Summary An expert working group of the European Association for Palliative Care has revised and updated its guidelines on the use of morphine in the management of cancer pain. The revised recommendations presented here give guidance on the use of morphine and the alternative strong opioid analgesics which have been introduced in many parts of the world in recent years. Practical strategies for dealing with difficult situations are described presenting a consensus view where supporting evidence is lacking. The strength of the evidence on which each recommendation is based is indicated. http://www.bjcancer.com Daytime drowsiness, dizziness or mental clouding commonly occur at the start of treatment but resolve when patients are stabilized (usually within a few days). For most patients receiving stable doses of morphine effects on cognitive and psychomotor function are minimal. In particular, there are data indicating that patients' driving ability is not significantly impaired, in alert patients receiving a stable dose (Vainio et al, 1995). Similarly, nausea and vomiting, which occur in up to two-thirds of patients when morphine is started, usually resolve. The main continuing adverse effect from morphine is constipation, and the prophylactic use of a laxative is almost always required. Morphine: limitationsThe systemic availability of morphine by the oral route is poor (20-30%) and this contributes to a sometimes unpredictable onset of action and great interindividual variability in dose requirements and response (Glare and Walsh, 1991). Active metabolites may contribute to toxicity, particularly in patients with renal impairment (McQuay and Moore, 1997). And some types of pain do not always respond well or completely to morphine, notably neuropathic pain. However, none of the alternatives to morphine has so far demonstrated advantages which would make it preferable as the first line oral opioid for cancer pain. Morphine remains our first choice but for reasons of familiarity, availability and cost rather than proven superiority.2. The optimal route of administration of morphine is by mouth. Ideally, two types of formulation are required: normal release (for dose titration) and modified release (for maintenance treatment) CThe oral route is the simplest and most acceptable to patients.There is large interindividual variation in kinetics (Säwe, 1986) and dynamics in cancer patients whose pain will also vary in severity so that the dose must be titrated against effect for each patient, and the starting dose will be determined by previous analgesic treatment. Patients changing from regular administration of a step 2 opioid (in combination with a non-opioid) will usually start with 10 mg every 4 hours. If step 2 of the analgesic ladder is omitted 5 mg every 4 hours may suffice, whereas patients converted from another step 3 opioid will require more. During dose titration it is preferable to use a formulation of morphine that has a rapid onset and a short duration of action to allow steady state to be achieved as quic...

Breakthrough cancer pain is an extremely heterogeneous condition.

Analgesics at concentrations relevant to human exposure cause endocrine disturbances in the fetal testis. We suggest that the fetal human testis displays slight critical age windows for sensitivity to direct exposure to aspirin, indomethacin, and paracetamol. The analgesic-induced inhibition of INSL3 may be the mechanism by which analgesics increase the risk of cryptorchidism. Greater caution is required concerning consumption of analgesics during pregnancy.

In this open-label, randomised, crossover trial, significantly more patients attained faster 'meaningful' pain relief with INFS than OTFC, and more patients preferred INFS to OTFC.

An Expert Working Group was convened under the auspices of the Steering Committee of the Research Network of the European Association of Palliative Care to review the status of the use of pain measurement tools (PMTs) in palliative care research conducted in a multilingual-multicenter setting. Based on a literature review and on the experts' opinion, the present work recommends that standardized methods should be applied for the use of PMTs in research in palliative care. Visual analogue scales, numerical rating scales, and verbal rating scales are considered valid to assess pain intensity in clinical trials and in other types of studies. Among the multidimensional questionnaires designed to assess pain, the McGill Pain Questionnaire and Brief Pain Inventory are valid in many multilingual versions. Specific recommendations for PMT use and administration, depending on the study type and aim, are reviewed. Special population requirements specific of clinical situations encountered in palliative care (elderly, terminal, cognitively impaired patients, pediatric patients) are also considered.