Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 2015 (3), CD009596

Buprenorphine for Treating Cancer Pain


Buprenorphine for Treating Cancer Pain

Mia Schmidt-Hansen et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.


Background: Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong analgesics. Buprenorphine, fentanyl and morphine are examples of strong opioids used for cancer pain relief. However, strong opioids are ineffective as pain treatment in all patients and are not well-tolerated by all patients. The aim of this Cochrane review is to assess whether buprenorphine is associated with superior, inferior or equal pain relief and tolerability compared to other analgesic options for patients with cancer pain.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of buprenorphine for pain in adults and children with cancer.

Search methods: We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library) issue 12 or 12 2014, MEDLINE (via OVID) 1948 to 20 January 2015, EMBASE (via OVID) 1980 to 20 January 2015, ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S) to 20 January 2015, ISI BIOSIS 1969 to 20 January 2015. We also searched (; metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal ( and the Proceedings of the Congress of the European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP; via European Journal of Pain Supplements) on 16 February 2015. We checked the bibliographic references of identified studies as well as relevant studies and systematic reviews to find additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. We contacted authors of included studies for other relevant studies.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials, with parallel-group or crossover design, comparing buprenorphine (any formulation and any route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including buprenorphine) for cancer background pain in adults and children.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data pertaining to study design, participant details (including age, cancer characteristics, previous analgesic medication and setting), interventions (including details about titration) and outcomes, and independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to standard Cochrane methodology. As it was not feasible to meta-analyse the data, we summarised the results narratively. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

Main results: In this Cochrane review we identified 19 relevant studies including a total of 1421 patients that examined 16 different intervention comparisons.Of the studies that compared buprenorphine to another drug, 11 studies performed comparative analyses between the randomised groups, and five studies found that buprenorphine was superior to the comparison treatment. Three studies found no differences between buprenorphine and the comparison drug, while another three studies found treatment with buprenorphine to be inferior to the alternative treatment in terms of the side effects profile or patients preference/acceptability.Of the studies that compared different doses or formulations/routes of administration of buprenorphine, pain intensity ratings did not differ significantly between intramuscular buprenorphine and buprenorphine suppository. However, the average severity of dizziness, nausea, vomiting and adverse events as a total were all significantly higher in the intramuscular group relatively to the suppository group (one study).Sublingual buprenorphine was associated with faster onset of pain relief compared to subdermal buprenorphine, with similar duration analgesia and no significant differences in adverse event rates reported between the treatments (one study).In terms of transdermal buprenorphine, two studies found it superior to placebo, whereas a third study found no difference between placebo and different doses of transdermal buprenorphine.The studies that examined different doses of transdermal buprenorphine did not report a clear dose-response relationship.The quality of this evidence base was limited by under-reporting of most bias assessment items (e.g., the patient selection items), by small sample sizes in several included studies, by attrition (with data missing from 8.2% of the enrolled/randomised patients for efficacy and from 14.6% for safety) and by limited or no reporting of the expected outcomes in a number of cases. The evidence for all the outcomes was very low quality.

Authors' conclusions: Based on the available evidence, it is difficult to say where buprenorphine fits in the treatment of cancer pain with strong opioids. However, it might be considered to rank as a fourth-line option compared to the more standard therapies of morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl, and even there it would only be suitable for some patients. However, palliative care patients are often heterogeneous and complex, so having a number of analgesics available that can be given differently increases patient and prescriber choice. In particular, the sublingual and injectable routes seemed to have a more definable analgesic effect, whereas the transdermal route studies left more questions.

Conflict of interest statement

Mia Schmidt‐Hansen has no conflicts of interest to declare. Nathan Bromham has no conflicts of interest to declare. Mark Taubert has no conflicts of interest to declare. Stephanie Arnold has no conflicts of interest to declare. Jennifer S Hilgart has no conflicts of interest to declare.


Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Study flow diagram.

Update of

  • Cochrane Database Syst Rev. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009596.pub3

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 11 PubMed Central articles

  • Treatment of Pain in Cancer: Towards Personalised Medicine
    MHJ van den Beuken-van Everdingen et al. Cancers (Basel) 10 (12). PMID 30544683. - Review
    Despite increased attention to cancer pain, pain prevalence in patients with cancer has not improved over the last decade and one third of cancer patients on anticancer t …
  • Buprenorphine for Chronic Pain: A Systemic Review
    MA Fishman et al. Curr Pain Headache Rep 22 (12), 83. PMID 30291571.
    There has been few high-quality, unbiased studies performed on the use of buprenorphine in the treatment of chronic pain. Buprenorphine is an effective and safe analgesic …
  • High-dose Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: An Overview of Cochrane Reviews
    C Els et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10 (10), CD012299. PMID 29084358. - Review
    There is a critical lack of high-quality evidence regarding how well high-dose opioids work for the management of chronic non-cancer pain in adults, and regarding the pre …
  • Oral Paracetamol (Acetaminophen) for Cancer Pain
    PJ Wiffen et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7 (7), CD012637. PMID 28700092. - Review
    There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of paracetamol alone or in combination with opioids for the first two steps of the three-step WHO cancer pa …
  • Oral Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) for Cancer Pain in Adults
    S Derry et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7 (7), CD012638. PMID 28700091. - Review
    There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of NSAIDs alone or in combination with opioids for the three steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder …
See all "Cited by" articles