Interventional pain management in patients with cancer-related pain

A retrospective comparative study on the treatment of non-metastatic pancreatic cancer using high-intensity focused ultrasound versus radical surgery

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and radical surgery for non-metastatic pancreatic cancer (PC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 89 stage I/II/III PC patients who underwent HIFU (n = 43) or surgery (n = 46) at the Third Xiangya Hospital from January 2020 to December 2021. Pain relief, Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), overall survival (OS), treatment-related complications and risk factors for OS were assessed.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the pain relief rate at 30 days post-treatment between the two groups. However, compared with the surgery group, the HIFU group showed significantly lower post-treatment VAS scores (p = 0.019). In the surgery group, the KPS at 30 days post-treatment was lower than pretreatment KPS (70 vs 80; p = 0.015). This relationship was reversed in the HIFU group (80 vs 70; p = 0.024). Median OS favored surgery over HIFU (23 vs 10 months; p < 0.001), with a higher 1-year OS rate (69.57% vs 32.6%; p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in OS between the two groups for stage III patients (p = 0.177). Complications rated ≥ grade III were 2.33% in the HIFU group and 32.6% in the surgery group. Multivariate analyses showed that age, KPS, and treatment methods were independent prognostic factors for OS.

CONCLUSION

HIFU demonstrates advantages over surgery in terms of early KPS, VAS improvements, and safety for pancreatic cancer; however, long-term outcomes favor surgery. For III-stage disease, HIFU was noninferior to surgery in overall survival.

Sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent pain in adults with inoperable abdominopelvic cancer

BACKGROUND

Persistent visceral pain is an unpleasant sensation coming from one or more organs within the body. Visceral pain is a common symptom in those with advanced cancer. Interventional procedures, such as neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks, have been suggested as additional treatments that may play a part in optimising pain management for individuals with this condition.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent visceral pain in adults with inoperable abdominopelvic cancer compared to standard care or placebo and comparing single blocks to combination blocks.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases without language restrictions on 19 October 2022 and ran a top-up search on 31 October 2023: CENTRAL; MEDLINE via Ovid; Embase via Ovid; LILACS. We searched trial registers without language restrictions on 2 November 2022: ClinicalTrials.gov; WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We searched grey literature, checked reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles for additional studies, and performed citation searches on key articles. We also contacted experts in the field for unpublished and ongoing trials. Our trial protocol was preregistered in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 21 October 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any sympathetic nerve block targeting sites commonly used to treat abdominal pelvic pain from inoperable malignancies in adults to standard care or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently selected trials based on predefined inclusion criteria, resolving any differences via adjudication with a third review author. We used a random-effects model as some heterogeneity was expected between the studies due to differences in the interventions being assessed and malignancy types included in the study population. We chose three primary outcomes and four secondary outcomes of interest. We sought consumer input to refine our review outcomes and assessed extracted data using Cochrane's risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE system.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies with 1025 participants in this review. Fifteen studies with a total of 951 participants contributed to the quantitative analysis. Single block versus standard care Primary outcomes No included studies reported our primary outcome, 'Proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days'. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on reducing pain to no worse than mild pain at 14 days when compared to standard care due to insufficient data (very low-certainty evidence). Sympathetic nerve blocks may provide small to 'little to no' improvement in quality of life (QOL) scores at 14 days after treatment when compared to standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.70 to 0.25; I² = 87%; 4 studies, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events as defined in our review as only one study contributed data to this outcome. Sympathetic nerve blocks may have an 'increased risk' to 'no additional risk' of harm compared with standard care (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Sympathetic nerve blocks showed a small to 'little to no' effect on participant-reported pain scores at 14 days using a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) -0.44, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.11; I² = 56%; 5 studies, 214 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be a 'moderate to large' to 'little to no' reduction in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure at 14 days with sympathetic nerve blocks compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (change in daily consumption of opioids at 14 days as oral milligrams morphine equivalent (MME): MD -41.63 mg, 95% CI -78.54 mg to -4.72 mg; I² = 90%; 4 studies, 130 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to insufficient data. Combination block versus single block Primary outcomes There is no evidence about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on the proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days because no studies reported this outcome. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect on QOL score at 14 days after treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events with combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks due to limited reporting in the included studies (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on participant-reported pain score and change in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure, at 14 days. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). There is no evidence about the effect on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to these outcomes not being measured by the studies. Risk of bias The risk of bias was predominately high for most outcomes in most studies due to significant concerns regarding adequate blinding. Very few studies were deemed as low risk across all domains for any outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence to support or refute the use of sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent abdominopelvic pain due to inoperable malignancy. We are very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks. The certainty of the evidence is very low and these findings should be interpreted with caution.

Procedural education for cancer-related pain in Pain Medicine fellowships: a national program survey

INTRODUCTION

Cancer-related pain is ubiquitous. Targeted procedural interventions may be an important and underutilized method for improving cancer-related pain and quality of life. The goal of this study was to determine the baseline educational experience and perceived post-graduation comfort of Pain Medicine fellows in performing procedures that can be used for cancer-related pain.

METHODS

Using Qualtrics, a 16-question survey was distributed to graduating fellows at accredited Pain Medicine Fellowship programs in the USA in June 2022. The fellows' experience and comfort level performing eight procedures was analyzed using summary descriptive statistics and contingency table analysis with statistical significance determined by Pearson's χ2 test.

RESULTS

Survey respondents represented 30% of fellows among 44% of Pain Medicine programs during the 2021-2022 academic year. The majority of respondents reported no experience performing 7 of the 8 procedures for cancer-related pain (56.1%-90.6%). Graduating fellows reported overall comfort performing sympathetic neurolysis (65.7%), spinal cord stimulator trials (85.7%) and implantations (66.0%), but not intrathecal pump trials (36.9%) and implantations (31.3%), peripheral nerve stimulator implantations (41.7%), vertebral augmentations (31.3%), and vertebral body radiofrequency ablations (16.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Experience performing 10 or more of the surveyed procedures, personal interest in treating cancer-related pain, and attendance of cancer-related pain lectures were found to significantly increase comfortability in performing cancer-related pain procedures post graduation, whereas cadaver-based learning did not. This study highlights the need for more robust procedural education for cancer-related pain and identifies procedural experience in non-cancer patients and lectures on cancer-related pain as ways to bridge this educational gap.

Risk Factors Associated with Postoperative Cerebrospinal Fluid Leaks After Intrathecal Drug Delivery System and an External Pump Implantation in Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

To determine risk factors associated with postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leaks (CSFLs) after intrathecal drug delivery system (IDDS) and external pump implantation.

METHODS

The clinical data of 248 patients with advanced cancer who underwent IDDS implantation from January 2021 to December 2022 at the Department of Pain Medicine at the Hunan Cancer Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Information regarding age, gender, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), tumour type, albumin levels, haemoglobin levels, history of diabetes and pre- and postoperative anti-tumour therapy was collected and analysed.

RESULTS

Postoperative CSFLs occurred in 7 of 231 patients (3.30%). Statistical analysis indicated that gender, age, height, weight, BMI, tumour type, albumin levels, haemoglobin levels, history of diabetes, pre- and postoperative chemotherapy, pre- and postoperative radiotherapy, preoperative immunotherapy and postoperative targeted therapy were not independent factors for CSFLs. Preoperative targeted therapy [odds ratio (OR): 16.64; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.42, 195.56; P = 0.01] and postoperative immunotherapy (OR: 13.38; 95% CI: 1.60, 111.65; P = 0.017) were factors associated with an increased postoperative CSFL rate. Of the two locations where CSFLs can occur, the back (puncture site of catheter, n = 4) and the hypochondriac region (location of infusion port implanted, n = 3), back CSFLs occurred earlier than in the hypochondriac region (18.25 ± 6.45 vs 115 ± 62.02 days, P = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

Based on the data from our study, the timing of preoperative targeted therapy and postoperative immunotherapy should be considered to prevent the occurrence of CSFLs in cancer pain patients who have an IDDS and external pump.

Pain Management at the End of Life in the Emergency Department: A Narrative Review of the Literature and a Practical Clinical Approach

Access to pain management is a fundamental human right for all people, including those who are at the end of life (EOL). In end-stage patients, severe and uncontrolled pain is a common cause of admission to the emergency department (ED), and its treatment is challenging due to its complex, often multifactorial genesis. The aim of this narrative review was to identify the available literature on the management of severe EOL pain in the ED. The MEDLINE, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to 1 April 2023 including randomised controlled trials, observational studies, systemic or narrative reviews, case reports, and guidelines on the management of EOL pain in the ED. A total of 532 articles were identified, and 9 articles were included (5 narrative reviews, 2 retrospective studies, and 2 prospective studies). Included studies were heterogeneous on the scales used and recommended for pain assessment and the recommended treatments. No study provided evidence for a better approach for EOL patients with pain in the ED. We provide a narrative summary of the findings and a review of the management of EOL pain in clinical practice, including (i) the identification of the EOL patients and unmet palliative care needs, (ii) a multidimensional, patient-centred assessment of the type and severity of pain, (iii) a multidisciplinary approach to the management of end-of-life pain, including an overview of non-pharmacological and pharmacological techniques; and (iv) the management of special situations, including rapid acute deterioration of chronic pain, breakthrough pain, and sedative palliation.

Intrathecal drug delivery for cancer pain at the end of life: a case study

Two-thirds of patients with advanced cancer have pain and, of these, approximately 10-20% do not respond to conventional pain management approaches. This case study concerns a hospice patient who received intrathecal drug delivery for intractable cancer pain at the end of life. This involved working in partnership with a hospital-based interventional pain team. Despite side-effects and complications associated with intrathecal drug delivery and the requirement for inpatient nursing care, intrathecal drug delivery was the best option for the patient. The case identifies the importance of a patient-centred approach to decision-making, effective partnerships between hospice and acute hospital teams, and nurse education as key factors contributing to the provision of safe and effective intrathecal drug delivery.

Spinal Cord Stimulation Meets Them All: An Effective Treatment for Different Pain Conditions. Our Experience and Literature Review

IntroductionSpinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is an emerging minimally invasive technique which uses neuromodulation to manage different forms of intractable pain. SCS is a well-established option for the treatment of various pain conditions, and nowadays, indications are ever increasing.Materials and MethodsIn this study, we present our case series of 49 patients who underwent SCS at our Institution for the treatment of pain from different etiologies, and discuss our 10-year experience in SCS. For the purpose of this study, we also performed a systematic review of current indications and new perspectives in SCS.ResultsAmong our case series, patients were differentiated into two groups upon prior spinal surgery: patients who had undergone prior spinal surgery for back pain were defined as the "FBSS (failed back surgery syndrome) group," instead patient suffering from different types of pain but who had never undergone surgery were defined as the "naive group." As regards clinical response to SCS, 20 patients out of 36 (55.56%) were classified as responders in the FBSS group; in the "naïve" group, 10 patients out of 13 (76.92%) were classified as responders. Among the "not responders" group, several patients suffered from infections.Of the recent literature about SCS, 2124 records were screened and 37 studies were finally included in the qualitative synthesis for our systematic review.DiscussionIn case of FBSS, surgical revision is often associated with a high morbidity and corresponding low rates of success. Unfortunately, patients affected by chronic pain often become refractory to conservative treatments. Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is nowadays considered as an effective therapy for several chronic and neuropathic pain conditions, such as failed back surgery syndrome. As regards the economic impact of SCS, implantation of an SCS system results in short-term costs increase, but the annual cumulative costs decrease during the following years after implantation, when compared to the costs of conventional management. Beyond the application for the treatment of FBSS, SCS has also been used for the treatment of other types of chronic non-oncological pain such as neuropathic pain and chronic back pain ineligible for surgical intervention. This evidence paved the way to establishing the potential role of SCS also for the treatment of oncological pain. However, the effectiveness and relative safety of SCS for cancer-related pain has not yet been adequately established.ConclusionsSpinal Cord Stimulation is a well-established treatment option in for FBSS. Beyond that, SCS has also been used for the treatment of "naive" patients, suffering from other types of chronic, both oncological and non-oncological, medical-refractory pain such as neuropathic pain and chronic back pain ineligible for surgical intervention.

Intrathecal neurolysis for the management of refractory pain in a patient with terminal oncological disease: case report

We report on the successful treatment of refractory cancer pain by intrathecal neurolysis using 96% absolute alcohol. A female patient with colorectal adenocarcinoma with metastases to the sacral bones, the patient had severe pain refractory to pharmacological and interventional treatment. Intrathecal neurolytic block at the L5-S1 intervertebral space was performed, she reported a significant improvement in her pain and decreased opioid use. The patient did not show deterioration of neurological functions after the procedure or associated complications, and outpatient treatment continued with a home medicine program. She remained comfortable until her death 6 weeks later. Considering that this is an accessible and cost-effective procedure, it could be a helpful alternative for the management of patients with refractory pain in the terminal stage.