for treating BTP episodes. I.v.
titration is indicated in patients with severe pain (Table 6) [59].
All patients should receive round-the-clock dosing with provision
of a breakthrough dose to manage transient exacerbations of pain.
The breakthrough dose is usually equivalent to 1015% of the total
daily dose. If more than four breakthrough doses per day are
necessary, the baseline opioid treatment with a slow-release
formulation has to be adapted. Opioids with a rapid onset and short
duration are preferred for breakthrough doses. After the titration
period slow-release opioids are indicated.
recommendation
Individual titration of dosages by means of normal release
morphine administered every 4 h plus rescue doses (up to
hourly) for BTP are recommended in clinical practice [IV, C].
The regular dose of slow-release opioids can then be adjusted
to take into account the total amount of rescue morphine
[IV, C].

Volume 22 | Supplement 6 | September 2011 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr390 | vi73

clinical practice guidelines Annals of Oncology

Table 6. Intravenous titration (dose finding) with morphine for severe cancer pain (Harris et al. [59]).

Study design and patient
population
RCT.
62 strong opioid-nave
inpatients pain intensity
Initial morphine dosage and Subsequent dosage and route Results
route
i.v. group: i.v. group: % of patients achieving
1.5 mg bolus every Oral IR morphine satisfactory pain relief:
10 min until pain relief 4 hourly, on the basis of d after 1 h: i.v. group,

NRS 5 (or adverse effects). the previous 84%; oral group, 25%
Patients were Oral group: i.v. requirements. (P <0.001)
randomized to receive i.v. IR morphine 5 mg i.v.: p.o. conversion d after 12 h:

morphine (n = 31) or oral every 4 h in opioid-naive 1:1. i.v. group 97%; oral group
IR morphine (n = 31) patients. Rescue dose: the 76% (P <0.001)
10 mg in patients same dose every 1 h max. d after 24 h: i.v. group

on weak opioids. Rescue Oral group: follow the and oral group similar.
dose: the same dose every same scheme i.v. group: median
1 h max. morphine
dosage (i.v.) to achieve
pain relief: 4.5 mg
(range 1.534.5). In the
same group, mean
morphine dosage (p.o.)
after stabilization: 8.3
(range 2.530) mg.
Oral group: median
morphine dosage to
achieve pain relief: 7.2
(2.515) mg.
No significant
adverse events

IR, immediate release, i.v., intravenous; NRS, numerical rating scale; p.o., per os; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

management of opioid side effects
Many patients develop adverse effects such as constipation,
nausea, vomiting, urinary retention, pruritus and central
nervous system (CNS) toxicity (drowsiness, cognitive
impairment, confusion, hallucinations, myoclonic jerks
andrarelyopioid-induced hyperalgesia/allodynia). In some
cases a reduction in opioid dose may alleviate refractory side
effects. This may be achieved by using a co-analgesic or an
alternative approach such as a nerve block or radiotherapy.
Other strategies include the continued use of antiemetics for
nausea, laxatives for constipation, major tranquillizers for
confusion, and psychostimulants for drowsiness. However,
since some of the side effects may be caused by accumulation of
toxic metabolites, switching to another opioid agonist and/or
another route may allow titration to adequate analgesia without
the same disabling effects. This is especially true for symptoms
of CNS toxicity such as opioid-induced hyperalgesia/allodynia
and myoclonic jerks [60]. Naloxone is a short-acting opioid
antagonist for i.v. use able to revert symptoms of accidental
severe opioid overdose.
radiotherapy
Radiotherapy has specific and critical efficacy in providing pain
relief caused by bone metastases. Radiotherapy also has a role in
tumors compressing nerve structures and cerebral metastases. A
systematic review [61] on the use of radiotherapy for bone pain
showed complete pain relief at 1 month in 27% of the patients,
and at least 50% relief in an additional 42% of the patients at
any time in the trials included.
The radioisotope treatment has also been investigated in
a systematic review [62]: the results showed only weak evidence of
a small beneficial effect on pain control in the short and medium
term (16 months), with no modification of the analgesics used. A
few RCTs, involving small numbers, have shown that radioisotopes
can relieve bone pain in patients with breast cancer [63] and lung
cancer [64], while inconsistent results were produced in patients
with hormone-refractory prostate cancer [65].
recommendation
All patients with pain from bone metastases which is proving
difficult to be controlled by pharmacological therapy should be
evaluated by a clinical oncologist for consideration of external
beam radiotherapy or radioisotope treatment [II, B].
bisphosphonates and bone pain
Bisphosphonates (BPs) form part of the standard therapy for
hypocalcemia and the prevention of skeletal-related events in
some cancers. There is sufficient evidence supporting the
analgesic efficacy of BPs in patients with bone pain due to bone
metastases [66]. However, the prescription of BPs should not
be considered as an alternative to analgesic treatment and their
administration should be started after preventive dental

vi74 | Ripamonti et al. Volume 22 | Supplement 6 | September 2011

Annals of Oncology
Table 7. Selected adjuvant drugs for neuropathic pain
Substance Widely available forms and
strengths (mg)
Amitryptiline Tablets 2550
Clomipramine Tablets 1075
Nortriptyline Tablets 1025
Fluoxetine Tablets 20
Duloxetine Tablets 3060
Carbamazepine Tablets 200400
Gabapentin Tablets 200300400800
Pregabalin Tablets 255075100150
200300 mg
Haloperidol Drops, tablets, vials
Chlorpromazine Drops, tablets, suppositories,
vials
Usually the lowest doses of antidepressants and neuroleptics are sufficient as an adjunct to opioids unless severe depression or major psychosis has to be
treated with higher doses as appropriate.
measures [67, 68]. After the first i.v. infusions of BPs the pain
can appear or its intensity increase, and the use of analgesics
such as paracetamol or a basal analgesic dose increase is
necessary.
recommendation
Bisphosphonates should be considered as part of the
therapeutic regimen for the treatment of patients with/without
pain due to metastatic bone disease [II, B].
Preventive dental measures are necessary before starting
bisphosphonate administration [III, A].
treatment of resistant and neuropathic
pain
Some patients, whose pain remains inadequately relieved, may
benefit from invasive anesthetic or neurosurgical treatments.
Limited evidence supports the use of subanesthetic doses of
ketamine, an N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist, in
intractable pain. Neuropathic pain, either caused by tumor
infiltration or due to paraneoplastic or treatment-induced
polyneuropathy, may not be adequately controlled by opioids
alone. Long-lasting and neuropathic pain may cause
psychological problems that should be specifically addressed.
Few studies have been identified which were carried out directly
on patients with cancer pain. Evidence from studies in patients
without cancer has been reviewed as the pathological mechanism
of neuropathic pain involved is believed to be the same. There is
evidence from systematic reviews [69, 70] that both tricyclic
antidepressants and anticonvulsant drugs are effective in the
management of neuropathic pain [69, 71, 72] even if the number
needed to treat (NNT) for these drugs is between 3 and 5. Two
specific systematic reviews have been identified on the role of
anticonvulsant drugs in neuropathic pain, one dealing with
gabapentin in the management of pain [71] and the other dealing
with various different anticonvulsants [72].
In cancer patients with neuropathic pain, non-opioid and
opioid analgesics may be combined with tricyclic
Volume 22 | Supplement 6 | September 2011
clinical practice guidelines
Activity Sedation Range of daily doses (mg)
Antidepressive +++ 50200
Antidepressive (+) 50200
Antidepressive + 50225
Antidepressive + 2080
Antidepressive + 60120
Antiepileptic + 4001600
Antiepileptic ++ 9003600
Antiepileptic + 150600
Neuroleptic + 320
Neuroleptic + 25200
antidepressant drugs or anticonvulsants (Table 7). The efficacy
and tolerability of the therapy have to be monitored over time.
Steroids should be considered in the case of nerve compression.
There is evidence in adults that i.v. lidocaine and its oral analog
mexiletine are more effective than placebo in decreasing
neuropathic pain and can relieve pain in selected patients [73].
recommendation
Patients with neuropathic pain should be given either a tricyclic
antidepressant or a anticonvulsant and subjected to side effects
monitoring [I, A].
refractory pain at the end of life
Recent data suggest that 5370% of patients with cancer-related
pain require an alternative route for opioid administration,
months and hours before death [74, 75]. On some occasions, as
patients are nearing death, pain is perceived to be refractory.
In deciding that a pain is refractory, the clinician must perceive
that the further application of standard interventions is either:
(i) incapable of providing adequate relief; (ii) associated with
excessive and intolerable acute or chronic morbidity; or (iii)
unlikely to provide relief, so that other interventional
approaches may be necessary to control pain. In this situation,
sedation may be the only therapeutic option capable of
providing adequate relief. The justification of sedation in this
setting is that it is an appropriate and proportionate goal.
However, before administering sedative drugs, all the possible
causes of suffering must be carefully assessed and evaluated by
means of a multidisciplinary specialistic approach which also
includes a psychiatric, psychologist and pastoral care personnel.
Commonly used agents include opioids, neuroleptics,
benzodiazepines, barbiturates and propofol. Irrespective of the
agent or agents selected. administration initially requires dose
titration to achieve adequate relief, followed subsequently by
provision of ongoing therapy to ensure maintenance of the
effect. A continuous assessment of the suffering of the patient
should be performed during the sedation process.
doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr390 | vi75
clinical practice guidelines
note
Levels of evidence [IV] and grades of recommendation [AD]
as used by the American Society of Clinical Oncology are given
in square brackets. Statements without grading were considered
justified standard clinical practice by the expert authors and the
ESMO faculty.
literature
1. Frankish H. 15 million new cancer cases per year by 2020, says WHO. Lancet
2003; 361: 1278.
2. Van den Beuken-van Everdingen MHJ, De Rijke JM, Kessels AG et al. Prevalence
of pain in patients with cancer: a systematic review of the past 40 years. Ann
Oncol 2007; 18: 14371449.
3. Deandrea S, Montanari M, Moja L et al. Prevalence of undertreatment in cancer
pain. A review of published literature. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 19851991.
4. Costantini M, Ripamonti C, Beccaro M et al. Prevalence, distress, management
and relief of pain during the last three months of cancer patients life. Results of
an Italian mortality follow-back survey. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 729735.
5. Breivik H, Cherny N, Collett F et al. Cancer-related pain: a pan European survey
of prevalence, treatment, and patient attitudes. Ann Oncol 2009; 20:
14201433.
6. Apolone G, Corli O, Caraceni A et al. Pattern and quality of care of cancer pain
management. Results from the Cancer Pain Outcome Research Study Group. Br
J Cancer 2009; 100: 15661574.
7. Foley KM. The treatment of cancer pain. N Engl J Med 1985; 313: 8494.
8. Morselli M, Bandieri E, Zanin R et al. Pain and emotional distress in leukaemia
patients at diagnosis. Leuk Res 2009; 34: e67e68.
9. Higginson IJ, Murtagh F. Cancer pain epidemiology. In: Bruera E, Portenoy RK
(eds). Cancer Pain. Assessment and Management. Vol. 3. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2010; 3752.
10. Portenoy RK, Koh M. Cancer pain syndromes. In: Bruera E, Portenoy RK (eds).
Cancer Pain. Assessment and Management, Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2010; 5388.
11. Larue F, Colleau SM, Brasseur L, Cleeland CS. Multicentre study of cancer pain
and its treatment in France. BMJ 1995; 310: 10341037.
12. Caraceni A, Cherny N, Fainsinger R et al. The Steering Committee of the EAPC
Research Network. Pain measurement tools and methods in clinical research in
palliative care: recommendations of an expert working group of the European
Association of Palliative Care. J Pain Symptom Manage 2002; 23: 239255.
13. Kaasalainen S. Pain assessment in older adults with dementia using behavioural
observation methods in clinical practice. J Gerontol Nurs 2007; 33: 610.
14. Gordon DB, Dahl JL, Miaskowski C et al. American Pain Society
recommendations for improving the quality of acute and cancer pain
management: American Pain Society Quality of Care Task Force. Arch Intern
Med 2005; 165: 15741580.
15. Van Herk R, van Dijk M, Baar FPM, Tibboel D, de Wit R. Observational scales for
pain assessment in older adults with cognitive impairments or communication
difficulties. Nurs Res 2007; 56: 3443.
16. American Geriatrics Society Panel on Persistent Pain in Older Persons. The
management of persistent pain in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50:
S205S224.
17. Zaza C, Baine N. Cancer pain and psychosocial factors: a critical review of the
literature. J Pain Symptom Manage 2002; 24: 526542.
18. Reid CM, Gooberman Hill R, Hanks GW. Opioid analgesics for cancer pain:
symptom control for the living or comfort for the dying? A qualitative study to
investigate the factors influencing the decision to accept morphine for pain
caused by cancer. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 4448.
19. De WitR, van Dam F, Zandbelt L et al. A pain education program for chronic
cancer pain patients: follow-up results from a randomized controlled trial. Pain
1997; 73: 5569.
20. World Health Organization. Cancer Pain Relief, 2nd edn. Geneva: World Health
Organization, 1996.
vi76 | Ripamonti et al.
Annals of Oncology
21. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guideline in
Oncology. Adult Cancer Pain V.I. 2009.
22. Hanks GW, De Conno F, Ripamonti C et al. Morphine in cancer pain: modes of
administration. BMJ 1996; 312: 823826.
23. Hanks GW, De Conno F, Cherny N et al. the Expert Working Group of the
Research Network of the European Association for Palliative Care. Morphine and
alternative opioids in cancer pain. Br J Cancer 2001; 84: 587593.
24. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Control of Pain in Adults with Cancer.
A National Clinical Guideline. SIGN-Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network.
November 2008.
25. Portenoy RK, Hagen NA. Breakthrough pain: definition, prevalence, and
characteristics. Pain 1990; 41: 273281.
26. Mercadante S, Radbruch L, Caraceni A et al. Episodic (breakthrough) pain.
Consensus Conference of an expert working group of the European Association
for Palliative Care. Cancer 2002; 94: 832839.
27. Bruera E, MacMillian K, Kuehn N et al. Circadian distribution of extra doses of
narcotic analgesics in patients with cancer pain: a preliminary report. Pain 1992;
49: 311314.
28. World Health Organization. Cancer Pain Relief. Geneva: World Health
Organization, 1986.
29. Wallenstein S, Heidrich Gr, Kaiko R, Houde R. Clinical evaluation of mild
analgesics: the measurement of clinical pain. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1980; 10
(Suppl 2): 319s327s.
30. Littman G, Walker B, Schneider B. Reassessment of verbal and visual analog
ratings in analgesic studies. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1985; 38: 1623.
31. Serlin RC, Mendoza TR, Nakamura Y, Edwards KR, Cleeland CS. When is cancer
pain mild, moderate or severe? Grading pain severity by its interference with
function. Pain 1995; 61: 277284.
32. Lussier D, Portenoy RK. Adjuvant analgesic drugs. In: Bruera E, Higginson IJ,
Ripamonti C, von Gunten C (eds). Textbook of palliative medicine. London:
Edward Arnold Publishers, 2006; 402414.
33. Ripamonti C, Bandieri E. Cancer pain. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2009; 70:
145149.
34. McNicol E, Strassels S, Gouds L, Lau J, Carr D. NSAIDs or paracetamol, alone or
combined with opioids, for cancer pain (Cochrane Review). Cochrane Database
Syst Rev 2009; 1: CD005180.
35. Stockler M, Vardy J, Pillai A, Warr D. Acetominophen (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.
J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 33893394.
36. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. 55th edn. London:
British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain,
2007.
37. European Medicines Agency. Public statement: European Medicines Agency
announces regulatory action on COX-2 inhibitors (EMEA/62838/2005). Available
from http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/press/pr/6275705 en.pdf.
38. Eisenberg E, Berkey C, Carr DB, Mosteller F, Chalmers C. Efficacy and safety of
nonsteroidal antinflammatory drugs for cancer pain: a meta-analysis. J Clin
Oncol 1994; 12: 27562765.
39. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Evidence Report/Technology
Assessment: Number 35 2001.
40. Ventafridda V, Tamburini M, Caraceni A, De Conno F, Naldi F. A validation study
of the WHO method for cancer pain relief. Cancer 1987; 59: 850856.
41. Marinangeli F, Ciccozzi A, Leonardis M et al. Use of strong opioids in advanced
cancer pain: a randomized trial. J Pain Symptom Manage 2004; 27: 409416.
42. Maltoni M, Scarpi E, Modonesi C et al. A validation study of the WHO analgesic
ladder: a two-step vs three-step strategy. Support Care Cancer 2005; 13:
888894.
43. Mercadante S, Porzio G, Ferrera P et al. Low morphine doses in opioid-naive
cancer patients with pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 2006; 31: 242247.
44. Cherny NI, Baselga J, De Conno F, Radrbruch L. Formulary availability and
regulatory barriers to accessibility of opioids for cancer pain in Europe: a report
from the ESMO/EAPC Opioid policy initiative. Ann Oncol 2010; 21: 615626.
Volume 22 | Supplement 6 | September 2011
Annals of Oncology clinical practice guidelines
45. Ripamonti C, Bareggi C. Pharmacology of opioid analgesia: clinical principles. In:
Bruera E, Portenoy RK (eds). Cancer Pain. Assessment and Management, Vol.
11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010, 195229.
46. Bandieri E, Chirarolanza A, Luppi M, Magrini N, Marata AM, Ripamonti C.
Prescription of opioids in Italy: everything but the morphine. Ann Oncol 2009; 20:
961962.
47. World Health Organization. Model List of Essential Drugs (EDL). Geneva: World
Health Organization, 2007.
48. Hanks GW, Hoskin PJ, Aherne GW, Turner P, Poulain P. Explanation for potency
of oral morphine on repeated dosage? Lancet 1987; ii: 723725.
49. Kaiko RF. The therapeutic equivalence of IM and PO administration of
morphine1:3 or 1:6. J Palliat Care 1988; 4: 6466.
50. Kalso E, Vainio A. Morphine and oxycodone hydrochloride in the management of
cancer pain. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1990; 47: 639664.
51. Zech DFJ, Grond S, Lynch J et al. Validation of the World Health Organization
guidelines for cancer pain relief: a 10-year prospective study. Pain 1995; 63:
6576.
52. Myers J, Chan V, Jarvis V, Walker-Dilks C. Intraspinal techniques for pain.
management in cancer patients: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer
2010; 18: 137149.
53. Smith TJ, Staats PS, Deer T et al. Randomized clinical trial of an implantable
drug delivery system compared with comprehensive medical management for
refractory cancer pain: impact on pain, drug-related toxicity, and survival. J Clin
Oncol 2002; 20: 40404049.
54. Kalso E, Heiskanen T, Rantio M, Rosenberg PH, Vainio A. Epidural and
subcutaneous morphine in the management of cancer pain: a double-blind
cross-over study. Pain 1996; 67: 443449.
55. Ripamonti C, Brunelli C. Randomized clinical trial of an implantable drug delivery
system compared with comprehensive medical management for refractory
cancer pain: impact on pain, drug-related toxicity, and survival. J Clin Oncol
2003; 21: 28012802.
56. Boger RH. Renal impairment: a challenge for opioid treatment? The role of
buprenorphine. Palliat Med 2006; 20: s17s23.
57. Mercadante S, Arcuri E. Opioids and renal function. J Pain 2004; 5: 219.
58. Mercadante S, Bruera E. Opioid switching: a systematic and critical review.
Cancer Treat Rev 2006; 32: 304315.
59. Harris JT, Suresh Kumar K, Rajagopal MR. Intravenous morphine for rapid
control of severe cancer pain. Palliat Med 2003; 17: 248256.
60. Cherny N, Ripamonti C, Pereira J et al. Strategies to manage the adverse effects
of oral morphine. An evidence-based report. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 25422554.
Volume 22 | Supplement 6 | September 2011
61. McQuay HJ, Collins S, Carroll D et al. Radiotherapy for the palliation of painful
bone metastases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; 2: CD001793.
62. Roque M, Martinez-Zapata M, Alonso-Coello P et al. Radioisotopes for metastatic
bone pain (Cochrane Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006.
63. Sciuto R, Festa A, Pasqualoni R et al. Metastatic bone pain palliation with 89-Sr
and 186-Re-HeDP in breast cancer patients. Breast Canc Res Treat 2001; 66:
101109.
64. Leondi AH, Souvatzoglou MA, Rapti AS et al. Palliative treatment of painful
disseminated bone metastases with 186Rhenium-HeDP in patients with lung
cancer. J Nucl Med 2004; 48: 211219.
65. Han SH, de Klerk JM, Tan S et al. The PLACORHeN study: a double-blind,
placebo-controlled, randomized radionuclide study with (186)Re-etidronate in
hormone-resistant prostate cancer patients with painful bone metastases.
Placebo Controlled Rhenium Study. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 11501156.
66. Wog R, Wiffen PJ. Bisphosphonates for relief of pain secondary to bone
metastases. Cochrane Syst Rev 2002; 2: CD002068.
67. Ripamonti C, Maniezzo M, Campa T et al. Decreased occurrence of
osteonecrosis of the jaws (ONJs) after implementation of dental preventive
measure in solid tumours treated with bisphosphonates. The experience of the
National Cancer Institute of Milan, Italy. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 137145.
68. Dimopoulos MA, Kastritis E, Bamia C et al. Reduction of osteonecrosis of the jaw
(ONJ) after implementation of preventive measures in patients with multiple
myeloma treated with zoledronic acid. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 117120.
69. Tan P, Barry S, Reken S et al. Pharmacological management of neuropathic pain
in non-specialist settings: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 2010; 340: c1079.
70. Saarto T, Wiffen P. Antidepressants for neuropathic pain (Cochrane Review).
Cochrane Syst Rev 2007; 2: CD002068.
71. Wiffen P, Mcquay H, Edwards J, Moore R. Gabapentin for acute and chronic pain
(Cochrane Review). Cochrane Syst Rev 2005; 3: CD005452.
72. Wiffen P, Collins S, Mcquay H, Carroll D, Jadad A, Moore A. Anticonvulsant
drugs for acute and chronic pain (Cochrane Review). Cochrane Syst Rev 2005;
3: CD001133.
73. Challapalli V, Tremont-Lukats IW, McNicol ED, Lau J, Carr DB. Systemic
administration of local anesthetic agents to relieve neuropathic pain. Cochrane
Syst Rev 2005; 3: CD003345.
74. Bruera E, MacMillan K, Hanson J. Palliative care in a cancer center: results in
1984 versus 1987. J Pain Symptom Manage 1990; 5: 15.
75. Cherny NJ, Chang V, Frager G et al. Opioid pharmacotherapy in the management
of cancer pain: a survey of strategies used by pain physicians for the selection of
analgesic drugs and routes of administration. Cancer 1995; 76: 12831293.
doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr390 | vi77