Pain is considered as one of the most debilitating symptoms of cancer and its treatment. Owing to the limited efficacy of traditional pharmacological interventions to address cancer pain in its entirety, an avenue exists for exploration into nonpharmacological therapies. Analgesia using non-invasive electrotherapeutic modalities such as transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and scrambler therapy emerges as a viable option to address cancer pain. The inability of these modalities to find a place within the recommended clinical guidelines has possibly resulted in the paucity of application of the same within the clinical setup. This perspective article aims at stimulating a discussion surrounding the inclusion of non-invasive neuromodulatory treatment techniques such as TENS and scrambler therapy to combat cancer pain and explore the benefits and pitfalls of using these techniques as an adjunct to the pre-existing treatment strategies. It is envisioned that this opinion piece will open a dialogue about a possible home for non-invasive electroanalgesia within the clinical treatment pathway for cancer pain.

The Indian Society for Study of Pain (ISSP), Cancer Pain Special Interest Group (SIG) guidelines on pharmacological management of cancer pain in adults provide a structured, stepwise approach, which will help to improve the management of cancer pain and to provide the patients with a minimally acceptable quality of life. The guidelines have been developed based on the available literature and evidence, to suit the needs, patient population, and situations in India. A questionnaire, based on the key elements of each sub draft addressing certain inconclusive areas where evidence was lacking, was made available on the ISSP website and circulated by e-mail to all the ISSP and Indian Association of Palliative Care members. We recommend that analgesics for cancer pain management should follow the World Health Organization 3-step analgesic ladder appropriate for the severity of pain. The use of paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with opioids for mild-to-moderate pain should be used. For mild-to-moderate pain, weak opioids such as tramadol, tapentadol, and codeine can be given in combination with nonopioid analgesics. We recommend morphine as the opioid of the first choice for moderate-to-severe cancer pain. Sustained-release formulations can be started 12 hourly, once the effective 24 h dose with immediate-release morphine is established. Opioid switch or rotation should be considered if there is inadequate analgesia or intolerable side effects. For opioid-induced respiratory depression, μ receptor antagonists (e.g. naloxone) must be used promptly. Antidepressants and/or anticonvulsants should be used to treat neuropathic cancer pain, and the dose should be titrated according to the clinical response and side effects. External beam radiotherapy should be offered to all patients with painful metastatic bone pain. There is evidence on use of ketamine in cancer neuropathic pain, but with no beneficial effect, thus, it is not recommended.

The Indian Society for Study of Pain (ISSP), Cancer Pain Special Interest Group guidelines on pharmacological management of cancer pain in adults provides a structured, step-wise approach which will help to improve the management of cancer pain and to provide the patients with a minimally acceptable quality of life. The guidelines have been developed based on the available literature and evidence, to suit the needs, patient population, and situations in India. A questionnaire based on the key elements of each sub drafts addressing certain inconclusive areas where evidence was lacking, was made available on the ISSP website, and circulated by E-mail to all the ISSP and Indian Association of Palliative Care (IAPC) members. We recommend that analgesics for cancer pain management should follow the World Health Organization three-step analgesic ladder appropriate for the severity of pain. The use of paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with opioids for mild-to-moderate pain should be used. For mild-to-moderate pain, weak opioids such as tramadol, tapentadol, and codeine can be given in combination with nonopioid analgesics. We recommend morphine as the opioid of first choice for moderate-to-severe cancer pain.

UNASSIGNED: Morphine and fentanyl had so far been the only available opioids in India in step three of the World Health Organization analgesic ladder. Especially for those not tolerating morphine and particularly for those developing neurotoxicity, an inexpensive alternative was essential. Many years of advocacy by palliative care activists have resulted in methadone being now available for sale in India for pain management. However, the characteristic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of methadone raise potential issues of safety.
UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to recommend the essential steps for ensuring availability of methadone for improved pain relief in India, while at the same time ensuring safe use.
UNASSIGNED: Two steps are suggested. Firstly, the palliative care community in India must launch an educational program on methadone freely available to all potential prescribers of this medicine. Secondly, we must advocate with drug controllers of states and union territories for making methadone available only through recognized medical institutions and for ensuring that indiscriminate sale through pharmacies is avoided.

OBJECTIVE: In an effort to provide guidance for the use of analgesics for pain management--while at the same time acknowledging the professional, patient and regulatory-legal concerns about the use of strong opioids--the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1986 suggested a conservative stepwise approach. In addition to the use of non-pharmacologic measures, the WHO recommended that pharmacotherapy be initiated using a non-opioid analgesic first and then progress through \'weak\' opioids or analgesic combinations to \'strong\' opioids if, and only if, needed. This approach gave a rationale, and a justification if necessary, for the use of opioids. This stepwise approach became widely known as the WHO analgesic \'ladder\'.
CONCLUSIONS: Since the initial WHO guidance, there have been significant changes in the understanding of pain. It is increasingly considered a physiological process that merits and deserves independent treatment. In addition, more analgesic options are available now than in 1986.
CONCLUSIONS: Because of the evolving understanding of the physiology of pain and better approaches to its management, we suggest that more modern best practice is an analgesic \'pyramid\'.