Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Tiziana Campa

Publications and source records attributed to Tiziana Campa.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Incident pain and analgesic consumption decrease after samarium infusion: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pilot study was to observe the variations of pain intensity on movement and at rest and the variation of analgesic drug consumption in patients with prostate cancer and painful bone metastases treated with a single dose of 1.0 mCi/kg of samarium-153 (153-Sm) lexidronam. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: The Nuclear Medicine Unit and Pain Therapy and Palliative Care Unit, National Cancer Institute of Milan, Italy. PATIENTS: Thirteen outpatients with hormone refractory prostate cancer and painful multiple bone metastases. INTERVENTIONS: Infusion of a single dose of 1.0 mCi/kg of 153-Sm lexidronam, pain therapy, and the assessment of pain intensity at rest and on movement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Variation of pain intensity on movement and at rest by means of a verbal scale and the reduction of analgesic drug consumption 4 weeks after infusion of 153-Sm lexidronam. RESULTS: From baseline, 61.5% of patients reported a decrease of at least two levels of pain intensity on movement and 53.8% of patients had an improvement of pain at rest. Of the patients, 15.4% were not in pain at rest or on movement at baseline and continued to be free of pain 4 weeks after the administration of samarium. All ten patients, but one, who were on analgesic drugs before samarium infusion, reduced the regular drug administration or rescue medication. Bone marrow toxicity was mild and readily reversible in three patients. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with bone metastases, pain on movement is a frequent and often difficult clinical problem to treat and the most frequent cause of breakthrough pain. In patients with painful multiple bone metastases due to prostate cancer, the infusion of a single dose of 1.0 mCi/kg of 153-Sm lexidronam may be considered an effective and safe treatment for pain either at rest or during movement.

Aged↗
PubMed2006

Is the use of transdermal fentanyl inappropriate according to the WHO guidelines and the EAPC recommendations? A study of cancer patients in Italy.

BACKGROUND: World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) clinical practice guidelines, and EAPC recommendations indicate oral route of opioid administration as the preferred route. Transdermal administration of opioids is considered an alternative when patients cannot take medications orally. Moreover, WHO and EAPC indicate orally administered morphine as the first-choice drug for the treatment of moderate to severe cancer-related pain. However, we can see that in Italy there is an increasing use of transdermal fentanyl (TF) as first-choice strong opioid (and route) even when oral administration of opioids is possible. AIMS: The aims of this study are to describe the modality in the use of TF administration in two settings of care, taking into consideration (1) the drugs previously taken by the patients, (2) the reasons for switching from any drug to TF, (3) the conversion ratio used, and (4) the frequency of "inappropriate use of transdermal fentanyl according to the WHO guidelines and the EAPC recommendations", i.e., switching to fentanyl patch from any drug, even if there were no contraindications in using oral morphine. The settings of care considered were the out-patient palliative care unit (OP-PCU) and the oncological wards (OWs) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of Milan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The clinical charts of 98 patients prescribed with and given fentanyl patch for the first time at the NCI of Milan in 2002 were reviewed and the data gathered were grouped according to the administration of fentanyl at the OP-PCU (63 out-patients) or at the OWs (35 in-patients). Summary descriptive statistics and bar and box plots have been used. Fisher two-tailed exact text was applied to test the differences between in- and out-patients. RESULTS: Before switching to TF, (1) in-patients were more frequently treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and weak opioids (mostly tramadol) in respect to the out-patients (44.1 vs 25.8%) who were mostly treated with oral morphine (48.4 vs 20.6%) (p=0.045), and (2) 88.7% of the out-patients were treated with oral opioids and only 1.6% with parenteral opioids in respect to OWs where 69.7% were on oral opioids and 18.2% on parenteral opioids (p=0.006). In 29% of out-patients and in 53% of in-patients, changing to fentanyl patch was considered as "inappropriate" (p=0.028) according to the WHO guidelines and the EAPC recommendations. No statistically significant differences between the two settings were observed regarding the reasons for switching and the conversion ratio used. CONCLUSIONS: There is a trend to use fentanyl patch as first-choice strong opioid in cancer patients in situations such as titration phase, in the presence of instable pain, and in the absence of dysphagia or gastrointestinal symptoms where the use of oral morphine is, however, not contraindicated.

Administration, Cutaneous↗
PubMed2005

Randomized double-blind, double-dummy crossover clinical trial of oral tramadol versus rectal tramadol administration in opioid-naive cancer patients with pain.

Tramadol is commonly used as second step drug of the analgesic ladder. In circumstances where the oral route is unavailable, rectal administration of opioids might be a simple alternative. The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic activity and tolerability of tramadol by oral and rectal administration in a double-blind, double-dummy crossover trial. The study included 60 cancer patients with cancer pain no longer responsive to non-opioid drugs. Each patient initially received oral tramadol 50 mg (drops), followed by tramadol sustained release 100 mg orally, and placebo rectally, or tramadol 100 mg rectally and placebo orally, twice a day, in a randomized sequence, on each of 3 days. Patients were allowed to take 50 mg of oral tramadol by drops as needed (four doses per day, to a maximum of 400 mg/day, including the basal dose given by the oral or rectal route). Pain intensity and relief and symptom scores were recorded every day and at the end of each phase of the crossover. The mean age of the patients was 66.1 years (SD 13.5 years); 36 were female, and 44 completed both periods. Patients dropped out due to adverse effects (15 patients) and refusal (1 patient). No differences in the use of rescue dose of oral tramadol were observed between the groups. No differences in pain intensity and relief scores, or in other symptoms between the two treatments were observed. No differences in treatment efficacy as judged by the clinician (P=0.73), in patient compliance (P=0.35), or in patient satisfaction regarding treatment (P<0.35) were found. No differences in adverse effects were found between the two treatments (25.5%, 13 patients, and 20.4%, 11 patients, with oral and rectal treatment, respectively). The proportion of preferences favored oral administration for both physicians (P=0.0002) and patients (P=0.002). Rectal administration of tramadol appears a reliable, noninvasive alternative method of pain control for patients no longer responsive to non-opioid analgesics, unable to take oral tramadol.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2004

Palliative surgery of acrometastases from lung cancer: a case report.

A clinical case of a woman with lung cancer and a very painful bone metastases of the phalangette of the 4th finger of the right hand (acrometastases) is described. Palliative radiation on the 4th finger was not indicated due to almost complete bone destruction. Both patient and daughter refused administration of strong opioids, such as morphine, for pain management, due to fear of addiction and of opioid-related adverse effects. Phalangectomy, with palliative intent, was performed under local anaesthesia, in day surgery, resulting in complete pain relief.

Adenocarcinoma↗