Indian Journal of Palliative Care
Open access journal 
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users online: 290  
     Home | About | Feedback | Login 
  Current Issue Back Issues Editorial Board Authors and Reviewers How to Subscribe Advertise with us Contact Us Analgesic Prescription  
  Navigate Here 
  » Next article
  » Previous article 
  » Table of Contents
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
  »  Article in PDF (102 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this Article
    Materials and Me...
    Inclusion criteria
    Numerical Pai...
    ECOG Score
    Duration of p...
    Daily morphin...
    Subjective as...
    Adverse effec...
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded246    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Year : 2003  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 8-13

Evaluation of the analgesic effect of salmon calcitonin in metastatic bone pain

Unit of Anaesthesiology, Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital All India Institute of Medical Sciences,New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Sushma Bhatnagar
2 North Avenue, IIT, New Delhi, 110 016
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions


Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of calcitonin in controlling metastatic bone pain. Materials and methods: Patients with bone metastases, with a numerical pain score greater than 4 wererandomized to receive calcitonin 200 IU subcutaneously 6 hourly for 48 hours (n= 10) or normal saline placebo (n = 10) . The parameters measured were the 11-point numerical pain score, ECOG functional capacity score, morphine consumption in 24 hours, duration of pain in 24 hours and subjective assessment of efficacy of treatment by a blinded investigator. Results: There was a statistically significant decrease in pain score at 48 hours (2 vs 6) and 7 days (3 vs 6) in the calcitonin arm as compared to the control arm. The reduction in duration of pain (3 vs 13) and improvement in ECOG (1.5 vs 2.5) score were also statistically significant. Adverse effects were nausea in 5 patients and vomiting in 3 patients on the day of calcitonin administration. This was controlled with antiemetics. There was no significant change in serum calcium level in either group.

Keywords: Metastatic bone pain, pain score, salmon calcitonin

How to cite this article:
Mishra S, Bhatnagar S, Jha RR. Evaluation of the analgesic effect of salmon calcitonin in metastatic bone pain. Indian J Palliat Care 2003;9:8-13

How to cite this URL:
Mishra S, Bhatnagar S, Jha RR. Evaluation of the analgesic effect of salmon calcitonin in metastatic bone pain. Indian J Palliat Care [serial online] 2003 [cited 2021 Jan 25];9:8-13. Available from:

   Introduction Top

Bone metastases are a major cause of morbidity in patients with cancer. Breast, prostate and lung cancers account 80% of patients with bone metastases (Nielson et al 1991). Not all patients respond to analgesics and radiotherapy. Calcitonin has been postulated to reduce bone resorption, increase circulating endogenous opioid, and to have endorphin receptor agonist activity. (Gennari, 1988; Spigset, 1993 and Mystakidou 1999).

   Materials and Methods Top

The study was conducted at the Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi between June and December 2002.

   Inclusion criteria Top

  1. 1. Patients with cancer having skeletal metastases documented by radiography and bone scan.

  2. 2. Patients whose pain was predominantly of skeletal origin, and not adequately controlled after radiotherapy and a combination of non opioids and morphine. (Pain score >4 on a 11 point numerical scale).

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Patients receiving anticancer therapy during the period of study were excluded.

Group A (n= 10), received 200 IU of Salmon calcitonin subcutaneously (SC) 6 hourly for 48 hours.

Group B (n=10), received normal saline as placebo 6 hourly for 48 hrs.

All patients were hospitalized for two days. Complete blood count and serum calcium, creatinine and liver function tests were done at baseline, 7 and 45 days.

Patients continued to receive their analgesic regimen which included a non steroidal, paracetamol and oral morphine. They were instructed to take extra doses of oral morphine for breakthrough pain. On follow up visits the opioid dose was titrated upwards in patients who had inadequate analgesia

The following parameters were recorded at 48 hours, 7 days and 45 days:

  1. 1. Numerical pain score

  2. 2. Duration of pain over the past 24 hrs (As patients were unable to maintain a pain diary we asked them on average how many hours of pain they had in a day).

  3. 3. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scoring for functional capacity

  4. 4. Total morphine consumption in 24 hours

  5. 5. Subjective assessment of the efficacy of treatment (not useful, moderately useful, extremely useful) by a blinded investigator.

All patients were observed for allergic reactions, nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea and hypocalcaemia.

Statistical Analysis: - The Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test was used to compare different parameters between the two groups at different time points.

   Results Top

A total of 20 patients were studied. The demographic details and primary sites are listed in [Table - 1]

   Numerical Pain Score Top

[Table - 2] shows the pain score (NPS) in both the groups at different time points. From a baseline of 6.5, the median pain score in the calcitonin group decreased to 2 at 48 hours and 3 at 7 days.

   ECOG Score Top

Both groups had a poor baseline performance status of 3 [Table - 3]. There was significant improvement in the study group at 48 hours and 7 days. This improvement was not sustained upto 45 days.

   Duration of pain Top

The median duration of pain in both groups was 14 hours [Table - 4]. This had reduced to 3 hours in the study group in the week following calcitonin adminstration as compared to 13 hours in the placebo group.

   Daily morphine consumption Top

[Table - 5] shows total morphine consumption per day in both study and control groups. There is a significant increase in morphine consumption in the control group at 45 days.

   Subjective assessment of efficacy Top

The intervention was assessed as useful in eight out of ten patients given calcitonin and one of ten controls [Table - 6].

   Adverse effects Top

Nausea and vomiting were noted in 5 and 3 patients respectively on the day of calcitonin administration. This was controlled with antiemetics. There was no clinically significant reduction in the serum calcium level [Table - 7].

   Discussion Top

The analgesic action of salmon calcitonin has been demonstrated in Sudeck's atrophy (Nuti et al, 1987) and Paget's disease of bone (Bijovet et al, 1967; Woodhouse et al, 1971; Woodhouse et al, 1972). Calcitonin is postulated to reduce bone resorption, increase circulating endogenous opioid, and act as an endorphin receptor agonist (Gennari, 1988; Spigset, 1993 and Mystakidou 1999).

Hindley et al (1982),found calcitonin 200 IU 6 hourly for 48 hours effective in relieving cancer pain. They analyzed three parameters: VAS, global pain score and analgesic ranking. 8 out of 13 patients in the calcitonin group had improvement in VAS at one week as compared to two out of twelve patients in the placebo group. However when the composite response of all the three parameters were calculated, only four patients in the calcitonin group had clinically significant improvement at one week as against none in the placebo group, and all 4 were patients with skeletal metastases.

Schiralidi et al (1987), observed a significant reduction in pain score from 3.2 to 0.8 at 5 days and 0.6 at 15 days following administration of 1200 units of calcitonin over 3 days.

In the present study at 48 hours the NPS remained stable in the control arm but decreased from 6.5 to 2 in the calcitonin arm. The calcitonin arm continued to have significantly lower pain scores at 7 days.

Analgesic consumption too was significantly lower in the calcitonin group. This difference was sustained at 45 days. Similarly Szanto et al (1986) and Roth & Kolaric (1986) found reduced analgesic consumption in patients who had been treated with calcitonin.

The analgesic efficacy of calcitonin was also reflected in other parameters. While both study and control groups experienced a reduction in the duration of pain and improved mobility after analgesic titration, the duration of pain and the ECOG performance status were significantly lower (better) in the calcitonin group at 48 hours and 7 days. This advantage was not sustained at 45 days.

Other authors have also reported reduction in pain duration (Szanto et al 1986, Roth & Kolaric 1986); and improved performance status (Szanto et al 1986). Blomqvist (1988) however did not find significantly greater improvement in performance status in those receiving calcitoinin as compared to controls. This may have been because the majority of cases and controls included in their study already had stable or regressing disease.

Salmon calcitonin therapy was rated as extremely or moderately useful in 8 out of 10 patients,by a blinded observer. In contrast it was judged to be 'not useful' in 9 of 10 controls. Although such subjective observer assessment has limited validity, it is consistent with the other results in the study.

We did not find significant reduction in serum calcium levels after calcitonin administration [Table - 7]. Similar findings have also been reported by other investigators (Gennari et al 1989; Blomqvist et al 1988; Roth and Kolaric 1986).

To conclude, we found salmon calcitonin effective in rapidly reducing pain due to skeletal metastases. The treatment was associated with minimal adverse effects.

Palliative radiotherapy and oral analgesics remain the mainstay of pain management in bone metastases. Bisphosphonates have been shown to reduce skeletal morbidity (Housten & Rubens, 1995; Hortobagyi et al, 1996). A proportion of patients may need anaesthetic or physiatric measures to relieve bone pain (Mellette & Blunk, 1994). Salmon calcitonin could be a useful option in patients whose bone pain is refractory to standard therapeutic modalities[17].

   References Top

1.Blomqvist C, Elomaa, Porkka L, Karonen SL and Lamberg-Allardt C (1988). Evaluation of salmon calcitonin treatment in bone metastases from breast cancer -A controlled trial. Bone 9,45-51  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Bijovet OLM and Jansen AP (1967) Thyrocalcitonin in pagets disease. Lancet 2, 471-472.  Back to cited text no. 2    
3.Gennari C and Agnusedi D (1988). Calcitonin in bone pain management. Curr Ther Res. 44, 712-722  Back to cited text no. 3    
4.Gennari C, Francini G, Chierichetti SM, Nami R, Gonelli S and Piolini M (1989). Salmon calcitonin treatment in bone metastases. Curr Ther Res 45, 804-812  Back to cited text no. 4    
5.Hindley AC, Hill EB, Leyland MJ and Wiles AE (1982). A double controlled trial of salmon calcitonin in pain due to malignancy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 9, 71-74  Back to cited text no. 5    
6.Hortobagyi GN, Theriault RL, Porter L et al. (1996). Efficacy of pamidronate in reducing skeletal complication in patients with breast cancer and lytic bone metastasis. New England Journal of Medicine 335, 1785-91.  Back to cited text no. 6    
7.Housten SJ and Rubens RD (1995). The systemic treatment of bone metastases. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research No. 312, PP 95-104.  Back to cited text no. 7    
8.Mellette SJ and Blunk KL (1994). Cancer rehabilitation. Seminars in Oncology 21, 779-782.  Back to cited text no. 8    
9.Mystakidou K, Befon S, Hondros K, Kouskouni E and Valhos L (1999). Continuous subcutaneous administration of high dose salmon calcitonin in bone metastasis: Pain control and beta endorphine plasma levels. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. 18, 323-330  Back to cited text no. 9    
10.Nielsen OS, Munro AJ and Tannoch JF (1991). Bone metastases: Pathophysiology and management policy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 9, 509-524.  Back to cited text no. 10    
11.Nuti R, Valimmo A, Martini G, Turchetti V and Righi GA (1987). Carbocalcitonin treatment in Sudecks atrophy. Clinical Ortopaedics and Related Research 215, 217-222.  Back to cited text no. 11    
12.Roth A & Kolaric K (1986). Analgesic activity of calcitonin in patients with painful osteolytic metastases of breast cancer. Oncology 43, 283-287  Back to cited text no. 12    
13.Schiraldi GF, Soresi E, Locicero S, Harari S and Scoccia S (1987). Salmon calcitonin in cancer pain: comparison between two different treatment schedules. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Therapy and Toxicology. 25, 229-232  Back to cited text no. 13    
14.Spigset O, Mjorndal J, Vinge E, et al (1993). Calcitonin as medication in pain? Nord Med. 108, 54-57  Back to cited text no. 14    
15.Szanto J, Jozsef S, Rado J, Juhos E, Hindy I, Eckhardt S (1986). Pain killing with calcitonin in patients with malignant tumors. Oncology 43, 69-72  Back to cited text no. 15    
16.Woodhouse NJY, Reiner M, Bordier P, Kalu DN, Fisher MT, Foster GV, Joplin GF and Maclntyre I (1971). Human calcitonin in the treatment of pagets bone disease. Lancet 1, 1139-1143.  Back to cited text no. 16    
17.Woodhouse NJY, Joplin GF, Maclntre I and Doyle FN (1972). Radiological regression in pagets disease treated by human calcitonin. Lancet 2, 992-994.  Back to cited text no. 17    


[Table - 1], [Table - 2], [Table - 3], [Table - 4], [Table - 5], [Table - 6], [Table - 7]


Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article
Online since 1st October '05
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow