This paper reports on the experience gained using World Health Organization Guidelines for cancer pain relief over a 10-year period in an anaesthesiology-based pain service associated with a palliative care programme. The course of treatment of 2118 patients was assessed prospectively over a period of 140,478 treatment days. Non-opioid analgesics (WHO step I) were used on 11%, weak opioids (WHO step II) on 31% and strong opioids (WHO step III) on 49% of treatment days. Administration was via the enteral route on 82% and parenterally on 9% of treatment days. On the remaining days, either spinally applied opioids (2%) or other treatments (6%) were utilised. Fifty-six percent of the patients were treated with morphine. Morphine dose escalation was observed in about one-half of the patients being cared for until death, whereas the other half had stable or decreasing doses over the course of treatment. Co-analgesics were administered on 37% of days, most often antidepressants (15%), anticonvulsants (13%) and corticosteroids (13%). Adjuvants to treat symptoms other than pain were prescribed on 79% of days, most commonly laxatives (42%), histamine-2-receptor antagonists (39%) and antiemetics (35%). In addition, palliative antineoplastic treatment was performed in 42%, nerve blocks in 8%, physiotherapy in 5%, psychotherapy in 3% and TENS in 3% of patients. A highly significant pain reduction was achieved within the 1st week of treatment (P < 0.001). Over the whole treatment period, good pain relief was reported in 76%, satisfactory efficacy in 12% and inadequate efficacy in 12% of patients. In the final days of life, 84% rated their pain as moderate or less, while 10% were unable to give a rating. Analgesics remained constantly effective in all 3 steps of the WHO ladder. Other clinical symptoms were likewise significantly reduced at 1 week after initial assessment, with the exception of neuropsychiatric symptoms. During the course of treatment, the latter were the major symptoms on 23% of days, followed by nausea (23%), constipation (23%) and anorexia (20%). Our results emphasise once again the marked efficacy and low rate of complications associated with oral and parenteral analgesic therapy as the mainstay of pain treatment in the palliative care of patients with advanced cancer. Wide dissemination of WHO guidelines among doctors and healthcare workers is thus necessary to effect a clear improvement in the treatment of the many patients suffering from cancer pain in the clinical and home setting.

Most patients with advanced cancer develop diverse symptoms that can limit the efficacy of pain treatment and undermine their quality of life. The present study surveys symptom prevalence, etiology and severity in 593 cancer patients treated by a pain service. Non-opioid analgesics, opioids and adjuvants were administered following the WHO-guidelines for cancer pain relief. Other symptoms were systematically treated by appropriate adjuvant drugs. Pain and symptom severity was measured daily by patient self-assessment; the physicians of the pain service assessed symptom etiology and the severity of confusion, coma and gastrointestinal obstruction at each visit. The patients were treated for an average period of 51 days. Efficacy of pain treatment was good in 70%, satisfactory in 16% and inadequate in 14% of patients. The initial treatment caused a significant reduction in the average number of symptoms from four to three. Prevalence and severity of anorexia, impaired activity, confusion, mood changes, insomnia, constipation, dyspepsia, dyspnoea, coughing, dysphagia and urinary symptoms were significantly reduced, those of sedation, other neuropsychiatric symptoms and dry mouth were significantly increased and those of coma, vertigo, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, intestinal obstruction, erythema, pruritus and sweating remained unchanged. The most frequent symptoms were impaired activity (74% of days), mood changes (22%), constipation (23%), nausea (23%) and dry mouth (20%). The highest severity scores were associated with impaired activity, sedation, coma, intestinal obstruction, dysphagia and urinary symptoms. Of all 23 symptoms, only constipation, erythema and dry mouth were assessed as being most frequently caused by the analgesic regimen. In conclusion, the high prevalence and severity of many symptoms in far advanced cancer can be reduced, if pain treatment is combined with systematic symptom control. Nevertheless, general, neuropsychiatric and gastrointestinal symptoms are experienced during a major part of treatment time and pain relief was inadequate in 14% of patients. Cancer pain management has to be embedded in a frame of palliative care, taking all the possibilities of symptom management into consideration.

The Brief Pain Inventory is a comprehensive instrument for pain assessment and has been validated in several languages. A validated German version was not available until now. From March to May 1995 all outpatients of the pain clinic of the Department of Anesthesiology completed a questionnaire with the German versions of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the SF-36 quality-of-life questionnaire. The BPI was repeated after the consultation. The physician assessed the performance status score of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). The questionnaire was completed by 151 patients. Forty-two patients were excluded from evaluation for methodological reasons, so 109 patients were evaluated. As in the original version of the BPI, factor analysis showed a common factor for pain intensity and a second factor for pain-related interference with function. The comparative fit index of 0.86 confirmed this model. Responses before and after consultation correlated closely for the sum scores of the pain intensity items (Perarson correlation r = 0.976) as well as for the interference with function items (r = 0.974). Pain intensity in the BPI correlated with bodily pain in the SF-36 (r = 0.585). Sum scores of the pain interference items were higher in patients with deteriorated ECOG performance status, whereas sum scores of the intensity items were not changed. Validity and reliability of the German BPI were comparable to the original version. The BPI may be advantageous for palliative care patients, as it places only a small burden on the patient and offers easy criteria for evaluation. However, further research is needed to differentiate the impact of pain-related and disease-related interference with function on the BPI, and to find an algorithm for the evaluation of the BPI when values are missing.

Although pain assessment is a vital preliminary step towards the satisfactory control of cancer pain, data on the prevalence of different pain syndromes are rare. In a prospective study of 2266 cancer patients, we assessed localisations, aetiologies and pathophysiological mechanisms of the pain syndromes. Thirty percent of the patients presented with 1, 39% with 2 and 31% with 3 or more distinct pain syndromes. The majority of patients had pain caused by cancer (85%) or antineoplastic treatment (17%); 9% had pain related to cancer disease and 9% due to aetiologies unrelated to cancer. Pain could be classified as originating from nociceptors in bone (35%), soft tissue (45%) or visceral structures (33%) or otherwise as of an neuropathic origin (34%). In most patients, pain syndromes were located in the lower back (36%), abdominal region (27%), thoracic region (23%), lower limbs (21%), head (17%) and pelvic region (15%). The main pain syndrome was also coded according to the IASP Classification of Chronic Pain. Regions and systems affected by the main pain syndrome showed large variation depending on the site of cancer origin, whereas temporal characteristics, intensity and aetiology were not markedly influenced by the cancer site. The variety of pain syndromes evaluated in our patients confirms the importance of comprehensive pain assessment prior to treatment.

Transdermal delivery allows continuous systemic application of opioids through the intact skin. This review analyses the pharmacokinetic properties of transdermal opioid administration in the context of clinical experience, with a focus on fentanyl. A transdermal therapeutic system (TTS) for fentanyl has been developed. The amount of fentanyl released is proportional to the surface area of the TTS, which is available in different sizes. After the first application of a TTS, a fentanyl depot concentrates in the upper skin layers and it takes several hours until clinical effects are observed. The time from application to minimal effective and maximum serum concentrations is 1.2 to 40 hours and 12 to 48 hours, respectively. Steady state is reached on the third day, and can be maintained as long as patches are renewed. Within each 72-hour period, serum concentrations decrease gradually over the second and third days. When a TTS is removed, fentanyl continues to be absorbed into the systemic circulation from the cutaneous depot. The terminal half-life for TTS fentanyl is approximately 13 to 25 hours. The interindividual variability of serum concentrations, partly caused by different clearance rates, is markedly larger than the intraindividual variability. The effectiveness of TTS fentanyl was first demonstrated in acute postoperative pain. However, the slow pharmacokinetics and large variability of TTS fentanyl, together with the relatively short duration of postoperative pain, precluded adequate dose finding and led to inadequate pain relief or, especially, a high incidence of respiratory depression; such use is now contraindicated. Conversely, in cancer pain, TTS fentanyl offers an interesting alternative to oral morphine, and its effectiveness and tolerability in this indication has been demonstrated by a number of trials. Its usefulness in chronic pain of nonmalignant origin remains to be confirmed in controlled trials. In general, TTS fentanyl produces the same adverse effects as other opioids, mainly sedation, nausea, vomiting and constipation. In comparison with oral morphine, TTS fentanyl causes fewer gastrointestinal adverse events. The risk of hypoventilation is comparatively low in cancer patients. Sufentanil and buprenorphine may also be suitable for transdermal delivery, but clinical results are not yet available. Transdermal morphine is only useful if applied to de-epithelialised skin. However, iontophoresis may allow transdermal administration of opioids, including morphine, with a rapid achievement of steady state concentrations and the ability to adjust delivery rates. This would be beneficial for acute and/or breakthrough pain, and initial clinical trials are in progress.