Personalizing Cancer Pain Therapy: Insights from the Rational Use of Analgesics (RUA) Group

Introduction: A previous Delphi survey from the Rational Use of Analgesics (RUA) project involving Italian palliative care specialists revealed some discrepancies between current guidelines and clinical practice with a lack of consensus on items regarding the use of strong opioids in treating cancer pain. Those results represented the basis for a new Delphi study addressing a better approach to pain treatment in patients with cancer. Methods: The study consisted of a two-round multidisciplinary Delphi study. Specialists rated their agreement with a set of 17 statements using a 5-point Likert scale (0 = totally disagree and 4 = totally agree). Consensus on a statement was achieved if the median consensus score (MCS) (expressed as value at which at least 50% of participants agreed) was at least 4 and the interquartile range (IQR) was 3–4. Results: This survey included input from 186 palliative care specialists representing all Italian territory. Consensus was reached on seven statements. More than 70% of participants agreed with the use of low dose of strong opioids in moderate pain treatment and valued transdermal route as an effective option when the oral route is not available. There was strong consensus on the importance of knowing opioid pharmacokinetics for therapy personalization and on identifying immediate-release opioids as key for tailoring therapy to patients’ needs. Limited agreement was reached on items regarding breakthrough pain and the management of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction. Conclusion: These findings may assist clinicians in applying clinical evidence to routine care settings and call for a reappraisal of current pain treatment recommendations with the final aim of optimizing the clinical use of strong opioids in patients with cancer

Recurrent varicose veins of the legs. Analysis of a social problem

The present study was aimed at assessing the experience of a single referral center with recurrent varicose veins of the legs (RVL) over the period 1993-2008. Among a total of 846 procedures for Leg Varices (LV), 74 procedures were for RVL (8.7%). The causes of recurrence were classified as classic: insufficient crossectomy (13); incompetent perforating veins (13); reticular phlebectasia (22); small saphenous vein insufficiency (9); accessory saphenous veins (4); and particular: post-hemodynamic treatment (5); incomplete stripping (1); Sapheno-Femoral Junction (SFJ) vascularization (5); post-thermal ablation (2). For the “classic” RVL the treatment consisted essentially of completing the previous treatment, both if the problem was linked to an insufficient earlier treatment and if it was due to a later onset. The most common cause in our series was reticular phlebectasia; when the simple sclerosing injections are not sufficient, this was treated by phlebectomy according to Mueller. The “particular” cases classified as 1, 2 and 4 were also treated by completing the traditional stripping procedure (+ crossectomy if this had not been done previously), considered to be the gold standard. In the presence of a SFJ neo-vascularization, with or without cavernoma, approximately 5 cm of femoral vein were explored, the afferent vessels ligated and, if cavernoma was present, it was removed. Although inguinal neo-angiogenesis is a possible mechanism, some doubt can be raised as to its importance as a primary factor in causing recurrent varicose veins, rather than their being due to a preexisting vein left in situ because it was ignored, regarded as insignificant, or poorly evident. In conclusion, we stress that LV is a progressive disease, so the treatment is unlikely to be confined to a single procedure. It is important to plan adequate monitoring during follow-up, and to be ready to reoperate when new problems present that, if left, could lead the patient to doubt the validity and efficacy of the original treatment

Recurrent varicose veins of the legs. Analysis of a social problem

The present study was aimed at assessing the experience of a single referral center with recurrent varicose veins of the legs (RVL) over the period 1993-2008. Among a total of 846 procedures for Leg Varices (LV), 74 procedures were for RVL (8.7%). The causes of recurrence were classified as classic: insufficient crossectomy (13); incompetent perforating veins (13); reticular phlebectasia (22); small saphenous vein insufficiency (9); accessory saphenous veins (4); and particular: post-hemodynamic treatment (5); incomplete stripping (1); Sapheno-Femoral Junction (SFJ) vascularization (5); post-thermal ablation (2). For the “classic” RVL the treatment consisted essentially of completing the previous treatment, both if the problem was linked to an insufficient earlier treatment and if it was due to a later onset. The most common cause in our series was reticular phlebectasia; when the simple sclerosing injections are not sufficient, this was treated by phlebectomy according to Mueller. The “particular” cases classified as 1, 2 and 4 were also treated by completing the traditional stripping procedure (+ crossectomy if this had not been done previously), considered to be the gold standard. In the presence of a SFJ neo-vascularization, with or without cavernoma, approximately 5 cm of femoral vein were explored, the afferent vessels ligated and, if cavernoma was present, it was removed. Although inguinal neo-angiogenesis is a possible mechanism, some doubt can be raised as to its importance as a primary factor in causing recurrent varicose veins, rather than their being due to a preexisting vein left in situ because it was ignored, regarded as insignificant, or poorly evident. In conclusion, we stress that LV is a progressive disease, so the treatment is unlikely to be confined to a single procedure. It is important to plan adequate monitoring during follow-up, and to be ready to reoperate when new problems present that, if left, could lead the patient to doubt the validity and efficacy of the original treatment